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]

I think it is clearly expressed, if one cares to understand the context of the writing. It’s logically impossible to allow free thought and force everyone to clearly understand what is expressed.

(I've added this to the 'still to come' topics).... (9) and counting...

On a sidenote... If the concept of (Genesis and hell) were clearly expressed, then these topics would not be so hotly debated among literate believing communities, while both sides are sighting context.

I don’t see how we could confidently say what would have happened if history went differently.

(Topic 6 created at the bottom)...

why is this relevant to the supposed problem of God creating carnivores?

The organic flow of many debate exchanges often brings up other talking points. I'll add it to the topic list at the bottom.

And I already stated that we can have good confidence that he asserted what was recorded in our earlier writings

(Topic 7 created at the bottom)...

Why do I need to prove that for my claims about the supposed problem of God creating carnivores?

(Topic 8 created at the bottom)...

An omni god cannot do the logically impossible, which is create beings with free thought that go through history and cultural shifts and have their own agendas and love to justify their own ways of life and thoughts and this God guarantee they clearly understand these texts; that’s logically impossible.

(Topic 9 has been created at the bottom)...

I’m not sure that doctrine is Biblical even generally, but even assuming it is, there is a difference between beings initially rebelling upon seeing God and those that have trusted in God prior to seeing Him more fully and then seeing more of Him; humans are already set in that direction and seeing more of God wouldn’t change that.

(Topic 10 created)...

That’s not what Romans 2 and those other verses are saying, generally or specifically. Generally, Romans 2 is saying that they do have the law on their conscience, but it does not say that all of their “gut feelings” are true or from God. Specifically, this verse and none of the others puts the creation of animal suffering as evil being part of the god-given moral compass.

Your quibbling over word choice here is irrelevant to the over-all context. Which is ironic, being we are discussing context within the Bible.

Allow me to clarify further. We inherently know "right" from "wrong", or "good" and "evil". Whether or not we actually act upon it is an altogether separate topic.

More support for Premise (1):

Genesis 3:22: -- "22 Then the Lord God said, ‘See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil..."

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

Again, if I were to ask any Christian, or even any non-Christian, (is gratuitous suffering good or evil?), which answer would be unanimous? *** Again, pardon the satire in the phrasing of the question***. And since this is a somewhat rhetorical question, as the answer is 'evil', see (P1) below:

P1) Your "god given moral compass" tells you that gratuitous suffering is immoral.

I have offered a different reason as to why the creation of animal suffering exists here on earth and you haven’t refuted that.

Assuming (P1) of my argument is now supported to your satisfaction, on to premise (2) of my argument...

In regard to your alternative assertion, I do not recall having my follow-up question(s) being answered? Or maybe they were responded to or 'answered', but unsatisfactory?

Still to come...

(1) What is god's version of justice? (Note: Inquiring minds really want to know).
(2) Does 'free will' exist under the Christian worldview, and does Jesus present coercion -- (according to Mk 16:15-16, Matt 28:41, John 3:18, Rev 20:15)? (Note: Your will is likely not free, under the Christian world view, as coercion is presented).
(3) Is belief even a choice at all, and if so, does Jesus present (a choice) or a (free choice)? (Note: If belief is really a choice, then I can freely choose to believe in the Easter Bunny without convincing presented evidence).
(4) Is there an ‘omni’ problem? (Note: Defer to William's argument?.?.?)
(5) Name one thing from the Bible that humans could not think of, or write, on their own accord alone (Note: I doubt you can locate one or some)?

Added...

(6) Had Constantine and Theodosius not of propelled Christianity, or, had "Rome" ultimately backed another 'religion', Christianity would likely have existed as yet another non dominant, minority religion -- similar in status to Mithraism or other mystery cults of the era. (Note: this observation is not to argue for why Christianity is or isn't true, but to instead provide pushback against your claim).
(7) Since humans are deemed fallible, and Jesus was literate, and further, gaining actual insight and context is paramount -- as it relates to <salvation vs. not>, then why didn't Jesus just (write and preserve) the actual message(s) himself? (Note: Is it because he could not have done a better job conveying truth, versus the actual deemed fallible human authors)?
(8) How do we KNOW Genesis is not to be taken somewhat literally, in its many claims? (Note: Many fall away from the religion due to a literal interpretation of Genesis which will ultimately lead to their 'damnation'. Further, stop lights and stop signs -- most aren't running them, warning labels - most understand, non-fictional writings -- most aren't arguing they are metaphorical, etc. And yet, the same understanding is not even achieved with the concept of 'hell'- which is arguably a massive topic under this worldview).
(9) Is it logically possible for an ("omni") God to clearly communicate to "free will" agents — such that most or all understand the message correctly? (Note: If so, why is not the same level of universal understanding obtained about the concept of 'hell', versus the aforementioned topics above --in (8) -- and other?)
(10) The concept of Heaven does not look to logically work, from the Biblical view. Why? If you continue to have free will in Heaven, you are still capable of sin. And yet, Heaven is a sinless place. Just because you now have full revelation of God does not then guarantee one to then become sinless. Further, some atheists admit that if they received revelation from god, as you state will happen in Heaven, then such atheists would then follow/worship/etc. Some atheists admit that the problem of "divine hiddenness" is the reason they do not believe. And yet, according to the Bible, belief is a prerequisite requirement for salvation. It is a catch-22.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #88]

