Christianity's Biggest Problem Yet?

[POI]

Below is a 20 minute video. For the ones who opt not to watch, I'll start with the following question? (Which may then lead to many others, as this is a fairly new concept of thought for me)....

Why does YHWH allow for so much animal suffering? Before you Christians answer, I trust you are already aware of this guy's counter points?

[POI]

The problem is in your assumptions regarding God's power. I get that traditional creationism involves acts of unbelievable power on God's part, like creatio ex nihilo for example. But I don't think that's the nature of God's power, at least not originally. Nor the situation that Genesis 1 sets up.

So if you're willing to rethink those assumptions and what's really going on in the bible, then we might be able to work this out. If you refuse, there's no point, since I would agree with you that this is a problem if your assumptions are held up.

Why not instead start with no invented convoluted god at all, and then go from there and see if a 'god' of some flavor HAS to be added?

It's much easier to reach the conclusion, for which the person in the video reached. Isn't it? Meaning, it's all nature alone. To assume otherwise requires jumping through many fiery hoops.

With your view, you still need to play "mental acrobats". Just apply Occam's Razor. Viola, very simple. (i.e.) It was all invented by men. Nature is at play here.

Some of what you read in the Bible is good, bad, weird, far fetched, contradictory, wrong, exaggerated, etc etc etc... All can easily be the writings/inventions/assumptions of men alone.

Which means there must first be something in the world that is so moved and initiates said movement for anything to actually happen. Including the care of animals.

What "care of animals"? Animals came WAY before capable humans. Many of them suffered greatly. And even now, we cannot care for most. So why must these animals suffer?

So it's the nature of God's power that explains animal suffering. It's not that God wants animals to suffer, or that God could even do anything about it on God's own, but that we weren't moved to act. Like pharaoh, our hearts were (and still are) too hard.

Being that you are likely a very 'fringe' Christian, this topic may not apply to you, at all. When I stated I was unsatisfied with how this thread ended, I was not singling you out. You just so happened to be the last to respond.

To regurgitate the (2) counterpoints WLC made, to try and refute "the problem of animal suffering":

1) Predation is required
2) Most animals do not really know they are suffering

Are the above 2 points valid for animal suffering?

[POI]

God doesn't much deal with the natural order of things. Nature is as it does. Even pagan gods work to preserve the order of nature.

Are you a Christian? If so, then the problem has dropped into your lap, unless you can refute it. If you are not a Christian, then you can relax, and watch as some Christians may try to defend it...

[PolytheistWitch]

[Replying to POI in post #242]

Sorry I didn't realize this is one of those, only Christian's opinions matter so everybody else can just keep their mouth shut.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #242]

Sorry I didn't realize this is one of those, only Christian's opinions matter so everybody else can just keep their mouth shut.

LOL! You are free to do as you please. I'm asking if you are a Christian. I take it you are not? Do you agree this topic presents a large problem for the Christians? It appears you may not, from your prior response....?.?.?.?

[theophile]

The problem is in your assumptions regarding God's power. I get that traditional creationism involves acts of unbelievable power on God's part, like creatio ex nihilo for example. But I don't think that's the nature of God's power, at least not originally. Nor the situation that Genesis 1 sets up.

So if you're willing to rethink those assumptions and what's really going on in the bible, then we might be able to work this out. If you refuse, there's no point, since I would agree with you that this is a problem if your assumptions are held up.

Why not instead start with no invented convoluted god at all, and then go from there and see if a 'god' of some flavor HAS to be added?

It's much easier to reach the conclusion, for which the person in the video reached. Isn't it? Meaning, it's all nature alone. To assume otherwise requires jumping through many fiery hoops.

With your view, you still need to play "mental acrobats". Just apply Occam's Razor. Viola, very simple. (i.e.) It was all invented by men. Nature is at play here.

Some of what you read in the Bible is good, bad, weird, far fetched, contradictory, wrong, exaggerated, etc etc etc... All can easily be the writings/inventions/assumptions of men alone.

What's the debate here? How to reconcile God with animal suffering, or whether there are better descriptions of it all than the bible provides? You seem to be moving from the first to the latter, and bypassing any attempt to reconcile the two by basically washing the slate clean.

I'm not against your view though of only adding God if necessary. Personally, I'm sure we could reconstruct the whole thing with non-theistic terms if we wanted to. But better to understand what the bible is actually saying before taking such action methinks.

Which means there must first be something in the world that is so moved and initiates said movement for anything to actually happen. Including the care of animals.

What "care of animals"? Animals came WAY before capable humans. Many of them suffered greatly. And even now, we cannot care for most. So why must these animals suffer?

God's power is through influence alone. So if there is no being capable of being influenced to care for animals, such as human beings, and if animals exist, then those animals will have to 'suffer' a natural state.

