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?'

[William]

[Replying to William in post #69]

This response does not look to address my question. Allow me to rephrase. Since the Bible states, in some spot(s), that the Bible god is all-knowing, and in other spot(s), the Bible alternatively states that the Bible god is not all-knowing, isn't this a direct contradiction, which-in-turn is worthy of then dismissing the Bible god as a viable option?

It depends on whether one wants to do so or not. I have already agreed that the contradiction exists and said how I deal with it.

Given that there are two versions, I go with the viable one.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #64]

Even if the above is granted, despite a clear distinction between this collection of texts and it's aided 'omni' god directed handy-work, the Bible still falls well short of <even achieving maximal understanding> regardless. As stated, prior, countless believers are forced to (ignore/deny/handwave) the sciences, to protect an existing belief, as they read Genesis as literal. Otherwise, many will have no choice but to then accept the sciences, which in turn, forces their hand in rejecting Genesis. -- Rendering their prior belief disproven to them. I just went through this with another interlocutor -- (who was banned and came back under a different name).

Yes, if people treat the Bible as something it is not (such as Genesis being a hyper-literal modern historical account or scientific textbook), then find problems with it because of that, they will reject the Bible as a source of truth. How is this God's fault?

The content of the scene doesn’t matter for this point.

Yes, it does matter. Your given example is an 'amoral' topic and this one is not. An (unnecessary scene) in a movie would still be deemed an 'amoral' topic regardless of if it is later deemed an actual necessary scene or not. However, (unnecessary suffering) would instead be discussed under a 'moral' topic, regardless of if it is later deemed necessary or not.

I'm questioning your claim that the creation of animal suffering is a moral rather than an amoral act. I asked you for support for that move and you said it's a moral act (an evil one) because it is unnecessary. Pointing out other things that are unnecessary and amoral fits that context perfectly.

But even if the creation of animal suffering is a moral rather than an amoral act, being unnecessary doesn't mean it is an evil one. Leaving a more generous tip at a restaurant than the standard amount in a kind way is a morally good act and it is unnecessary.

You need to establish animal suffering as evil to then be able to talk about whether it is a necessary evil or not.

See posts 48, 49, and 50. But to recap, since animals cannot establish a), b), and c) -- (as expressed prior), their suffering looks to be unnecessary. And I doubt such a god would deem unnecessary suffering as a 'good'.

I'm saying (1) show it is evil and then we can ask (2) is it a necessary evil or an unnecessary evil? Your recap is you skipping to (2), not answering (1) or showing why (1) is irrelevant or misordered.

Still to be addressed…

(1) What is god's version of justice?
(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)?
(3) Is belief even a choice at all, and if so, does Jesus present (a choice) or a (free choice)?
(4) Is there an ‘omni’ problem?
(5) Name one thing from the Bible that humans could not think of, or write, on their own accord alone

[POI]

Yes, if people treat the Bible as something it is not (such as Genesis being a hyper-literal modern historical account or scientific textbook), then find problems with it because of that, they will reject the Bible as a source of truth. How is this God's fault?

1) As alluded to prior, but not yet actually formally asked, (until now), is maximal understanding even granted? I'd say not, as a vast number believe that the expressed events from Genesis are literal.

2) Further, who came up with (the actual said punishment given) for such a rejection of the said Bible god?

I'm questioning your claim that the creation of animal suffering is a moral rather than an amoral act. I asked you for support for that move and you said it's a moral act (an evil one) because it is unnecessary. Pointing out other things that are unnecessary and amoral fits that context perfectly.

And I clarified by adding context... It is unnecessary because the animal kingdom will never achieve a), b), and c), (as expressed prior), and a), b), and c) are the reason(s) humans suffer, then we are speaking about a 'moral' topic', rather than an 'amoral' one, according to the Bible god. Animal suffering is pointless.

