Why did the Hebrew God Create Carnivores.

[Diogenes]

Most of the arguments against the idea of a loving god who created the planet Earth and its creatures are so obvious they occur to a child. One of them is, 'Why would a caring, loving god create a world where so many organisms can only survive only by killing and eating others? Christians usually fall back on the old "Original Sin" argument, that everything was perfect until "The Fall."

Is "The Fall" a reasonable argument to explain the existence of God-created organisms that can only survive by tearing the flesh off other organisms? . . . or by consuming and torturing them to death like brainless cancer cells, viruses and bacteria?

When God made his creation and called it 'good.' then called it evil and drowned 99.9999 percent of his 'creation,' why didn't that 'New Start' fix everything? Wouldn't an omnipotent and omniscient God have known all this would transpire before 'He' created the first clod of earth, the first drop of water, the first atom of 'the firmament?'

[POI]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #180]

As a quick recap, I'd say a moral action can be grounded in objectively in as follows... We seem to agree that 'morality' can be interchanged with the term 'wellbeing.'

If an observed action adversely affects the sentient agent's "wellbeing", then it is, by definition, objectively "immoral".

Below are some points/topics left unvetted:

1. Please give us (the) objective definition of "wellbeing"? Once provided, we can then further explore why you believe animal/other predation comports with the defined term of "wellbeing" and how these action(s) achieve the 8ible's god's goal(s) -- as it relates to the animal/other kingdom? Further, why couldn't god's over-all goal(s) or plan(s), for the animal/other kingdom, not have been achieved without the requirement of consumption at all?

2. Under the Christian worldview, a personal/subjective/amoral preference or taste is <distinctive and/or apart> from an actual "objective moral/immoral action". You've repeated this sediment often in our exchange, when you conceded that (paraphrased) - "some observed 'moral' actions are clearly more transparent/obvious than others, as being immoral, such as murder."

3. You also tried to argue as to why humans 'ought' to prioritize (overall wellbeing) instead of (personal wellbeing)? For which I clarified in that it is not about what humans 'ought' to do, but instead what we are 'wired' to do, based upon evolutionary means. Just like how most humans are also 'wired' to worship an invisible god, verses not, is also based upon evolutionary means.

4. Does the Bible god's personal 'moral compass' always happen to align with 'objective morality'? I'd say either answer, of (yes or no) here, presents with follow-up question(s) worthy for discussion.

5. What form of "justice" includes punishing the animal/other kingdom, in initiating predation, when they committed no 'sin'? This question could be ignored if you successfully explain why Genesis 1:29-30 must instead be about 'myth' and also explains how animals always engaged in predation.

I'll stop here...

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #181]

As a quick recap, I'd say a moral action can be grounded in objectively in as follows... We seem to agree that 'morality' can be interchanged with the term 'wellbeing.'

If an observed action adversely affects the sentient agent's "wellbeing", then it is, by definition, objectively "immoral".

I think we are talking past each other here. I said we could use them as terms for the same concept if you wanted, but what you have since done is suggest that we find what is moral (concept 1) by looking at individual well-being (concept 2). I didn’t agree to that.

1. Please give us (the) objective definition of "wellbeing"? Once provided, we can then further explore why you believe animal/other predation comports with the defined term of "wellbeing" and how these action(s) achieve the 8ible's god's goal(s) -- as it relates to the animal/other kingdom? Further, why couldn't god's over-all goal(s) or plan(s), for the animal/other kingdom, not have been achieved without the requirement of consumption at all?

Oxford Languages defines ‘well-being’ as the state of being comfortable, healthy, or happy. I don’t think this can give us morality because there are often competing well-beings that must be considered, both within an individual (perhaps real happiness comes through sacrificing comfort or health in some situations) and between the beings involved in the choice (the same action can be good for one’s health but bad for another’s health, for instance).

2. Under the Christian worldview, a personal/subjective/amoral preference or taste is <distinctive and/or apart> from an actual "objective moral/immoral action". You've repeated this sediment often in our exchange, when you conceded that (paraphrased) - "some observed 'moral' actions are clearly more transparent/obvious than others, as being immoral, such as murder."

I’m not sure what you mean here. Yes, there are some preferences that are about moral issues (such as killing an innocent person) and some that are about amoral issues (such as liking a specific flavor). And, yes, some objectively moral/immoral actions are clearer than other objectively moral/immoral actions. I don’t see any contradiction there.