An omni god cannot do the logically impossible

Hi Tanager

I am under the impression from previous arguments with you that you believe in the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo. Is that correct?

If so, then how does one explain this as not logically impossible?

[POI]

[Replying to William in post #92]

Patience William See post 91 above, where it's stated:

Still to come:

(4) Is there an ‘omni’ problem? (Note: Defer to William's argument?.?.?)

[The Tanager]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #90]

I did not say necessarily that all suffering is evil. Please do not straw-man.

I was not trying to straw man you. You wrote “An act is evil because it involves suffering.” That sounds like you are saying that any act involving suffering is an evil act. Thank you for clarifying that you did not mean that.

I was talking about Evidential Problem of Evil. That great suffering is so prevalent and to such extent that existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent-all loving personal God that cares deeply about all his created being seems to be unlikely.

The suffering of my family member poses as great evidence against such a God. By the way he is a Christian who has prayed extensively to this day to this supposed loving and caring God to alleviate some of his pain and suffering. No help was granted because such being are just living in the imaginary world.

Debilitating diseases are a result of an imperfect process called Evolution which does not care about suffering or good efficient design. The only objective is survival.
In a reality with an omni, super loving, caring, personal God we would expect some better efficient designs or at least some interventions to help his beloved created creatures.
Pray does not work, there is no human growing a leg or people getting healed from genetic diseases( which would necessitate the magical change of genetic material ).
It all points to non-existence I am afraid.

This still assumes that suffering in itself is evil, which you are only asserting, please support that premise to move your argument forward.

Q: Why is there no suffering in Heaven like on Earth if it is such a good thing?

I’ve already said how I think that logic is flawed since marriage is a very good thing, yet not in heaven according to the Bible.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #91]

On a sidenote... If the concept of (Genesis and hell) were clearly expressed, then these topics would not be so hotly debated among literate believing communities, while both sides are sighting context.

I’ve already addressed what I think is the flawed assumption here. People’s biases, justifications, unclear thinking are logical causes for the debate, so you need to show how those things aren’t enough and that the text itself isn’t clearly expressed enough within its context.

Your support for your P1 seems to be “come on, Tanager, you really agree with me that the creation of animal suffering is inherently evil, you just don’t want to admit it” instead of actual support. You gave some Biblical verses you thought supported it, I gave a different interpretation, and then instead of addressing that and supporting your interpretation you emptily called my response quibbling. You then bring up Genesis 3 and simply assert what it means without addressing the context and alternative interpretations (such as how that knowledge is experiential and denoting how humans experienced evil for the first time or how it’s about humans now choosing for themselves what is good and evil instead of listening to God). And your rhetorical question is simply re-asserting your premise.

No, I don’t see these as rational supports for your P1. If you have something else to offer, we can stick with this or let our cases stand and move onto one of the other elements. If you have nothing else, perhaps we honor William by tackling his omni problem?

In regard to your alternative assertion, I do not recall having my follow-up question(s) being answered? Or maybe they were responded to or 'answered', but unsatisfactory?

Which follow up question are you referring to? I’ll rephrase my answer or apologize and answer it for the first time.

Still to come...