Gratuitous suffering is widely considered "immoral" because it serves no "good" purpose, violates core ethical principles like compassion, and lacks justification, unlike suffering that leads to growth or healing, (like surgery for a greater good for example). The core moral objection is that causing or allowing suffering, without a valid reason is inherently harmful and disrespectful to a sentient beings' well-being, often reducing them to mere means for some abstract end or simply out of "cruelty".

As I alluded to in posts 48, 49, and 50, maybe the Bible god simply likes to watch the gratuitous suffering of animals and still renders it 'good' arbitrarily? Alternatively, if all animal suffering is 'amoral', then no one would/could/should get angry or upset if someone decides to torture someone's house pet.

But even if the creation of animal suffering is a moral rather than an amoral act, being unnecessary doesn't mean it is an evil one.

See above.

Leaving a more generous tip at a restaurant than the standard amount in a kind way is a morally good act and it is unnecessary.

According to the Chistian worldview, humans get their 'moral compass' from the Bible god himself. If I were to poll 1.000 Christians, or even non-Christians too, --(as we are said to all get our "morals" from god), and I ask them - is gratuitous suffering moral, immoral, or amoral? What answer(s) do you think we would get?

I'm saying (1) show it is evil and then we can ask (2) is it a necessary evil or an unnecessary evil? Your recap is you skipping to (2), not answering (1) or showing why (1) is irrelevant or misordered.

1) Explained above, and prior.
2) Explained above, and prior.

Still to be addressed…

(1) What is god's version of justice?
(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)?
(3) Is belief even a choice at all, and if so, does Jesus present (a choice) or a (free choice)?
(4) Is there an ‘omni’ problem?
(5) Name one thing from the Bible that humans could not think of, or write, on their own accord alone

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #73]

1) As alluded to prior, but not yet actually formally asked, (until now), is maximal understanding even granted? I'd say not, as a vast number believe that the expressed events from Genesis are literal.

2) Further, who came up with (the actual said punishment given) for such a rejection of the said Bible god?

What do you mean by 'maximal understanding'? What is the 'actual said punishment given' you are talking about?

I'm questioning your claim that the creation of animal suffering is a moral rather than an amoral act. I asked you for support for that move and you said it's a moral act (an evil one) because it is unnecessary. Pointing out other things that are unnecessary and amoral fits that context perfectly.

And I clarified by adding context... It is unnecessary because the animal kingdom will never achieve a), b), and c), (as expressed prior), and a), b), and c) are the reason(s) humans suffer, then we are speaking about a 'moral' topic', rather than an 'amoral' one, according to the Bible god. Animal suffering is pointless.

Why does an animal's lack of rebellion against God, their incapability of faith and/or their incapability of (giving a?) theodicy mean the creation of their suffering is a moral issue instead of an amoral one? I'm not following your logic here. My best attempt is that maybe you are saying that God punishing them with suffering, even though they don't have 'abc', is immoral and, therefore, this makes it a moral issue rather than an amoral one, but that can't be right because saying it is a punishment assumes it is already evil or, at best, pushes the question back another level to where you need to justify it is a punishment (not over against being a reward but against 'punishment' being a category mistake as I think it is in this case).

Gratuitous suffering is widely considered "immoral" because it serves no "good" purpose, violates core ethical principles like compassion, and lacks justification, unlike suffering that leads to growth or healing, (like surgery for a greater good for example). The core moral objection is that causing or allowing suffering, without a valid reason is inherently harmful and disrespectful to a sentient beings' well-being, often reducing them to mere means for some abstract end or simply out of "cruelty".

And I'm questioning that logic as it assumes suffering is evil and must have a good purpose behind it in order to turn it good rather than viewing suffeirng in itself as amoral.

Alternatively, if all animal suffering is 'amoral', then no one would/could/should get angry or upset if someone decides to torture someone's house pet.

That does not logically follow. When talking about creating beings we are comparing (a) creating beings that both suffer and experience pleasure with (b) beings not existing at all. You are talking about comparing (c) trying to maximize that suffering versus (d) trying to minimize it. Choice (c) in the latter does not logically follow from choice (a) in the former.

