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?

[AquinasForGod]

I am not God, so I don't know.

Yer a dollar short and a day late for this response. Unless you wish to concede, that your given response(s) about this topic are completely bogus, I will continue to explore.

If someone can bring clear evidence that animals do only appear to suffer, then I will hold that position. My answer is pretty much the same. Animals suffer to keep in tact Divine Hiddenness.

You are "neck high" in your set of claims now.... I need you to pick a lane ---> (suffering, not suffering)? I'm still awaiting a response for post #374. I will not address the rest of post #382 until you pick a side. Unless you would like to admit, here and now, that you are pulling responses right out of your keister.

I have already responded. I am agnostic on it and I have answers for both positions, which have not been shown to be impossible answers, so I think Christianity is ahead right now. There is no need to respond to nonsense.

Make a good point and it will be responded to.

[POI]

I have already responded.

Giving a "response" is not an <answer> Pick a lane.

I have answers for both positions

Which position do you believe? Each position will lead us in differing directions. Pick a side.

A) Are you with Dr. Craig, in that animals do not really suffer?
B) Or, are you on my side, in that animals really do suffer?

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #392]

I told you that I am agnostic on the issue. In other words, I don't know.

I find it odd that you cannot respect my view here.

I can argue either side. For the sake of argument, and for this argument, I will argue the side that animals do suffer.

They suffer for the same reasons they would appear to suffer, to keep in tact divine hiddenness.

And as to their suffering being just. Imagine karma for a moment. If we cause suffering, then suffering returns to us. Of course, it seems unlikely that this can happen in one lifetime. However, God knows all of time and can cause the world to exist in such a way that animals all balance out. Whatever suffering they cause comes back to them, and by the time they stop existing every animal has suffered based on the suffering it caused.

Suppose we put it into numbers. If an animal caused 10 points of suffering, then by the time it is done with existing in a world of suffering, it has suffering 10 points of suffering. It all balances out for every animal in the end.

[POI]

I told you that I am agnostic on the issue. In other words, I don't know.

I read what you wrote.

I find it odd that you cannot respect my view here.

Why do you find it odd, after I told you why?

I can argue either side.

So could I. But then this exchange will get too convoluted. If you are going to assert stuff, finish what you started.

For the sake of argument, and for this argument, I will argue the side that animals do suffer.

Aces!

They suffer for the same reasons they would appear to suffer, to keep in tact divine hiddenness.

Making animals really suffer, verses just appearing to suffer, would paint god in a differing light. Wouldn't you agree? Please do not answer. Let's remain focused....

And as to their suffering being just. Imagine karma for a moment. If we cause suffering, then suffering returns to us. Of course, it seems unlikely that this can happen in one lifetime. However, God knows all of time and can cause the world to exist in such a way that animals all balance out. Whatever suffering they cause comes back to them, and by the time they stop existing every animal has suffered based on the suffering it caused.

Suppose we put it into numbers. If an animal caused 10 points of suffering, then by the time it is done with existing in a world of suffering, it has suffering 10 points of suffering. It all balances out for every animal in the end.

Are you getting any of this from the Bible, or from God Himself, or maybe just straight from the keister?

*****************************************

Since we apparently agree animals really do suffer, I have follow up questions:

1. Why not make them only appear to suffer, so they really do not have to suffer? I mean, it's not like they are going to achieve theodicy, acquire faith, etc... God has to make them really suffer?
2. Since you state they must suffer, as to keep divine hiddenness intact, did animals suffer before humans entered into the picture?
3. Do animals really need to suffer anyways? I mean, it would be an oddity maybe, but don't we wrestle with oddities which do not involve the expense of suffering?

[kjw47]

Everything ate vegetation. It will go back that way in Gods kingdom-Isaiah 11: 7--The animals wouldnt have gotten along on Noahs ark if they were meat eaters at that point.

The T. Rex was a vegetarian prior to "the fall"?

There is no mention of the dinosaurs being around when mankind came to be.

[POI]

Everything ate vegetation. It will go back that way in Gods kingdom-Isaiah 11: 7--The animals wouldnt have gotten along on Noahs ark if they were meat eaters at that point.

The T. Rex was a vegetarian prior to "the fall"?

There is no mention of the dinosaurs being around when mankind came to be.

Have you taken science?

[brunumb]

You seem confused on the matter. The angel being who came to be known as satan and devil, was good, a loving servant of the true God. God placed him over the garden( earth) he got jealous and wanted worship, thus he rebelled and lied to Eve to screw it all up.

I think it is you who is confused. Satan was not the serpent in the garden.