3. You also tried to argue as to why humans 'ought' to prioritize (overall wellbeing) instead of (personal wellbeing)? For which I clarified in that it is not about what humans 'ought' to do, but instead what we are 'wired' to do, based upon evolutionary means. Just like how most humans are also 'wired' to worship an invisible god, verses not, is also based upon evolutionary means.

Yes, objective morality is about “ought to do” not describing what humans do. Atheism can give us subjective morality, but not objective morality. If evolution went differently we could have evolved like the shark and been okay with rape. It’s just a wired-in preference like the flavors you like and don’t like. Intellectually, you can overcome that wired-in preference and see that other people have other preferences and not care about those differences. So, why not the same with something like rape or animal predation? Without objective morals, the view that animal predation is evil makes no logical sense.

4. Does the Bible god's personal 'moral compass' always happen to align with 'objective morality'? I'd say either answer, of (yes or no) here, presents with follow-up question(s) worthy for discussion.

Assuming we aren’t talking past each other, my answer is yes.

5. What form of "justice" includes punishing the animal/other kingdom, in initiating predation, when they committed no 'sin'? This question could be ignored if you successfully explain why Genesis 1:29-30 must instead be about 'myth' and also explains how animals always engaged in predation.

Why think it is a punishment for anything?

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #181]

As a quick recap, I'd say a moral action can be grounded in objectively in as follows... We seem to agree that 'morality' can be interchanged with the term 'wellbeing.'

If an observed action adversely affects the sentient agent's "wellbeing", then it is, by definition, objectively "immoral".

I think we are talking past each other here. I said we could use them as terms for the same concept if you wanted, but what you have since done is suggest that we find what is moral (concept 1) by looking at individual well-being (concept 2). I didn’t agree to that.

Here's where the vetting needs to take place.... See below....

Oxford Languages defines ‘well-being’ as the state of being comfortable, healthy, or happy. I don’t think this can give us morality because there are often competing well-beings that must be considered, both within an individual (perhaps real happiness comes through sacrificing comfort or health in some situations) and between the beings involved in the choice (the same action can be good for one’s health but bad for another’s health, for instance).

The exact same thing(s) can be said if we replace the term 'well-being' with 'morality'. Case/point, under the Christian worldview "X is immoral", where-as a competing religious worldview, or even a non-religious worldview, the same "X might instead be deemed moral."

In your example, you touch on the topic of "health". While applying 'morality' alone, is it moral to promote health, or not? I reckon you state "it is moral to promote health". If it is moral to promote health, versus the opposite, then there is no distinguishable difference, as "well-being" includes health, (versus not being healthy). We can evaluate action(s) to promote this health, versus to not promote health. But sure, it is situational. For instance, one person might believe a BMI of below 12% is healthy where-as another may think below 16% is also just fine. And on top of this, the way(s) to achieve these goals may differ.

At the end of the day, we can objectively evaluate actions to promote X, instead of not promoting X, which is deemed 'good.' We can objectively observe set actions, (to either promote or not promote), the health of the individual. To instead promote (acts/actions) which do not move towards or maintain (health/well-being), would not be promoting their 'well-being.'

I’m not sure what you mean here. Yes, there are some preferences that are about moral issues (such as killing an innocent person) and some that are about amoral issues (such as liking a specific flavor). And, yes, some objectively moral/immoral actions are clearer than other objectively moral/immoral actions. I don’t see any contradiction there.

Ding ding ding! We are on the same page now. Okay, the OP-er believes animal/other predation is an obvious moral concern, like 'murdering the innocent' is also considered an obvious moral concern, (without having to explain why, as it is just so dang obvious). Okay, why is animal/other predation not an obvious moral concern, meaning the OP-er is instead grossly mistaken -- even though he would likely agree with you that murdering the innocent IS an obvious moral concern? In other words, where is the disconnect here between obviously knowing murder is objectively wrong but being mistaken about this expressed topic?

Yes, objective morality is about “ought to do” not describing what humans do. Atheism can give us subjective morality, but not objective morality. If evolution went differently we could have evolved like the shark and been okay with rape. It’s just a wired-in preference like the flavors you like and don’t like. Intellectually, you can overcome that wired-in preference and see that other people have other preferences and not care about those differences. So, why not the same with something like rape or animal predation? Without objective morals, the view that animal predation is evil makes no logical sense.