According to the Chistian worldview, humans get their 'moral compass' from the Bible god himself. If I were to poll 1.000 Christians, or even non-Christians too, --(as we are said to all get our "morals" from god), and I ask them - is gratuitous suffering moral, immoral, or amoral? What answer(s) do you think we would get?

Probably immoral. Do you think polling is a good test of truth? If so, ask them if God exists and start using that in your discussions here as well.

Still to be addressed…

(1) What is god's version of justice?
(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)?
(3) Is belief even a choice at all, and if so, does Jesus present (a choice) or a (free choice)?
(4) Is there an ‘omni’ problem?
(5) Name one thing from the Bible that humans could not think of, or write, on their own accord alone

[POI]

What do you mean by 'maximal understanding'?

Did god provide guidance, within the Bible, to achieve actual maximal understanding for all? Meaning, giving his message in a way where the bare minimum possible actually believe Genesis is literal? I'd say no, since countless intelligent folks believe Genesis is literal.

What is the 'actual said punishment given' you are talking about?

Eternal torment is the assigned punishment for being wrong, even in earnest. How does this jive with a claimed all-loving god?

Why does an animal's lack of rebellion against God, their incapability of faith and/or their incapability of (giving a?) theodicy mean the creation of their suffering is a moral issue instead of an amoral one?

Because an all-loving god would not instead allow for the unnecessary suffering of conscious created agents if a), b), and c) would not or could not be accomplished. You know, the same reason humans apparently suffer.

I'm not following your logic here. My best attempt is that maybe you are saying that God punishing them with suffering, even though they don't have 'abc', is immoral and, therefore, this makes it a moral issue rather than an amoral one, but that can't be right because saying it is a punishment assumes it is already evil or, at best, pushes the question back another level to where you need to justify it is a punishment (not over against being a reward but against 'punishment' being a category mistake as I think it is in this case).

I'm not saying it is a punishment. I'm instead saying god created animal suffering and there is no valid theological reason(s) for the existence of this animal suffering. Which means that god is not an "all-loving god", but is instead a "sadistic voyeur", as he is watching needless suffering of animals, for which he could not have created in the first place (and/or) can later stop, and yet, chooses not to. Further, these animals cannot possibly achieve a, b, (and/or) c regardless. Hence, there is no viable reason(s) for their suffering, other than for the Bible god to watch their needless suffering.?.?

And I'm questioning that logic as it assumes suffering is evil and must have a good purpose behind it in order to turn it good rather than viewing suffeirng in itself as amoral.

Is gratuitous suffering "evil"? Again, I'm asking someone who possess the Christian worldview. I instead state it is illogical, based upon (and/or) compared to the claimed attributes of this 'omni' god.

That does not logically follow. When talking about creating beings we are comparing (a) creating beings that both suffer and experience pleasure with (b) beings not existing at all. You are talking about comparing (c) trying to maximize that suffering versus (d) trying to minimize it. Choice (c) in the latter does not logically follow from choice (a) in the former.

No. My position is that creating conscious created agents that experience suffering, with no chance for (redemption/other), unlike with humans who can, is gratuitous, and therefore illogical (and/or) 'evil', under the Christian worldview. This is exactly why proponents like WLC argue that animals do not actually feel 3rd order pain anyways. It is the apologetic go-to in avoiding the obvious problem.

Probably immoral.

I rest my case. Then please stop asking why gratuitous animal suffering is immoral.

Do you think polling is a good test of truth? If so, ask them if God exists and start using that in your discussions here as well.

You missed my point. I'm not necessary appealing to majority. But you folks believe that morals are "god given", which is why all agree that rape and murder are "bad". Well, all would universally agree gratuitous suffering is bad too. Hence, this is why the theist must argue that gratuitous animal suffering isn't really a thing for animals when we logically cannot find a reason for their suffering in the first place?.?.?.