(1) What is god's version of justice? (Note: Inquiring minds really want to know).
(2) Does 'free will' exist under the Christian worldview, and does Jesus present coercion -- (according to Mk 16:15-16, Matt 28:41, John 3:18, Rev 20:15)? (Note: Your will is likely not free, under the Christian world view, as coercion is presented).
(3) Is belief even a choice at all, and if so, does Jesus present (a choice) or a (free choice)? (Note: If belief is really a choice, then I can freely choose to believe in the Easter Bunny without convincing presented evidence).
(4) Is there an ‘omni’ problem? (Note: Defer to William's argument?.?.?)
(5) Name one thing from the Bible that humans could not think of, or write, on their own accord alone (Note: I doubt you can locate one or some)?
(6) Had Constantine and Theodosius not of propelled Christianity, or, had "Rome" ultimately backed another 'religion', Christianity would likely have existed as yet another non dominant, minority religion -- similar in status to Mithraism or other mystery cults of the era. (Note: this observation is not to argue for why Christianity is or isn't true, but to instead provide pushback against your claim).
(7) Since humans are deemed fallible, and Jesus was literate, and further, gaining actual insight and context is paramount -- as it relates to <salvation vs. not>, then why didn't Jesus just (write and preserve) the actual message(s) himself? (Note: Is it because he could not have done a better job conveying truth, versus the actual deemed fallible human authors)?
(8) How do we KNOW Genesis is not to be taken somewhat literally, in its many claims? (Note: Many fall away from the religion due to a literal interpretation of Genesis which will ultimately lead to their 'damnation'. Further, stop lights and stop signs -- most aren't running them, warning labels - most understand, non-fictional writings -- most aren't arguing they are metaphorical, etc. And yet, the same understanding is not even achieved with the concept of 'hell'- which is arguably a massive topic under this worldview).
(9) Is it logically possible for an ("omni") God to clearly communicate to "free will" agents — such that most or all understand the message correctly? (Note: If so, why is not the same level of universal understanding obtained about the concept of 'hell', versus the aforementioned topics above --in (8) -- and other?)
(10) The concept of Heaven does not look to logically work, from the Biblical view. Why? If you continue to have free will in Heaven, you are still capable of sin. And yet, Heaven is a sinless place. Just because you now have full revelation of God does not then guarantee one to then become sinless. Further, some atheists admit that if they received revelation from god, as you state will happen in Heaven, then such atheists would then follow/worship/etc. Some atheists admit that the problem of "divine hiddenness" is the reason they do not believe. And yet, according to the Bible, belief is a prerequisite requirement for salvation. It is a catch-22. [/quote]

[POI]

I’ve already addressed what I think is the flawed assumption here. People’s biases, justifications, unclear thinking are logical causes for the debate, so you need to show how those things aren’t enough and that the text itself isn’t clearly expressed enough within its context.

Topic 11 created...

Your support for your P1 seems to be “come on, Tanager, you really agree with me that the creation of animal suffering is inherently evil, you just don’t want to admit it” instead of actual support.

Under the Christian worldview, is (gratuitous or unnecessary) suffering 1) good, 2) evil, or 3) situational/neither?

You gave some Biblical verses you thought supported it, I gave a different interpretation, and then instead of addressing that and supporting your interpretation you emptily called my response quibbling.

You stated "Romans 2 is saying that they do have the law on their conscience"

My response means you agree with me. We are just using differing words, which still means the same exact thing. Meaning, we inherently know "right" from "wrong" or "good" vs. "evil", because we now possess this knowledgebase from God. Whether or not we actually act upon these inherent thoughts is another matter. Hence, it is no more than 'quibbling' over word phrase(s), which still address the same exact point.

You also stated "but it does not say that all of their “gut feelings” are true or from God"

Does this mean our own "gut feelings', about what is 'evil', is not god-provided?

You then bring up Genesis 3 and simply assert what it means without addressing the context and alternative interpretations (such as how that knowledge is experiential and denoting how humans experienced evil for the first time or how it’s about humans now choosing for themselves what is good and evil instead of listening to God). And your rhetorical question is simply re-asserting your premise.

You stating "we have the law on their conscience" is exactly the same thing I'm saying and agreeing with -- (as stated above)....

No, I don’t see these as rational supports for your P1. If you have something else to offer, we can stick with this or let our cases stand and move onto one of the other elements. If you have nothing else, perhaps we honor William by tackling his omni problem?

We already agree, but just use differing phrases -- which means the same exact thing.

Therefore, you present no actual pushback to P1.

Which follow up question are you referring to? I’ll rephrase my answer or apologize and answer it for the first time.

Couldn't an "omni' god have created a world where animals are either herbivores, or do not even need to eat at all -- and still accomplish his over-all goal(s) for humanity/other? If not, why not?

Still to come...