I think this is where we are speaking passed each other. I explained above, in that we can objectively evaluate an observed action against X. Does the action(s) move towards or accomplish X, or not? You then asked... (Paraphrased) - Why should we care? And I explained we are wired to do X. If we weren't, evolution would run its course and we would be among the countless extinct species. Which means you and I would never have exchanged with one another. Evolution is a "B" that way. Maybe some theists will argue that 'evolution' is one of god's tools?

Assuming we aren’t talking past each other, my answer is yes.

I would love to dive in here, but it will immediately take us down a differing path.

To try and remain focused, does the Bible god deem animal/other predation moral, immoral, or amoral? And why?

Why think it is a punishment for anything?

Again, until you can demonstrate that Genesis 1:29-30 is not to be taken at face-value, and is instead speaking about myth, the question answers itself.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #183]

Oxford Languages defines ‘well-being’ as the state of being comfortable, healthy, or happy. I don’t think this can give us morality because there are often competing well-beings that must be considered, both within an individual (perhaps real happiness comes through sacrificing comfort or health in some situations) and between the beings involved in the choice (the same action can be good for one’s health but bad for another’s health, for instance).

The exact same thing(s) can be said if we replace the term 'well-being' with 'morality'. Case/point, under the Christian worldview "X is immoral", where-as a competing religious worldview, or even a non-religious worldview, the same "X might instead be deemed moral."

I’m not proposing that we just replace ‘well-being’ with ‘morality’.

In your example, you touch on the topic of "health". While applying 'morality' alone, is it moral to promote health, or not? I reckon you state "it is moral to promote health".

You reckon incorrectly. Take a soldier in a combat situation, whose fellow soldier has just been shot and lays a bit exposed. What ought the soldier to do in that situation? Trying to rescue that soldier is promoting that soldier’s health, but not promoting their own health.

Ding ding ding! We are on the same page now. Okay, the OP-er believes animal/other predation is an obvious moral concern, like 'murdering the innocent' is also considered an obvious moral concern, (without having to explain why, as it is just so dang obvious). Okay, why is animal/other predation not an obvious moral concern, meaning the OP-er is instead grossly mistaken -- even though he would likely agree with you that murdering the innocent IS an obvious moral concern? In other words, where is the disconnect here between obviously knowing murder is objectively wrong but being mistaken about this expressed topic?

Why does being clear on one moral issue mean there would be clarity on every moral issue? Why is that a sound principle?

I think this is where we are speaking passed each other. I explained above, in that we can objectively evaluate an observed action against X. Does the action(s) move towards or accomplish X, or not? You then asked... (Paraphrased) - Why should we care? And I explained we are wired to do X.

That explains why we do care, not why we should care.

I would love to dive in here, but it will immediately take us down a differing path.

To try and remain focused, does the Bible god deem animal/other predation moral, immoral, or amoral? And why?

I’ve already answered that I think God sees this as amoral and shared why. There has been no change in my answer.

5. What form of "justice" includes punishing the animal/other kingdom, in initiating predation, when they committed no 'sin'? This question could be ignored if you successfully explain why Genesis 1:29-30 must instead be about 'myth' and also explains how animals always engaged in predation.

Why think it is a punishment for anything?

Again, until you can demonstrate that Genesis 1:29-30 is not to be taken at face-value, and is instead speaking about myth, the question cannot be addressed/answered.

Your "face-value" reading must be supported as "face-value", you can't just assert it is.

[POI]

I’m not proposing that we just replace ‘well-being’ with ‘morality’.

You haven't demonstrated how one term cannot be interchanged with the other.

You reckon incorrectly. Take a soldier in a combat situation, whose fellow soldier has just been shot and lays a bit exposed. What ought the soldier to do in that situation? Trying to rescue that soldier is promoting that soldier’s health, but not promoting their own health.

The answer here is sometimes easy. Further, you did not supply enough background information. If the fellow soldier was hit by a sniper, it would be dumb to try and rescue that soldier, as the fellow would-be rescuer would likely end up just like the one he's trying to save, or 'worse'. And if he should decide to be a 'hero' anyways, evolution would likely just take care of it, and they would both soon be weeded out of the gene pool.

Alternatively, if a medic, post battle, was to stumble upon a wounded soldier, would it be promoting 'well-being', or not, to by-pass the wounded soldier and let them fend for themselves?

Why does being clear on one moral issue mean there would be clarity on every moral issue? Why is that a sound principle?