Still to be addressed…

(1) What is god's version of justice?
(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)?
(3) Is belief even a choice at all, and if so, does Jesus present (a choice) or a (free choice)?
(4) Is there an ‘omni’ problem?
(5) Name one thing from the Bible that humans could not think of, or write, on their own accord alone

Yes

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #75]

Did god provide guidance, within the Bible, to achieve actual maximal understanding for all? Meaning, giving his message in a way where the bare minimum possible actually believe Genesis is literal? I'd say no, since countless intelligent folks believe Genesis is literal.

First, it’s logically impossible to guarantee “maximal understanding” if free will exists. Second, understanding the main message of Genesis is not obscured by believing Genesis is literal.

What is the 'actual said punishment given' you are talking about?

Eternal torment is the assigned punishment for being wrong, even in earnest. How does this jive with a claimed all-loving god?

I don’t believe the Bible teaches the eternal torment view. Hell is still the “punishment”, but it’s logically impossible to create a loving community of free will beings experiencing the fullness of life without the possibility of hell. And to let those who won’t allow themselves to be led into real love (because that’s the only way we can get there) and, therefore, continue to cause damage, to forever torment those who are willing to be led into real love is not just.

Why does an animal's lack of rebellion against God, their incapability of faith and/or their incapability of (giving a?) theodicy mean the creation of their suffering is a moral issue instead of an amoral one?

Because an all-loving god would not instead allow for the unnecessary suffering of conscious created agents if a), b), and c) would not or could not be accomplished. You know, the same reason humans apparently suffer.

That’s just restating your position, not answering my question concerning support for that position. I don’t think the creation of human suffering itself is evil, either.

I'm not following your logic here. My best attempt is that maybe you are saying that God punishing them with suffering, even though they don't have 'abc', is immoral and, therefore, this makes it a moral issue rather than an amoral one, but that can't be right because saying it is a punishment assumes it is already evil or, at best, pushes the question back another level to where you need to justify it is a punishment (not over against being a reward but against 'punishment' being a category mistake as I think it is in this case).

I'm not saying it is a punishment. I'm instead saying god created animal suffering and there is no valid theological reason(s) for the existence of this animal suffering. Which means that god is not an "all-loving god", but is instead a "sadistic voyeur", as he is watching needless suffering of animals, for which he could not have created in the first place (and/or) can later stop, and yet, chooses not to. Further, these animals cannot possibly achieve a, b, (and/or) c regardless. Hence, there is no viable reason(s) for their suffering, other than for the Bible god to watch their needless suffering.?.

If it isn’t evil, then why does there need to be a valid theological reason for allowing it to exist?

And I'm questioning that logic as it assumes suffering is evil and must have a good purpose behind it in order to turn it good rather than viewing suffeirng in itself as amoral.

Is gratuitous suffering "evil"? Again, I'm asking someone who possess the Christian worldview. I instead state it is illogical, based upon (and/or) compared to the claimed attributes of this 'omni' god.

And I’ve been telling you that I think the creation of the ability to suffer is not evil. You’ve got to show it is evil (and then unnecessary evil) for your argument to go through.

That does not logically follow. When talking about creating beings we are comparing (a) creating beings that both suffer and experience pleasure with (b) beings not existing at all. You are talking about comparing (c) trying to maximize that suffering versus (d) trying to minimize it. Choice (c) in the latter does not logically follow from choice (a) in the former.

No. My position is that creating conscious created agents that experience suffering, with no chance for (redemption/other), unlike with humans who can, is gratuitous, and therefore illogical (and/or) 'evil', under the Christian worldview. This is exactly why proponents like WLC argue that animals do not actually feel 3rd order pain anyways. It is the apologetic go-to in avoiding the obvious problem.

Yes, some Christians take that path; I don’t. You are talking to me, not WLC. Rationally support your position that creating conscious agents that experience suffering with no chance of redemption/other is evil. A poll doesn't accomplish that.