(1) What is god's version of justice? (Note: Inquiring minds really want to know).
(2) Does 'free will' exist under the Christian worldview, and does Jesus present coercion -- (according to Mk 16:15-16, Matt 28:41, John 3:18, Rev 20:15)? (Note: Your will is likely not free, under the Christian world view, as coercion is presented).
(3) Is belief even a choice at all, and if so, does Jesus present (a choice) or a (free choice)? (Note: If belief is really a choice, then I can freely choose to believe in the Easter Bunny without convincing presented evidence).
(4) Is there an ‘omni’ problem? (Note: Defer to William's argument?.?.?)
(5) Name one thing from the Bible that humans could not think of, or write, on their own accord alone (Note: I doubt you can locate one or some)?
(6) Had Constantine and Theodosius not of propelled Christianity, or, had "Rome" ultimately backed another 'religion', Christianity would likely have existed as yet another non dominant, minority religion -- similar in status to Mithraism or other mystery cults of the era. (Note: this observation is not to argue for why Christianity is or isn't true, but to instead provide pushback against your claim).
(7) Since humans are deemed fallible, and Jesus was literate, and further, gaining actual insight and context is paramount -- as it relates to <salvation vs. not>, then why didn't Jesus just (write and preserve) the actual message(s) himself? (Note: Is it because he could not have done a better job conveying truth, versus the actual deemed fallible human authors)?
(8) How do we KNOW Genesis is not to be taken somewhat literally, in its many claims? (Note: Many fall away from the religion due to a literal interpretation of Genesis which will ultimately lead to their 'damnation'. Further, stop lights and stop signs -- most aren't running them, warning labels - most understand, non-fictional writings -- most aren't arguing they are metaphorical, etc. And yet, the same understanding is not even achieved with the concept of 'hell'- which is arguably a massive topic under this worldview).
(9) Is it logically possible for an ("omni") God to clearly communicate to "free will" agents — such that most or all understand the message correctly? (Note: If so, why is not the same level of universal understanding obtained about the concept of 'hell', versus the aforementioned topics above --in (8) -- and other?)
(10) The concept of Heaven does not look to logically work, from the Biblical view. Why? If you continue to have free will in Heaven, you are still capable of sin. And yet, Heaven is a sinless place. Just because you now have full revelation of God does not then guarantee one to then become sinless. Further, some atheists admit that if they received revelation from god, as you state will happen in Heaven, then such atheists would then follow/worship/etc. Some atheists admit that the problem of "divine hiddenness" is the reason they do not believe. And yet, according to the Bible, belief is a prerequisite requirement for salvation. It is a catch-22.
(11) Why are the expressed topics of (Genesis and Hell) not met with "maximal understanding"? Meaning, why is (whether or not) Genesis is <literal or not> 'maximally understood', just like it is so with many other topics in the Bible and also outside the Bible? Further, why is "maximal understanding" not met with (whether or not) Hell means <eternal conscious torture or not>, like instead 'maximal understanding' is expressed with many other laws, and their expressed punishment(s)?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #96]

Your support for your P1 seems to be “come on, Tanager, you really agree with me that the creation of animal suffering is inherently evil, you just don’t want to admit it” instead of actual support.

Under the Christian worldview, is (gratuitous or unnecessary) suffering 1) good, 2) evil, or 3) situational/neither?

My answer seems to fall under your (3).

You stated "Romans 2 is saying that they do have the law on their conscience"

My response means you agree with me. We are just using differing words, which still means the same exact thing. Meaning, we inherently know "right" from "wrong" or "good" vs. "evil", because we now possess this knowledgebase from God. Whether or not we actually act upon these inherent thoughts is another matter. Hence, it is no more than 'quibbling' over word phrase(s), which still address the same exact point.

You also stated "but it does not say that all of their “gut feelings” are true or from God"

Does this mean our own "gut feelings', about what is 'evil', is not god-provided?

Yes, that’s my point and why we aren’t actually agreeing here. I agree there is a moral conscience that we each have, but the situation is more complex than that. We have to apply these principles to the facts of our world and we have personal agendas and desires and we try to justify it and twist principles to make what we feel we want in the moment to be the right decision. What we feel in our gut can be the result of dulling and distorting that moral conscience.

Romans 2 says that sometimes the moral conscience breaks through for Gentiles, just as it does for Jews. Genesis 3 describes humans distorting that moral conscience and trying to decide for themselves what is moral and trying to justify that decision.