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made.

Genesis 3:14  And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.

Time for some more creative spin I suppose.

satan spoke through the serpent. Rev 12:9, Rev 20:2-both in reference to satan.

So God punished the serpent but not Satan. This gets sillier by the moment.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #394]

Are you getting any of this from the Bible, or from God Himself, or maybe just straight from the keister?

This question is about the idea I put forward that we reap what we sow. Is it biblical? Some what, but the church has never been limited to bible only. Philosophy is important and has been from the beginning.

There is a verse that says Galatians 6:7 ESV /
Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap.

He is clearly talking to Humans here, but the principle can apply to animals. If we sow suffering, we reap suffering.

We see in Isaiah that in the new world animals will exist and they will be passive. I can infer from this and a few others principles that animal suffering balances out in the end.

1. Why not make them only appear to suffer, so they really do not have to suffer? I mean, it's not like they are going to achieve theodicy, acquire faith, etc... God has to make them really suffer?

There could be many reasons, some which are beyond my ability to imagine right now. But here are some I can imagine. So humans are accountable for the suffering they cause even to animals. We are actually accountable because they actually suffer.

So that animals can in their own way learn from suffering to be peaceful and passive in the world to come.

2. Since you state they must suffer, as to keep divine hiddenness intact, did animals suffer before humans entered into the picture?

I don't know. It wouldn't matter either way for the above reasons. Their suffering would balance out and serve a purpose even for the animals. I can only infer that animals really suffered before humans existed. But who knows?

3. Do animals really need to suffer anyways? I mean, it would be an oddity maybe, but don't we wrestle with oddities which do not involve the expense of suffering?

For the above reasons I have stated. As far as if it would be an oddity, of course. I think it would be such an oddity that we would collectively know humans were special. It would be a conclusion that we would have a very hard time ignoring. We see we suffer, and then look at every other animal and ask, why don't they suffer? It is as if suffering is specially made just for us humans. We must be special animals.

I think it would make God far more believable.

But also, if animals by suffering learn in their own way to be prepared from the eternal kingdom, then it seems necessary they do suffer. And of course, if it is necessarily that animals suffer then we must suffer for we are animals.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #398]


I'm sorry, A4G, pal, but I see nothing but a believer trapped in his own box of Belief and cannot see out of it, let alone get out.,

Everything you say makes more sense if there is no God and we (and the rest of the biosphere) are having to deal with the world as it is. There is absolutely no reason to club our brains trying to work out the morality of animal suffering unless we are believers who are also clubbing their brains about why a god would allow suffering for a creation that didn't eat the apple. Ok, you got out of the box as regards Noah and the Flood; I recall that you decided that has to go. So you don't need to explain why God would destroy a sinless creation who weren't related to Adam but nevertheless died just as Adam did - as a punishment.

Aren't you glad that you don't have to protest that Adam's fall brought down the rest of creation down with him and how Noah managed to cram all the species onto the Ark and where all the water went or what they had to eat a month after the flood?

But you are still struggling with the problem of evil and, in an odd way,you deal with it rather as the creationists do with the Flood. Just as the geology and evolution did what it did but speeded up into a Creationist timeframe, the world works as it does, but Biblegod somehow gets the credit. But man gets the blame.

We reap what we sow? Often that's the case. But not always, as with natural disasters, which has always been the elephant in the room, the dust swept under the carpet and the argument treated like it didn't exist. Natural disasters make no sense, aren't what we sowed, and don't teach us anything other than we are on our own and have to cope with it. And animals that appear to suffer, suffer, or logically how it looks makes more sense in terms of evolutionary survival and unplanned natural cause and effect than some kind of doctrinal explanation. 'God knows best' will not do, and if it comes down (as it must) to Faith that God is doing it (quite aside from which god is doing it as it could equally well be Allah) than in the end "Faith" is the only real reason why anyone believes that a god is in charge rather than things happening naturally.

Of course, we all know this, at least deep down. And I know that evidence is fiddled to try to fit the faith, like trying to explain animal suffering in terms of Christian Doctrine, whether they suffer along with Humans or not.

The point right at the start is that I saw you trying to juggle 'animals don't suffer - man is 'special' and if they do suffer we reap what we sow (plus a Bible quote as though that made karma Biblical rather than Buddhist), and it was never going to work, except for those who worked in Faith anyway. As i said, I see you trying to find a way out of a Box we goddless aren't in, and we don;t have to escape.

[JoeyKnothead]

There is no mention of the dinosaurs being around when mankind came to be.

And no mention of god being around until mankind came to be.