Still to be addressed…

(1) What is god's version of justice?
(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)?
(3) Is belief even a choice at all, and if so, does Jesus present (a choice) or a (free choice)?
(4) Is there an ‘omni’ problem?
(5) Name one thing from the Bible that humans could not think of, or write, on their own accord alone

[POI]

First, it’s logically impossible to guarantee “maximal understanding” if free will exists. Second, understanding the main message of Genesis is not obscured by believing Genesis is literal.

1) My point is there exists many literary works, written by humans alone, where the vast majority understand if the collection of claims is meant to be taken as (literal or not). Why is it so hard for the Bible god to do the same?

2) My point here is that many will ultimately reject Genesis, and therefore, the rest of the Bible, if they believe Genesis is supposed to be actual claims, and yet, later find out they are incorrect claims in reality. But sure, a 'moral message' can be obtained in both intended fiction and non-fiction. But the question remains, did the author mean for these claims to be literal, or not? The stakes are high for many. And the Christian god apparently created these stakes.

I don’t believe the Bible teaches the eternal torment view.

I understand why you can take this position. And the reason is more support for the above, in that an 'omni' god could do a better job in achieving maximal understanding. Many Christians fear some of their loved ones will experience (ECT) if not chosen, as the Bible is ambiguous or unclear, when reading Matthew 25:46, as the term 'eternal punishment' is not fully clarified. However, this statement resides in the same exact sentence as also stating 'eternal life.' And I doubt most would think the concept of Heaven is temporary, if only reading Matthew 25:31-46 - (where Jesus is said to be speaking directly). Meaning, Jesus is pretty clear about Heaven, but not Hell.

Hell is still the “punishment”, but it’s logically impossible to create a loving community of free will beings experiencing the fullness of life without the possibility of hell. And to let those who won’t allow themselves to be led into real love (because that’s the only way we can get there) and, therefore, continue to cause damage, to forever torment those who are willing to be led into real love is not just.

1) Again, it is debatable as to (whether or not) the author meant (ECT). Seems a little odd though that a claimed all loving god would leave such a perceived massive threat so dang debatable, (especially if the intent does not involve ECT)?
2) Any concept of 'free will' would necessarily have to be taken away in Heaven regardless, as there is no more "sin" in Heaven. All were sinners before natural death, and then, sin no more after death and cross the Heavenly entrance/threshold. Hence, all could go regardless, as you are no longer really you anymore anyways, once you cross those 'pearly gates.'

That’s just restating your position, not answering my question concerning support for that position. I don’t think the creation of human suffering itself is evil, either.

P1) Your "god given moral compass" tells you that gratuitous suffering is immoral.
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.
P3) Therefore, creating conscious animals, who suffer without having the ability in achieving <a), b), and/or c)> is immoral.

Rationally support your position that creating conscious agents that experience suffering with no chance of redemption/other is evil.

As cited above, my position is that, under the Christian worldview, animal suffering is gratuitous. And your 'god given moral compass' tells you that gratuitous suffering is evil.

Still to be addressed…

(1) What is god's version of justice?
(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)?
(3) Is belief even a choice at all, and if so, does Jesus present (a choice) or a (free choice)?
(4) Is there an ‘omni’ problem?
(5) Name one thing from the Bible that humans could not think of, or write, on their own accord alone

Sure.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #77]

1) My point is there exists many literary works, written by humans alone, where the vast majority understand if the collection of claims is meant to be taken as (literal or not). Why is it so hard for the Bible god to do the same?

And others that have also been confusing on that front, but none as wide reaching, across almost all cultures and levels of society like the Bible.

2) My point here is that many will ultimately reject Genesis, and therefore, the rest of the Bible, if they believe Genesis is supposed to be actual claims, and yet, later find out they are incorrect claims in reality.

Yes, by their own fault and agendas.

I understand why you can take this position. And the reason is more support for the above, in that an 'omni' god could do a better job in achieving maximal understanding. Many Christians fear some of their loved ones will experience (ECT) if not chosen, as the Bible is ambiguous or unclear, when reading Matthew 25:46, as the term 'eternal punishment' is not fully clarified. However, this statement resides in the same exact sentence as also stating 'eternal life.' And I doubt most would think the concept of Heaven is temporary, if only reading Matthew 25:31-46 - (where Jesus is said to be speaking directly). Meaning, Jesus is pretty clear about Heaven, but not Hell.