Couldn't an "omni' god have created a world where animals are either herbivores, or do not even need to eat at all -- and still accomplish his over-all goal(s) for humanity/other? If not, why not?

I’ve said multiple times that it is your burden to show that God could do this instead of just saying it is a possibility. Why? Because you are making the positive claim that the creation of animal suffering shows God to be evil. Yes, that’s true, if He could accomplish his goals for creation without doing so.

Still to come...

(1) What is god's version of justice? (Note: Inquiring minds really want to know).
(2) Does 'free will' exist under the Christian worldview, and does Jesus present coercion -- (according to Mk 16:15-16, Matt 28:41, John 3:18, Rev 20:15)? (Note: Your will is likely not free, under the Christian world view, as coercion is presented).
(3) Is belief even a choice at all, and if so, does Jesus present (a choice) or a (free choice)? (Note: If belief is really a choice, then I can freely choose to believe in the Easter Bunny without convincing presented evidence).
(4) Is there an ‘omni’ problem? (Note: Defer to William's argument?.?.?)
(5) Name one thing from the Bible that humans could not think of, or write, on their own accord alone (Note: I doubt you can locate one or some)?
(6) Had Constantine and Theodosius not of propelled Christianity, or, had "Rome" ultimately backed another 'religion', Christianity would likely have existed as yet another non dominant, minority religion -- similar in status to Mithraism or other mystery cults of the era. (Note: this observation is not to argue for why Christianity is or isn't true, but to instead provide pushback against your claim).
(7) Since humans are deemed fallible, and Jesus was literate, and further, gaining actual insight and context is paramount -- as it relates to <salvation vs. not>, then why didn't Jesus just (write and preserve) the actual message(s) himself? (Note: Is it because he could not have done a better job conveying truth, versus the actual deemed fallible human authors)?
(8) How do we KNOW Genesis is not to be taken somewhat literally, in its many claims? (Note: Many fall away from the religion due to a literal interpretation of Genesis which will ultimately lead to their 'damnation'. Further, stop lights and stop signs -- most aren't running them, warning labels - most understand, non-fictional writings -- most aren't arguing they are metaphorical, etc. And yet, the same understanding is not even achieved with the concept of 'hell'- which is arguably a massive topic under this worldview).
(9) Is it logically possible for an ("omni") God to clearly communicate to "free will" agents — such that most or all understand the message correctly? (Note: If so, why is not the same level of universal understanding obtained about the concept of 'hell', versus the aforementioned topics above --in (8) -- and other?)
(10) The concept of Heaven does not look to logically work, from the Biblical view. Why? If you continue to have free will in Heaven, you are still capable of sin. And yet, Heaven is a sinless place. Just because you now have full revelation of God does not then guarantee one to then become sinless. Further, some atheists admit that if they received revelation from god, as you state will happen in Heaven, then such atheists would then follow/worship/etc. Some atheists admit that the problem of "divine hiddenness" is the reason they do not believe. And yet, according to the Bible, belief is a prerequisite requirement for salvation. It is a catch-22.
(11) Why are the expressed topics of (Genesis and Hell) not met with "maximal understanding"? Meaning, why is (whether or not) Genesis is <literal or not> 'maximally understood', just like it is so with many other topics in the Bible and also outside the Bible? Further, why is "maximal understanding" not met with (whether or not) Hell means <eternal conscious torture or not>, like instead 'maximal understanding' is expressed with many other laws, and their expressed punishment(s)?
[/quote]

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #96]

Your support for your P1 seems to be “come on, Tanager, you really agree with me that the creation of animal suffering is inherently evil, you just don’t want to admit it” instead of actual support.

Under the Christian worldview, is (gratuitous or unnecessary) suffering 1) good, 2) evil, or 3) situational/neither?

My answer seems to fall under your (3).

Thank you for answering the question. Can you now please explain the rationale for your given choice?

Yes, that’s my point and why we aren’t actually agreeing here. I agree there is a moral conscience that we each have, but the situation is more complex than that. We have to apply these principles to the facts of our world and we have personal agendas and desires and we try to justify it and twist principles to make what we feel we want in the moment to be the right decision. What we feel in our gut can be the result of dulling and distorting that moral conscience.

Under the Christian worldview, wouldn't any 'gut feeling', which does not align with god's 'gut feeling', be the work of 'evil' to some extent? If so, then my point still stands, in that we all know, 'deep down', what is right/wrong (or) moral/immoral (or) good/evil. But we do not all act upon it. Meaning, if God did not allow for anymore "evil" in the world, we would all always agree, as we would all think like god.