Why are you avoiding the over-all question? If some moral assessments are obvious, then some are not. The OP-er believes this one is obvious. Why may he be mistaken, in that such predation is actually "amoral"?

That explains why we do care, not why we should care.

All other animal species care, like we do, to survive and flourish. This is quite evident when viewing some species of animals in the wild. Some are even altruistic and/or promote the well-being of their offspring/other. If you could ask such fellow animals why they strive for well-being, as opposed to not, what might they say? (Rhetorical question)...

The alternative leads to chaos and maybe even extinction. According to "the center for disease control' -- "Humans <should> care about well-being because it directly improves physical health, boosts mental resilience, and increases longevity. Prioritizing well-being reduces the risk of disease, lowers stress, enhances productivity, and fosters stronger, more positive relationships. Ultimately, personal well-being is a foundation for a purposeful life and contributes to a more stable, resilient society."

I’ve already answered that I think God sees this as amoral and shared why. There has been no change in my answer.

But the Bible states all of his creation is "very good". (Genesis 1:31 – God saw all that He had made, and it was "very good"). According to you, animal/other predation is/was part of this over-all initial creation. The Bible god is making an actual moral assessment here. Hence, your starting point is flawed.

Your "face-value" reading must be supported as "face-value", you can't just assert it is.

If I'm reading a book of truth, why not have my starting point be to take each passage at face-value, until instructed otherwise? So, tell me why I should deem this passage to instead be otherwise? Case/point, Genesis makes claims. We know animals exist, we also know animals eat. Why assume most of this claim comports with observed reality, but the very last bit doesn't, in that not all animals really were plant eaters?

[alexxcJRO]

You are begging that allowing a creation with natural suffering, even intense instances of it, means God doesn’t care. You have refused to support that move. If you end up supporting it, this part of our conversation can move forward rationally.

Nonsense.

We have been over this already:

1. It is like this:
I am apparently an orphan but someone tells me I supposedly have a super loving, caring parent(father). I write to him to help me with an egregious problem I have. I write to him years upon years. Not only I do not receive any help he does not even bother to reply.
Is it fair for me to conclude: Either he does not exist or he does not care if he exists. And the claims of me having a super duper loving, caring parent(father) are unsubstantiated.

2. My sibling has prayed extensively and asked from help from this supposedly super duper caring omni-being. He got zilch, zero, nada, no help. No help at least in alleviating some of his suffering.
His parents and some of my close family have prayed extensively also for years upon years.
His church prayed also. He went even to Christian healers also.
Guess what happened. He got zilch, zero, nada, no help.
Studies show Intercessory Prayer does not work. Probably because there is no super duper caring omni-being(Yahweh-Jesus).

Please do not fail to address the analogy like before.
Please address both points.

If all we had was that passage, sure, there'd be room for the Messiah's victory not necessarily lasting that long but with the broader context there isn't much room for that as a doctrine because the image of life is an ongoing concept, while the image of death is of finality.

1.
Bible passages about God eternal reign, eternal nature, eternal worship and glory are a positive thing and not problematic ergo is literal.
Christ ressurection is a positive thing and not problematic ergo is literal.
Genesis's Adam and Eve story is problematic considering certain scientific knowledge ergo it is metaphorical.
Genesis's Noah Global Flood story is problematic considering certain scientific knowledge ergo it is metaphorical.
Tower of Babel's story is problematic considering certain scientific knowledge knowledge ergo it is metaphorical.
Bible depiction of eternal torture in Hell is problematic considering certain moral principles ergo it is metaphorical.

All things that are problematic now and interpreted as metaphorical have been in the past seen as not problematic and seen as literal.
There is a clear pattern of things changing: from the literal interpretation to metaphorical interpretation. This is done if one is objective and not delusional to escape certain problems. There is not some objective analysis some want us to believe.

2.
If the Hell passages mean annihilation why is there so much mention of suffering and ongoing torment. If one is completely destroyed(both body and soul) after the final judgement one does not suffer, one is simply gone forever.

"For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh."
"into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. . . . And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
"and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night."
"the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever"
"and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
"t is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire."
"These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur."
“for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur”


Try not to dodge anything.
Please address both points.

[historia]

All things that are problematic now and interpreted as metaphorical have been in the past seen as not problematic and seen as literal.

There is a clear pattern of things changing: from the literal interpretation to metaphorical interpretation.