Neither would they think God’s act of judgment Hebrews 6:2) goes on forever, repeating itself or that Jesus act of redeeming us keeps going (Hebrews 9:12). So why here for heaven and hell? I bet it has more to do with extra works by medievalists and other more modern writers then from understanding the Bible.

1) Again, it is debatable as to (whether or not) the author meant (ECT). Seems a little odd though that a claimed all loving god would leave such a perceived massive threat so dang debatable, (especially if the intent does not involve ECT)?

Not doing logical impossibilities is far from odd to me.

2) Any concept of 'free will' would necessarily have to be taken away in Heaven regardless, as there is no more "sin" in Heaven. All were sinners before natural death, and then, sin no more after death and cross the Heavenly entrance/threshold. Hence, all could go regardless, as you are no longer really you anymore anyways, once you cross those 'pearly gates.'

No, it's not taken away. Those in heaven don't sin because they've learned to trust God, not because free will is taken away.

P1) Your "god given moral compass" tells you that gratuitous suffering is immoral.
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.
P3) Therefore, creating conscious animals, who suffer without having the ability in achieving <a), b), and/or c)> is immoral.

Support for P1? Also, clarify if you are talking about the creation of beings who suffer naturally or inflicting extra suffering on those beings.

Still to be addressed…

(1) What is god's version of justice?
(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)?
(3) Is belief even a choice at all, and if so, does Jesus present (a choice) or a (free choice)?
(4) Is there an ‘omni’ problem?
(5) Name one thing from the Bible that humans could not think of, or write, on their own accord alone

[POI]

1) And others that have also been confusing on that front, 2) but none as wide reaching, across almost all cultures and levels of society like the Bible.

1) Thanks for (acknowledging/admitting) that some of the messaging may be unnecessarily confusing.
2) The Bible is what it is, in part, because of ancient Rome and also 'the sword'. But it will soon likely be over-taken by the deemed Holy Koran anyways. So what?

Yes, by their own fault and agendas.

This does not address the core of my last response here. Did the authors of the Bible mean for Genesis to be taken more-so literally, or not? Case/point, no one worth their salt is arguing that the 'resurrection' was not a literal event, as opposed to a mere 'metaphorical event', to convey its moral message.

Neither would they think God’s act of judgment Hebrews 6:2) goes on forever, repeating itself or that Jesus act of redeeming us keeps going (Hebrews 9:12). So why here for heaven and hell? I bet it has more to do with extra works by medievalists and other more modern writers then from understanding the Bible.

Since Jesus wrote basically nothing himself, as well as also not bothering to preserve anything himself, I guess we will never really know -- (as to what 'Jesus' really meant about the concept of hell), will we? Meaning, who knows what was corrupted?

No, it's not taken away. Those in heaven don't sin because they've learned to trust God, not because free will is taken away.

1) Then by your logic, absolutely no one has ever trusted god here on earth, as all still "sin". Why would the mere act of dying then, (all of a sudden), mean that any humans then really trust god, especially if all are sinners up to the point of their death? God instead has to change you.

2) Further, the Bible says (1 John 1:9 - If we confess our sins, he who is faithful and just will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.):

a) This verse implies that Jesus transforms you. Which then means you are no longer really you anymore. At least not exactly your former self. Hence, just send all into Heaven.
b) Millions confess their sins, on the daily to god, and yet, are still sinners. Heaven would be full of sin unless god changes something in you, as (trust and confession) are not what then makes you become sinless.

Support for P1?

Romans 2:14-15 - "When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. 15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them".

This verse alone asserts that we all have a 'god given moral compass'. This is why I asked what I asked prior, and you answered how you answered - (regarding if many were to be asked -- is gratuitous suffering moral, immoral, or amoral)? You stated, 'probably immoral'. Your 'god given moral compass' then agrees that gratuitous suffering would not be moral. For which I replied, "I rest my case".