(sidenote for the above) - Jesus came to earth, battled evil, and did not ever waver.

Romans 2 says that sometimes the moral conscience breaks through for Gentiles, just as it does for Jews. Genesis 3 describes humans distorting that moral conscience and trying to decide for themselves what is moral and trying to justify that decision.

Addressed above...

Yes, that’s true, if He could accomplish his goals for creation without doing so.

Before I proceed further, what is your view, as to what specific role animals actually play, in regard to god's over-all ultimate plan? Further, is it just a 'hunch' or can it be backed by the Bible?

Still to come...

(1) What is god's version of justice? (Note: Inquiring minds really want to know).
(2) Does 'free will' exist under the Christian worldview, and does Jesus present coercion -- (according to Mk 16:15-16, Matt 28:41, John 3:18, Rev 20:15)? (Note: Your will is likely not free, under the Christian world view, as coercion is presented).
(3) Is belief even a choice at all, and if so, does Jesus present (a choice) or a (free choice)? (Note: If belief is really a choice, then I can freely choose to believe in the Easter Bunny without convincing presented evidence).
(4) Is there an ‘omni’ problem? (Note: Defer to William's argument?.?.?)
(5) Name one thing from the Bible that humans could not think of, or write, on their own accord alone (Note: I doubt you can locate one or some)?
(6) Had Constantine and Theodosius not of propelled Christianity, or, had "Rome" ultimately backed another 'religion', Christianity would likely have existed as yet another non dominant, minority religion -- similar in status to Mithraism or other mystery cults of the era. (Note: this observation is not to argue for why Christianity is or isn't true, but to instead provide pushback against your claim).
(7) Since humans are deemed fallible, and Jesus was literate, and further, gaining actual insight and context is paramount -- as it relates to <salvation vs. not>, then why didn't Jesus just (write and preserve) the actual message(s) himself? (Note: Is it because he could not have done a better job conveying truth, versus the actual deemed fallible human authors)?
(8) How do we KNOW Genesis is not to be taken somewhat literally, in its many claims? (Note: Many fall away from the religion due to a literal interpretation of Genesis which will ultimately lead to their 'damnation'. Further, stop lights and stop signs -- most aren't running them, warning labels - most understand, non-fictional writings -- most aren't arguing they are metaphorical, etc. And yet, the same understanding is not even achieved with the concept of 'hell'- which is arguably a massive topic under this worldview).
(9) Is it logically possible for an ("omni") God to clearly communicate to "free will" agents — such that most or all understand the message correctly? (Note: If so, why is not the same level of universal understanding obtained about the concept of 'hell', versus the aforementioned topics above --in (8) -- and other?)
(10) The concept of Heaven does not look to logically work, from the Biblical view. Why? If you continue to have free will in Heaven, you are still capable of sin. And yet, Heaven is a sinless place. Just because you now have full revelation of God does not then guarantee one to then become sinless. Further, some atheists admit that if they received revelation from god, as you state will happen in Heaven, then such atheists would then follow/worship/etc. Some atheists admit that the problem of "divine hiddenness" is the reason they do not believe. And yet, according to the Bible, belief is a prerequisite requirement for salvation. It is a catch-22.
(11) Why are the expressed topics of (Genesis and Hell) not met with "maximal understanding"? Meaning, why is (whether or not) Genesis is <literal or not> 'maximally understood', just like it is so with many other topics in the Bible and also outside the Bible? Further, why is "maximal understanding" not met with (whether or not) Hell means <eternal conscious torture or not>, like instead 'maximal understanding' is expressed with many other laws, and their expressed punishment(s)?

[The Tanager]

Thank you for answering the question. Can you now please explain the rationale for your given choice?

To quickly recap and expand upon what I've already said on the subject, I don't think comfort is the ultimate goal in life. I think a world without suffering would lead to nothing really mattering in life and the joyful things in life are those things that matter. But also remember that the burden is yours here. You've got to show that the creation of animal suffering is evil for your argument to go forward, I don't have to show 3.

Under the Christian worldview, wouldn't any 'gut feeling', which does not align with god's 'gut feeling', be the work of 'evil' to some extent? If so, then my point still stands, in that we all know, 'deep down', what is right/wrong (or) moral/immoral (or) good/evil. But we do not all act upon it. Meaning, if God did not allow for anymore "evil" in the world, we would all always agree, as we would all think like god.