The suggestion above that Christians considered all of these stories in Genesis "as not problematic and seen as literal" before "certain scientific knowledge" made that untenable, is belied by the historical evidence.

Long before modern science even existed, Origen, Augustine, and many other Christian theologians readily acknowledged that some biblical stories might not be historical, precisely because reading them that way posed certain problems.

Moreover, Christians have historically understood that the Bible has multiple levels of meaning, with the 'spiritual' senses (allegorical, moral, anagogical) taking precedence over the 'literal' sense. The suggestion above that it has to be one or the other, thus reflecting a "change," is simplistic.

You seem to be falling into a common myth here, as the (atheist) historian Tim O'Neill notes:

It is assumed in much anti-theistic polemic that the Bible has traditionally always been interpreted literally. A lot of criticism of believers is based on how irrational, impossible and anti-scientific such a reading of the Bible has to be and how the current literalism of many fundamentalist Christians simply reflects how the Bible has always been read, with non-literal interpretations simply a modern rear-guard attempt to reconcile the Bible with current understandings of the world. But this is not true. In fact, fundamentalist Biblical literalism is a very recent, mostly Protestant and largely American affair. Historically, things were much more complex.

[alexxcJRO]

All things that are problematic now and interpreted as metaphorical have been in the past seen as not problematic and seen as literal.

There is a clear pattern of things changing: from the literal interpretation to metaphorical interpretation.

The suggestion above that Christians considered all of these stories in Genesis "as not problematic and seen as literal" before "certain scientific knowledge" made that untenable, is belied by the historical evidence.

Long before modern science even existed, Origen, Augustine, and many other Christian theologians readily acknowledged that some biblical stories might not be historical, precisely because reading them that way posed certain problems.

Moreover, Christians have historically understood that the Bible has multiple levels of meaning, with the 'spiritual' senses (allegorical, moral, anagogical) taking precedence over the 'literal' sense. The suggestion above that it has to be one or the other, thus reflecting a "change," is simplistic.

You seem to be falling into a common myth here, as the (atheist) historian Tim O'Neill notes:

It is assumed in much anti-theistic polemic that the Bible has traditionally always been interpreted literally. A lot of criticism of believers is based on how irrational, impossible and anti-scientific such a reading of the Bible has to be and how the current literalism of many fundamentalist Christians simply reflects how the Bible has always been read, with non-literal interpretations simply a modern rear-guard attempt to reconcile the Bible with current understandings of the world. But this is not true. In fact, fundamentalist Biblical literalism is a very recent, mostly Protestant and largely American affair. Historically, things were much more complex.

Sir the Church fathers view the Noah's flood as true events, as in the literal sense.
Even Augustine was against metaphorical interpretation of Adam and Eve story. Adam being a historical person. He was a Young Earth Creationist.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #185]

You haven't demonstrated how one term cannot be interchanged with the other.

If your answer to “what is moral?” is to look at what promotes well-being, to use them as interchangeable terms would clearly lead to begging the question. That’s why you can’t just interchange them.

You reckon incorrectly. Take a soldier in a combat situation, whose fellow soldier has just been shot and lays a bit exposed. What ought the soldier to do in that situation? Trying to rescue that soldier is promoting that soldier’s health, but not promoting their own health.

The answer here is sometimes easy. Further, you did not supply enough background information. If the fellow soldier was hit by a sniper, it would be dumb to try and rescue that soldier, as the fellow would-be rescuer would likely end up just like the one he's trying to save, or 'worse'. And if he should decide to be a 'hero' anyways, evolution would likely just take care of it, and they would both soon be weeded out of the gene pool.

Alternatively, if a medic, post battle, was to stumble upon a wounded soldier, would it be promoting 'well-being', or not, to by-pass the wounded soldier and let them fend for themselves?

I agree that sometimes that is the only or, at least, key consideration, but my point is that sometimes it is not moral to simply consider the promotion of health. Morality, in many situations, is more complex than that.

Why are you avoiding the over-all question? If some moral assessments are obvious, then some are not. The OP-er believes this one is obvious. Why may he be mistaken, in that such predation is actually "amoral"?

Oh, that’s your overall question? The OP-er (and you since you have taken on that position) has the burden to show why this is obvious because it is integral to your argument.

That explains why we do care, not why we should care.

