Aminals die its nature, humans die it's bad God

[JayJayDee]

Up Front this is about the Abrahamic related God.

Watched an HBO DOCU about Darwin, and while it was kind of lame, a question surfaced to the top of my mind when it was ending.

Many anti-theists point out that the Abrahamic God would be a cruel God if it existed, to allow such human suffering that we witness around us.
Then they will visit the plains of Africa and when a child gasps at a lion feeding on a giraffe, the child is told, it is the circle of life and while it seems hard, it is a beautiful and harsh part of our life, all at the same time.

It seems to me there is a slight double standard here, and slight hypocrisy, maybe?

Before you respond with God could stop suffering so it is therefor all bad when we include this God, but it is perfectly natural and alright when we eliminate God.

I understand your arguments, it just seems something is off with the whole perspective.

If you begin with a false premise, everything you build on that premise will also be false. Correct?

What if God did not intend for suffering to ever exist for either man or animals? What if predation was never part of God's original purpose? If death came to animals as a consequence of a good life and a ripe old age, would you call that suffering? Is a natural cycle of life and death really such a bad thing to creatures who have no concept of their own death?...and who make no big deal out of the passing of others, including their own kind and kin? Going against a programmed instinct is not necessarily recognition of death, although in some of the more intelligent mammals, it may seem so.

That animals suffer cannot be denied....humans suffer too, sometimes dreadfully and often at the hands of their own kind. It is the source of the suffering that must be determined however.

If you take into consideration the restoration prophesies in Isaiah you discover something very interesting.

In Isaiah 11, after prophetically describing Messiah's coming rule and his judgments upon both the righteous and the wicked of humanity, Isaiah goes onto to say...

"The wolf will reside for a while with the lamb, And with the young goat the leopard will lie down,
And the calf and the lion and the fattened animal will all be together; And a little boy will lead them.
The cow and the bear will feed together,
And their young will lie down together. The lion will eat straw like the bull. The nursing child will play over the lair of a cobra,
And a weaned child will put his hand over the den of a poisonous snake. They will not cause any harm Or any ruin in all my holy mountain, Because the earth will certainly be filled with the knowledge of Jehovah
As the waters cover the sea." (Isa 11:6-11)

What do you see there? I see no single cause of harm from any creature counted worthy to enjoy life on this planet.
I see predatory animals eating vegetation and venomous creatures causing no problems.

If they will do no harm then, it is logical that they were to do no harm before. This is a 'restoration' of God's original purpose for the earth, before man and the devil messed it up by abusing their gift of free will.

Looking at the situation from the Creator's perspective, instead of from man's very limited view, we can see what was lost by Adam and his wife, not only for themselves, but for all their children.

Their first home was paradise, with an abundance of everything they needed to not only sustain their lives forever, but to enjoy every moment of it. Do we imagine any kind of suffering in paradise? Even the animals would not have preyed on each other. The most powerful creatures on earth today are herbivores. Even man at first was not a meat eater. (Gen 9:1-7)

The first humans chose a course of disobedience (along with its stated consequence) and left the Creator with no choice but to allow them to 'reap what they had sown'. By giving the devil control over the earth's domain, God allowed him to prove that he was the better choice of god and ruler. (Luke 4:5-8) What has been proven though?
Man's rulership under the devil's influence is an abysmal failure.

Don't we see that everything in this world has his stamp on it? (1 John 5:19) There is hardly any speck of God's original goodness in any part of it, (except in small pockets of goodness in individual acts of kindness)


A brief window was opened up when Christ came. He represented his Father on earth and showed us what the true God is really like. But not long after he left, man was again at the mercy of the devil's rule. (2 Cor 4:3, 4) He left us a written record so that future disciples could benefit from his teachings. Only the 'coming' of Messiah's rule would fix it. (Matt 6:9, 10)

'Wheat and weeds' is what Jesus warned about. He said that both true and false Christians would exist in the world together....but that only "few" are on the road to life. (Matt 7:13, 14, 13:36-43) Both would grow together in the world until it was time for the harvest. Then the weeds will be eliminated and the wheat will be free to grow unhindered.