What do you mean the work of 'evil'? I also agree that God is responsible for evil possibly existing, if that is what you mean above. If I missed your point, please clarify.

Before I proceed further, what is your view, as to what specific role animals actually play, in regard to god's over-all ultimate plan? Further, is it just a 'hunch' or can it be backed by the Bible?

I believe animals reflect certain aspects of beauty and goodness (and, therefore, reflect God) and are meant to experience some joys as part of God's good creation. The Bible is not a systematic theology textbook, so this won't be directly backed by the Bible, but I think it comes out of the principles and narratives in there.

Still to come...

(1) What is god's version of justice? (Note: Inquiring minds really want to know).
(2) Does 'free will' exist under the Christian worldview, and does Jesus present coercion -- (according to Mk 16:15-16, Matt 28:41, John 3:18, Rev 20:15)? (Note: Your will is likely not free, under the Christian world view, as coercion is presented).
(3) Is belief even a choice at all, and if so, does Jesus present (a choice) or a (free choice)? (Note: If belief is really a choice, then I can freely choose to believe in the Easter Bunny without convincing presented evidence).
(4) Is there an ‘omni’ problem? (Note: Defer to William's argument?.?.?)
(5) Name one thing from the Bible that humans could not think of, or write, on their own accord alone (Note: I doubt you can locate one or some)?
(6) Had Constantine and Theodosius not of propelled Christianity, or, had "Rome" ultimately backed another 'religion', Christianity would likely have existed as yet another non dominant, minority religion -- similar in status to Mithraism or other mystery cults of the era. (Note: this observation is not to argue for why Christianity is or isn't true, but to instead provide pushback against your claim).
(7) Since humans are deemed fallible, and Jesus was literate, and further, gaining actual insight and context is paramount -- as it relates to <salvation vs. not>, then why didn't Jesus just (write and preserve) the actual message(s) himself? (Note: Is it because he could not have done a better job conveying truth, versus the actual deemed fallible human authors)?
(8) How do we KNOW Genesis is not to be taken somewhat literally, in its many claims? (Note: Many fall away from the religion due to a literal interpretation of Genesis which will ultimately lead to their 'damnation'. Further, stop lights and stop signs -- most aren't running them, warning labels - most understand, non-fictional writings -- most aren't arguing they are metaphorical, etc. And yet, the same understanding is not even achieved with the concept of 'hell'- which is arguably a massive topic under this worldview).
(9) Is it logically possible for an ("omni") God to clearly communicate to "free will" agents — such that most or all understand the message correctly? (Note: If so, why is not the same level of universal understanding obtained about the concept of 'hell', versus the aforementioned topics above --in (8) -- and other?)
(10) The concept of Heaven does not look to logically work, from the Biblical view. Why? If you continue to have free will in Heaven, you are still capable of sin. And yet, Heaven is a sinless place. Just because you now have full revelation of God does not then guarantee one to then become sinless. Further, some atheists admit that if they received revelation from god, as you state will happen in Heaven, then such atheists would then follow/worship/etc. Some atheists admit that the problem of "divine hiddenness" is the reason they do not believe. And yet, according to the Bible, belief is a prerequisite requirement for salvation. It is a catch-22.
(11) Why are the expressed topics of (Genesis and Hell) not met with "maximal understanding"? Meaning, why is (whether or not) Genesis is <literal or not> 'maximally understood', just like it is so with many other topics in the Bible and also outside the Bible? Further, why is "maximal understanding" not met with (whether or not) Hell means <eternal conscious torture or not>, like instead 'maximal understanding' is expressed with many other laws, and their expressed punishment(s)?
[/quote]

[POI]

I don't think comfort is the ultimate goal in life. I think a world without suffering would lead to nothing really mattering in life and the joyful things in life are those things that matter.

But does (animals/insects/other) need the inclusion of <perpetual fear, or actually directly experiencing being eaten alive>, to achieve joyful things in life?

Well, this circles us right back to (P2) of my given argument. Traditionally, Christian theology has held that animals are incapable of experiencing the moral, spiritual, or intellectual growth that human "soul-making" theodicy often claims justifies such suffering. Which is the reason humans are argued to experience suffering. Is your position that (animals/insects/other) can achieve "theodicy" too?