Also, clarify if you are talking about the creation of beings who suffer naturally or inflicting extra suffering on those beings.

In the case of animals/other, it's likely (either/or). Since the animal kingdom is incapable of a), b) and c), (which are the given theological reason(s) for why earthly suffering even exists), animal suffering, (whether it be natural or inflicted), are both instead gratuitous. And, according to your 'god given' worldview, gratuitous suffering is 'evil'.

Hence, P3 looks to be validated by both P1 and P2.

Still to come...

(1) What is god's version of justice?
(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)?
(3) Is belief even a choice at all, and if so, does Jesus present (a choice) or a (free choice)?
(4) Is there an ‘omni’ problem?
(5) Name one thing from the Bible that humans could not think of, or write, on their own accord alone

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #79]

1) Thanks for (acknowledging/admitting) that some of the messaging may be unnecessarily confusing.

Or I was saying that the disagreements about those texts are also not the author’s fault.

2) The Bible is what it is, in part, because of ancient Rome and also 'the sword'. But it will soon likely be over-taken by the deemed Holy Koran anyways. So what?

No, Rome stamped approval of it hundreds of years later, that's it. And the sword did not change anything in it.

This does not address the core of my last response here. Did the authors of the Bible mean for Genesis to be taken more-so literally, or not?

I've already told you I don't think they meant it literally.

Case/point, no one worth their salt is arguing that the 'resurrection' was not a literal event, as opposed to a mere 'metaphorical event', to convey its moral message.

People do argue that, even though it's absolutely clear it is meant as a literal event. Yet, your principle would have us blame the authors for a lack of clarity. No, it's the readers’ fault and this example you brought up illustrated the point perfectly.

Since Jesus wrote basically nothing himself, as well as also not bothering to preserve anything himself, I guess we will never really know -- (as to what 'Jesus' really meant about the concept of hell), will we? Meaning, who knows what was corrupted?

We are able to reconstruct what these texts say and have high confidence that Jesus taught these things. We don't have 100% certainty, but reasonable people don't resort to that standard.

1) Then by your logic, absolutely no one has ever trusted god here on earth, as all still "sin". Why would the mere act of dying then, (all of a sudden), mean that any humans then really trust god, especially if all are sinners up to the point of their death? God instead has to change you.

By my logic no one has ever perfectly trusted God here on earth, yes. The difference is that we actually see God's full presence there. And that full presence has to come after having free will, perfecting it; coming at the start would have overwhelmed our freedom.

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

Support for P1?

Romans 2:14-15 - "When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. 15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them".

This verse alone asserts that we all have a 'god given moral compass'. This is why I asked what I asked prior, and you answered how you answered - (regarding if many were to be asked -- is gratuitous suffering moral, immoral, or amoral)? You stated, 'probably immoral'. Your 'god given moral compass' then agrees that gratuitous suffering would not be moral. For which I replied, "I rest my case".

You asked me what most Christians would answer. You don't judge what a God-given moral compass says off a poll. Christianity clearly teaches we don't follow our moral compass. That's why you can't rest your case. Do you have rational support for P1?

Also, clarify if you are talking about the creation of beings who suffer naturally or inflicting extra suffering on those beings.

In the case of animals/other, it's likely (either/or). Since the animal kingdom is incapable of a), b) and c), (which are the given theological reason(s) for why earthly suffering even exists), animal suffering, (whether it be natural or inflicted), are both instead gratuitous. And, according to your 'god given' worldview, gratuitous suffering is 'evil'.

Only one is relevant here, the former. My worldview does not say animal suffering of that kind is evil, so please support it to keep your argument alive.

Still to come...

(1) What is god's version of justice?
(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)?
(3) Is belief even a choice at all, and if so, does Jesus present (a choice) or a (free choice)?
(4) Is there an ‘omni’ problem?
(5) Name one thing from the Bible that humans could not think of, or write, on their own accord alone