Isaiah 65 also furnishes us with a glimpse into the future...

"For look! I am creating new heavens and a new earth; And the former things will not be called to mind, Nor will they come up into the heart. So exult and be joyful forever in what I am creating. For look! I am creating Jerusalem a cause for joy
And her people a cause for exultation. And I will rejoice in Jerusalem and exult in my people; No more will there be heard in her the sound of weeping or a cry of distress.” (Isa 65:17-19)


"They will build houses and live in them, And they will plant vineyards and eat their fruitage. They will not build for someone else to inhabit,
Nor will they plant for others to eat. For the days of my people will be like the days of a tree, And the work of their hands my chosen ones will enjoy to the full.They will not toil for nothing, Nor will they bear children for distress,
Because they are the offspring made up of those blessed by Jehovah, And their descendants with them. Even before they call out, I will answer;
While they are yet speaking, I will hear. The wolf and the lamb will feed together,
The lion will eat straw just like the bull, And the serpent’s food will be dust. They will do no harm nor cause any ruin in all my holy mountain,” says Jehovah." (Isa 65:21-25)


This is the life we were programmed for...not the life we live now.

Satan is responsible for all the suffering in this world, but he makes God take the blame by claiming that everything bad that happens is God's fault.

God will vindicate himself in the end and those who have taken sides with the devil will join him. Those who have trust in the Creator and remain loyal despite appearances will reap a huge reward. We even have God's assurance that the former things that caused us grief, will not come back to haunt us.


Do we trust the Creator to know what he is doing or are we quick to condemn him because we don't understand what he is doing and why?

 

[Contemplative Cat]

or It may just appear to be suffering from were your looking.
For any experience to be had their needs to be contrast between qualities. Sensory input gets compared then a mind goes "I don't like to be beaten, but I like ice cream"
But when it comes down to an Absolute reality, all sense perception is the same.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do we trust the Creator to know what he is doing or are we quick to condemn him because we don't understand what he is doing and why?

Isn't it a central tenet of your religion that we ARE equipped to judge God? If humanity didn't acquire divine knowledge of good and evil, then Adam and Eve's sin (literal or figurative, your preference) never happened and Christ's sacrifice is unnecessary.

 

[JayJayDee]

Isn't it a central tenet of your religion that we ARE equipped to judge God?

Now how do you figure that one?
Who is ever in a position to judge the one who is ultimately the judge of all?

If humanity didn't acquire divine knowledge of good and evil, then Adam and Eve's sin (literal or figurative, your preference) never happened and Christ's sacrifice is unnecessary.

Whoa....divine knowledge? No Penguin, there is nothing divine about a knowledge of evil. For everything there is an equal opposite. Evil exists as an equal opposite of good....But God was going to keep that knowledge from his children because he knew it would not benefit them. He was not going to expose them to evil at all. It was supposed to be all good.

You are correct however....if Adam and Eve had not sought to disobey the only command that carried the death penalty, Christ's sacrifice would never have been necessary. It never figured in God's original purpose, but became necessary only when sin entered into the world. (Rom 5:12) It was after the fall was the prophesy in Gen 3:15 given as a response to their actions.

No sin would have meant no death....no death would have meant no need for a savior....no need for the kingdom, no need for this awful existence where life is short and fraught with problems and tragedy.

Plan A was wonderful.....it got messed up. Plan B was introduced to bring us full circle and back to Plan A. It really not that complicated.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

That's a giant incorrect assumption, to suggest that non-theists who use the POE as evidence against a benevolent deity have no problem with the realities of nature. Nature is harsh. If a non-theist grants that, which many do (some even use the immense violence of nature as evidence in their argument), then your argument about inconsistency goes away. So it seems it was a strawman argument, and I'm not convinced that you understand the arguments that you said you did.

Yeah...even moving aside from the basic premise that carnivores are built to kill other animals, often violently, etc, there seems immense unrequired harshness in nature. For me, explaining this suffering through a lens of human failure is a serious stretch, which is one of the reasons I have raised this point when discussing the concept of suffering and God.

There are a bunch of examples, but the one I used last time when discussing this topic was the Emerald Cockroach Wasp.