But also remember that the burden is yours here. You've got to show that the creation of animal suffering is evil for your argument to go forward,

P1) Your "god given moral compass" tells you that gratuitous suffering is immoral. -- (If "evil" did not exist, we'd all know/agree).
P2) God created conscious animals which suffer, while lacking the given theological reason(s) for suffering --<via a), b), and/or c)>, which renders their suffering <outside of the possibility of achieving a), b), and/or c)> gratuitous. - (I still do not see why animals have to eat at all, let alone eat other animals at all in relation to the topic of joy verses suffering)?
P3) Therefore, creating conscious animals, who suffer without having the ability in achieving <a), b), and/or c)> is immoral.

I don't have to show 3.

I'm merely asking you to explain your choice, for more clarity. For instance, choice 3) states both situational or neither - (which means neither good or evil). Care to explain which of these two you have selected and why?

What do you mean the work of 'evil'?

Any (position/thought/opinion) contrary to what god deems as good. As I stated prior, Jesus was sent to earth and was tempted by "evil", and was apparently the only one to be 100% successful in avoiding all 'evil'. What I'm saying is that if 'evil' was removed, we would always align with our "god given moral compass". Hence, when you say ("we have personal agendas and desires and we try to justify it and twist principles to make what we feel we want in the moment to be the right decision"), these are all the works of the presence of 'evil'.

I believe animals reflect certain aspects of beauty and goodness (and, therefore, reflect God) and are meant to experience some joys as part of God's good creation. The Bible is not a systematic theology textbook, so this won't be directly backed by the Bible, but I think it comes out of the principles and narratives in there.

Or it may all be wishful thinking, as you admit you cannot back it up.

Still to come...

(1) What is god's version of justice? (Note: Inquiring minds really want to know).
(2) Does 'free will' exist under the Christian worldview, and does Jesus present coercion -- (according to Mk 16:15-16, Matt 28:41, John 3:18, Rev 20:15)? (Note: Your will is likely not free, under the Christian world view, as coercion is presented).
(3) Is belief even a choice at all, and if so, does Jesus present (a choice) or a (free choice)? (Note: If belief is really a choice, then I can freely choose to believe in the Easter Bunny without convincing presented evidence).
(4) Is there an ‘omni’ problem? (Note: Defer to William's argument?.?.?)
(5) Name one thing from the Bible that humans could not think of, or write, on their own accord alone (Note: I doubt you can locate one or some)?
(6) Had Constantine and Theodosius not of propelled Christianity, or, had "Rome" ultimately backed another 'religion', Christianity would likely have existed as yet another non dominant, minority religion -- similar in status to Mithraism or other mystery cults of the era. (Note: this observation is not to argue for why Christianity is or isn't true, but to instead provide pushback against your claim).
(7) Since humans are deemed fallible, and Jesus was literate, and further, gaining actual insight and context is paramount -- as it relates to <salvation vs. not>, then why didn't Jesus just (write and preserve) the actual message(s) himself? (Note: Is it because he could not have done a better job conveying truth, versus the actual deemed fallible human authors)?
(8) How do we KNOW Genesis is not to be taken somewhat literally, in its many claims? (Note: Many fall away from the religion due to a literal interpretation of Genesis which will ultimately lead to their 'damnation'. Further, stop lights and stop signs -- most aren't running them, warning labels - most understand, non-fictional writings -- most aren't arguing they are metaphorical, etc. And yet, the same understanding is not even achieved with the concept of 'hell'- which is arguably a massive topic under this worldview).
(9) Is it logically possible for an ("omni") God to clearly communicate to "free will" agents — such that most or all understand the message correctly? (Note: If so, why is not the same level of universal understanding obtained about the concept of 'hell', versus the aforementioned topics above --in (8) -- and other?)
(10) The concept of Heaven does not look to logically work, from the Biblical view. Why? If you continue to have free will in Heaven, you are still capable of sin. And yet, Heaven is a sinless place. Just because you now have full revelation of God does not then guarantee one to then become sinless. Further, some atheists admit that if they received revelation from god, as you state will happen in Heaven, then such atheists would then follow/worship/etc. Some atheists admit that the problem of "divine hiddenness" is the reason they do not believe. And yet, according to the Bible, belief is a prerequisite requirement for salvation. It is a catch-22.
(11) Why are the expressed topics of (Genesis and Hell) not met with "maximal understanding"? Meaning, why is (whether or not) Genesis is <literal or not> 'maximally understood', just like it is so with many other topics in the Bible and also outside the Bible? Further, why is "maximal understanding" not met with (whether or not) Hell means <eternal conscious torture or not>, like instead 'maximal understanding' is expressed with many other laws, and their expressed punishment(s)?