Genesis 1 should be read as an essentially powerless God influencing matter to move and do things to achieve God's ends - but as is the situation in nature itself, which God is working with here, animals predate humans, and as such anyone with the ability to care for them. (And even when such a one comes about, it's still a matter of that one being moved to action...)

So again, you'll probably ask why we even need God. I don't think we do if we treat God as some sort of omnipotent, creator being. But I do think we need God insofar as God provides the end that we should all work towards. That's the most important thing we should take away from Genesis 1, and why it should be abundantly clear that care for animals is 100% part of God's plan.

So it's the nature of God's power that explains animal suffering. It's not that God wants animals to suffer, or that God could even do anything about it on God's own, but that we weren't moved to act. Like pharaoh, our hearts were (and still are) too hard.

Being that you are likely a very 'fringe' Christian, this topic may not apply to you, at all. When I stated I was unsatisfied with how this thread ended, I was not singling you out. You just so happened to be the last to respond.

No worries. I agree with you that most traditional Christian theology has this problem. I just think those theologies are way off the mark.

To regurgitate the (2) counterpoints WLC made, to try and refute "the problem of animal suffering":

1) Predation is required
2) Most animals do not really know they are suffering

Are the above 2 points valid for animal suffering?

1) is hard to argue with as a practical fact. As much as the bible may talk of lions laying down with lambs, and I do think that is the vision, it's hard to imagine us ever reaching such a state. And there is some beauty in animals in a state of nature... is predation necessary? All we can do is hope not, and that one day we'll find the means to that end...
2) is just a horrible idea that nobody should ever accept.

[POI]

What's the debate here? How to reconcile God with animal suffering, or whether there are better descriptions of it all than the bible provides? You seem to be moving from the first to the latter, and bypassing any attempt to reconcile the two by basically washing the slate clean.

The fundamental debate is whether or not this argument presents as "Christianity's biggest problem"? Whether it does or doesn't, how can you defend against it....? Being that many do not answer, or have little answers, it might be.... For you, it may not? But this would be because your view is not in line with many other's view on Christianity.

I also follow what the interlocutor says. This is why you might see the conversation splinter off into other stuff.

I'm not against your view though of only adding God if necessary. Personally, I'm sure we could reconstruct the whole thing with non-theistic terms if we wanted to. But better to understand what the bible is actually saying before taking such action methinks.

What DOES the Bible actually say? I haven't been able to figure that one out. It does not matter whether or not I'm a believer. Many topics are endless debates.... (unresolved).... And since this is the case, maybe we cannot know, for certain, if this would be 'Christianity's biggest problem'?

However, <you> have a claimed position, as well as every other Christian. I guess this thread would be reserved for the ones which fit a specific position. And this position may not include yours....

I'll await any takers, which would be many, where this challenge may actually be a challenge. And I guess if you would like to start another thread, asking all Christians, "what is the right interpretation of it all"? You can have-at-it.... God luck though... Been there, done that...

Fin

[brunumb]

Below is a 20 minute video. For the ones who opt not to watch, I'll start with the following question? (Which may then lead to many others, as this is a fairly new concept of thought for me)....

Why does YHWH allow for so much animal suffering? Before you Christians answer, I trust you are already aware of this guy's counter points?

I just realised that I hadn't watched this clip before. What really stood out for me was the cringe-worthy argument that Christianity's poster boy, William Lane Craig, used to justify animal pain. All he did was brush it under the carpet by essentially denying its existence. That from an alleged animal lover no less. It beggars belief and highlights the depths to which some believers will sink to support their God.

[Shem Yoshi]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

Suffering is good

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

Suffering is good

Then why don't we like it? Let me guess, it builds character, makes us stronger and provides challenges. But why would we need to go through medical struggles to develop advanced medicine when we could have not been given illnesses? Why would we have to spend money and sweat on working out a way of diverting asteroids if there were no asteroids to threaten earth? Why do we have to battle to deal with floods, earthquakes, volcanoes and other natural disasters?

It makes no sense as what a god (in any character the Churches try to sell) would make for us, supposedly the best of a planned creation. Sure, the apologists can come up with explanations and excuses, but the go - to hypothesis (1) is, I propose; that there is no God - none that intervenes and cares, at least. We were not planned, and we live in a universe that doesn't care whether we live or die. But we care, and that is a better lesson to be learned than anything religion teaches.

(1) the name of the game is - and I exhort all to keep this in mind all the time, when in debating religion - it is not to come up with any excuse, apologetic or denial to keep the Faith; that is only the intent for the believer, but to make a better explanation that fits the data that will convince those with an open mind. In any debate, especially the ones where the audience voted at the end, it was never about whether the debator could get the other side to change their mind, but how much they convinced the audience.

[JoeyKnothead]

Suffering is good

* As long as it ain't the preachers who hafta do it.