Emerald cockroach wasp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Whilst not trying to convince anyone of my position, I would submit this as an example of needless suffering in the animal kingdom which has no relationship to human failure. If designed these creatures are, then the designer has an interesting set of specs.

 

[Sees]

Interesting creature

Yeah...even moving aside from the basic premise that carnivores are built to kill other animals, often violently, etc, there seems immense unrequired harshness in nature. For me, explaining this suffering through a lens of human failure is a serious stretch, which is one of the reasons I have raised this point when discussing the concept of suffering and God.

There are a bunch of examples, but the one I used last time when discussing this topic was the Emerald Cockroach Wasp.

Emerald cockroach wasp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Whilst not trying to convince anyone of my position, I would submit this as an example of needless suffering in the animal kingdom which has no relationship to human failure. If designed these creatures are, then the designer has an interesting set of specs.

 

[Looncall]

Now how do you figure that one?
Who is ever in a position to judge the one who is ultimately the judge of all?



Whoa....divine knowledge? No Penguin, there is nothing divine about a knowledge of evil. For everything there is an equal opposite. Evil exists as an equal opposite of good....But God was going to keep that knowledge from his children because he knew it would not benefit them. He was not going to expose them to evil at all. It was supposed to be all good.

You are correct however....if Adam and Eve had not sought to disobey the only command that carried the death penalty, Christ's sacrifice would never have been necessary. It never figured in God's original purpose, but became necessary only when sin entered into the world. (Rom 5:12) It was after the fall was the prophesy in Gen 3:15 given as a response to their actions.

No sin would have meant no death....no death would have meant no need for a savior....no need for the kingdom, no need for this awful existence where life is short and fraught with problems and tragedy.

Plan A was wonderful.....it got messed up. Plan B was introduced to bring us full circle and back to Plan A. It really not that complicated.

Yet just about everything we know about living things in the real world shows that all this is delusion. The bible stories you base this on are clearly just that: routine campfire tales from long ago.

I particularly object to the way this way of thinking is used to shrug off the immense suffering that is so clearly evident. I have seen that during my life. It has been the religious types who have thought "Oh well, it's god's will" in the face of suffering instead of doing anything to help.

 

[JayJayDee]

Yeah...even moving aside from the basic premise that carnivores are built to kill other animals, often violently, etc, there seems immense unrequired harshness in nature. For me, explaining this suffering through a lens of human failure is a serious stretch, which is one of the reasons I have raised this point when discussing the concept of suffering and God.

There are a bunch of examples, but the one I used last time when discussing this topic was the Emerald Cockroach Wasp.

Emerald cockroach wasp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wow! That is some critter. When I was reading about its skills in securing its host I couldn't help but wonder.....

"the wasp stings precisely into specific ganglia of the roach. It delivers an initial sting to a thoracic ganglion and injects venom to mildly and reversibly paralyze the front legs of its victim. The biochemical basis of this transient paralysis is discussed in a 2006 paper.[3] Temporary loss of mobility in the roach facilitates the second venomous sting at a precise spot in the victim's head ganglia (brain), in the section that controls the escape reflex. As a result of this sting, the roach will first groom extensively, and then become sluggish and fail to show normal escape responses.[4] In 2007 it was reported that the venom of the wasp blocks receptors for the neurotransmitteroctopamine.[5]
The wasp proceeds to chew off half of each of the roach's antennae.[1] Researchers believe that the wasp chews off the antenna to replenish fluids or possibly to regulate the amount of venom because too much could kill and too little would let the victim recover before the larva has grown. The wasp, which is too small to carry the roach, then leads the victim to the wasp's burrow, by pulling one of the roach's antennae in a manner similar to a leash. Once they reach the burrow, the wasp lays a white egg, about 2 mm long, on the roach's abdomen. It then exits and proceeds to fill in the burrow entrance with pebbles, more to keep other predators out than to keep the roach in."