The alternative leads to chaos and maybe even extinction. According to "the center for disease control' -- "Humans <should> care about well-being because it directly improves physical health, boosts mental resilience, and increases longevity. Prioritizing well-being reduces the risk of disease, lowers stress, enhances productivity, and fosters stronger, more positive relationships. Ultimately, personal well-being is a foundation for a purposeful life and contributes to a more stable, resilient society."

If you have the power within the chaos, you can benefit greatly from that. Many think they will improve by acting selfishly within even a stable society. What many think will improve their well-being, they think comes at the cost of the well-being of others. All science gives us is a description of competing desires and ideas of well-being and how best to get those desires; it doesn’t tell us which desires and which ways to get those desires are the best.

I’ve already answered that I think God sees this as amoral and shared why. There has been no change in my answer.

But the Bible states all of his creation is "very good". (Genesis 1:31 – God saw all that He had made, and it was "very good"). According to you, animal/other predation is/was part of this over-all initial creation. The Bible god is making an actual moral assessment here. Hence, your starting point is flawed.

Why do you think “good” can only refer to moral goodness?

If I'm reading a book of truth, why not have my starting point be to take each passage at face-value, until instructed otherwise? So, tell me why I should deem this passage to instead be otherwise? Case/point, Genesis makes claims. We know animals exist, we also know animals eat. Why assume most of this claim comports with observed reality, but the very last bit doesn't, in that not all animals really were plant eaters?

What does “face-value” mean?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #186]

1. It is like this:
I am apparently an orphan but someone tells me I supposedly have a super loving, caring parent(father). I write to him to help me with an egregious problem I have. I write to him years upon years. Not only I do not receive any help he does not even bother to reply.
Is it fair for me to conclude: Either he does not exist or he does not care if he exists. And the claims of me having a super duper loving, caring parent(father) are unsubstantiated.

I’ve already addressed this. You are assuming you haven’t received help and that he hasn’t replied. You could be mistaken there. This leads to a false dilemma.

2. My sibling has prayed extensively and asked from help from this supposedly super duper caring omni-being. He got zilch, zero, nada, no help. No help at least in alleviating some of his suffering.
His parents and some of my close family have prayed extensively also for years upon years.
His church prayed also. He went even to Christian healers also.
Guess what happened. He got zilch, zero, nada, no help.
Studies show Intercessory Prayer does not work. Probably because there is no super duper caring omni-being(Yahweh-Jesus).

This assumes that God is only interested in comfort and hasn’t tried to help in other ways.

1.
Bible passages about God eternal reign, eternal nature, eternal worship and glory are a positive thing and not problematic ergo is literal.
Christ ressurection is a positive thing and not problematic ergo is literal.
Genesis's Adam and Eve story is problematic considering certain scientific knowledge ergo it is metaphorical.
Genesis's Noah Global Flood story is problematic considering certain scientific knowledge ergo it is metaphorical.
Tower of Babel's story is problematic considering certain scientific knowledge knowledge ergo it is metaphorical.
Bible depiction of eternal torture in Hell is problematic considering certain moral principles ergo it is metaphorical.

No, I did not appeal to that line of reasoning; I talked about genre, context, etc. Address that.

All things that are problematic now and interpreted as metaphorical have been in the past seen as not problematic and seen as literal.
There is a clear pattern of things changing: from the literal interpretation to metaphorical interpretation. This is done if one is objective and not delusional to escape certain problems. There is not some objective analysis some want us to believe.

I think historia has clearly shown the flaw with this one.

2.
If the Hell passages mean annihilation why is there so much mention of suffering and ongoing torment. If one is completely destroyed(both body and soul) after the final judgement one does not suffer, one is simply gone forever.

"For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh."
"into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. . . . And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
"and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night."
"the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever"
"and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
"t is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire."
"These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur."
“for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur”

I’ve already addressed many of these passages, which you haven’t responded to. Here are my thoughts on the new passages you’ve offered:

“For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh."

Mark 9:48 where Jesus quotes Isaiah 66:24. The imagery there is of a new heavens and new earth with people who will endure and be able to look at the dead bodies that rebelled against God. The worms that eat those bodies will not die, the fire that burns them won’t be quenched; the bodies aren’t alive and being tormented. This is an image of finality. Jesus seems to be saying that we should take our sin seriously, using extreme language to where that if the only way you could avoid the damage you could do is pluck out your eye, that would be better than to give yourself over to sin and be thrown into hell and destroyed where you cannot return from because it is final.

“t is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire."

Mark 9:43 is a part of this same passage.