Just reading this, doesn't it make you wonder how the wasp knew where to explicitly inject both the first and second strike on its victim? For a human to do something equivalent, would take a university degree.
He would also probably have to visit the pharmacist to get his injectables. How does a wasp know that it has to do this in order to perpetuate its species? How does it make the roach not want to escape? The cockroach sounds like he's feeling no pain.

Whilst not trying to convince anyone of my position, I would submit this as an example of needless suffering in the animal kingdom which has no relationship to human failure. If designed these creatures are, then the designer has an interesting set of specs.

Um...its cockroach.

How many of us have killed cockroaches by using baits or the good old fashioned shoe? Is the wasp any more cruel than us if he anaesthetizes the roach first or makes him trip out and want to excessively groom himself? Does the wasp care if his victim is well groomed?

Add to that, the fact that these are not creatures who have any clue about morality and that its behaviour would only be a travesty if it was done with intent. You honestly believe that the wasp planned all this?

I have seen humans do worse..... What's their excuse?

 

[JayJayDee]

Yet just about everything we know about living things in the real world shows that all this is delusion. The bible stories you base this on are clearly just that: routine campfire tales from long ago.

If that is what you choose to believe, then what more can be said? That is your choice, but I don't believe that it is based on all the facts.

I particularly object to the way this way of thinking is used to shrug off the immense suffering that is so clearly evident. I have seen that during my life. It has been the religious types who have thought "Oh well, it's god's will" in the face of suffering instead of doing anything to help.

Suffering was never God's will, as post #21explained.

The problem of suffering has plagued mankind since Adam was a boy. Once you understand why and that the Creator is not bound by the time dictated by the earth's rotation, you can get a totally different picture...but only if you bother to look. If you've already made up your mind that God cannot exist because he allows suffering, then that is up to you. I believe it has a very good explanation in the Bible.

How much suffering is alleviated by atheists? Good humanitarians are hard to find in the population generally, so why single out 'religious types'? Who can really do anything about suffering in the world when the problems are beyond human governments to solve. If those with resources can't fix things, then who can?

God can...but when it comes, it will be a permanent solution to all problems, not a band aid.

 

[MattersOfTheHeart]

That's a giant incorrect assumption, to suggest that non-theists who use the POE as evidence against a benevolent deity have no problem with the realities of nature. Nature is harsh. If a non-theist grants that, which many do (some even use the immense violence of nature as evidence in their argument), then your argument about inconsistency goes away. So it seems it was a strawman argument, and I'm not convinced that you understand the arguments that you said you did.

The reality of animals violently killing other animals on a regular basis, the fact that 99% of all species that once lived currently being extinct, the history of the multiple major mass extinction events, the examples of starvation and birth defects and violence for humans and other animals alike- the Problem of Evil simply points out that these facts don't work well together with the claim of an omnipotent and benevolent deity who designed the universe from the ground up and is so filled with infinite love and knowledge that human love pales in comparison. It's not a lot to ask for theists to have answers to those issues, to respond with a degree of reason to those inconsistencies.

And if you're talking about the Abrahamic god in particular, since you mentioned him in your post- the texts of his people describe him as genocidal. One doesn't even need to look past his own literature to see a deity that floods the Earth resulting in almost the entire loss of life in the story, burns cities to the ground killing every man woman and child, tells his people to commit genocide against neighboring cities and kill all who breathes, to kill dudes who like to sleep with other dudes, etc.

Fortunately people keep evolving scriptures and changing their understandings of their gods and their ethics to hopefully leave such things behind.

First, I really enjoy your well thought out posts.
Secondly, I think for me, part of the problem with this line of reasoning, is how we frame things. Humans are so fickle, for example, I watched Lone Survivor last night, and left the theater wanting to go be a Navy Seal, but this morning... not so much.

When we frame a line of reasoning with such elegant adjectives as you did to describe all the wrongs of the world, one can really be lulled into agreeing... for a minute. Then when the day moves on and I visit the hospital where my cousin is having a baby, and the baby is so fresh and clean looking, and everything is so beautiful, my mind is swept away at how big LOVE is and way past truly understanding, yet we try everyday.

I am left to ponder that while suffering is around, and God does judge humans and the earth, there are other forces at work that dwarf all of that. Namely this thing called Love, and I prefer to spend most of my time meditating on that and experiencing real transformation (not fairy tale or imagined) in my life and others as well, which demonstrates it is an awesome power to recon with.

So, I don't think my assumption is incorrect! I think that people who reflect on that side of the discussion more than the other side, will naturally build up a hatred for the idea of a good God running things, heck I suppose I would too if I did that all day, or if not all day, at least whenever entertaining the topic of God in general.

In other words, I could be the kind of person that when God is brought up, the first thing that comes to mind is, genocide, suffering, etc... I am just not that person, because as I said, I have matured past that fickle state of being (usually)

Now how do you figure that one?
Who is ever in a position to judge the one who is ultimately the judge of all?



Whoa....divine knowledge? No Penguin, there is nothing divine about a knowledge of evil. For everything there is an equal opposite. Evil exists as an equal opposite of good....But God was going to keep that knowledge from his children because he knew it would not benefit them. He was not going to expose them to evil at all. It was supposed to be all good.

You are correct however....if Adam and Eve had not sought to disobey the only command that carried the death penalty, Christ's sacrifice would never have been necessary. It never figured in God's original purpose, but became necessary only when sin entered into the world. (Rom 5:12) It was after the fall was the prophesy in Gen 3:15 given as a response to their actions.

No sin would have meant no death....no death would have meant no need for a savior....no need for the kingdom, no need for this awful existence where life is short and fraught with problems and tragedy.

Plan A was wonderful.....it got messed up. Plan B was introduced to bring us full circle and back to Plan A. It really not that complicated.

Only thing I can offer hear, is dinosaurs obviously lived way before humans, and death occurred while they were here, so there is an inherent problem with the idea that ALL death and suffering began ONLY with humans and falling Adam.

there seems immense unrequired harshness in nature.

In this one line is a topic that in my opinion that few ever try to understand. It is deeply philosophical and from what I can gather difficult for many to grasp.

In a nutshell, you as an individual have to decide what defines that idea of "harshness in nature".
Is it arbitrarily defined, and if so, it really amounts to our personal opinion of things, and isn't good for much. If it is not arbitrary, but a certain fact, than what is the opposite of this nature of harshness, and how is it defined?

When this is truly reasoned out, we end up at a place where there is this outside law of sorts, some absolute sense of harshness or fairness, and that deep inside ourselves we believe this to be true.

Yet, the moment we do that, we have now allowed for some independent authority of what is harsh and what is not, and actually have a basis with which to create societies.

In other words, to make the claim that the universe is harsh, we are admitting we feel that it is something against some deeper part of our being. Otherwise harsh would not be harsh, we would not know what harsh is, it would simply be part of life, neither good nor bad.

Few will succumb to this though, and retreat to the safe zone of, "I just meant it is harsh in another sense, there is not real good or bad, and harshness is just a way for us to describe our world views etc."

Again, it is quite difficult to address that one line you wrote, but I hope this kind of opened the door to what I meant.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Um...its cockroach.

How many of us have killed cockroaches by using baits or the good old fashioned shoe? Is the wasp any more cruel than us if he anaesthetizes the roach first or makes him trip out and want to excessively groom himself? Does the wasp care if his victim is well groomed?

Add to that, the fact that these are not creatures who have any clue about morality and that its behaviour would only be a travesty if it was done with intent. You honestly believe that the wasp planned all this?

I have seen humans do worse..... What's their excuse?

So only the suffering of humans matters?! We really don't know if insects can feel what we would call pain, but the possibility is certainly there. Human-like morality is certainly not a requirement for suffering. Mammals, fish, birds, reptiles, etc. are all known to be able to suffer. Morality is a moot point since it's subjective. What works for one species or individual may not work for another. Also, we don't know if the wasp anesthetizes the roach. It basically causes brain damage, either way. If something did that to a human, would be it alright, if they gave the person painkillers?

The point is that nature - at all levels - is extremely violent and full of death. There's even wars inside of our bodies between cells, bacteria, viruses, etc. Then there's violence such as tornadoes, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, deadly cold and heat, etc. On a much larger scale, there's asteroids and meteors hurtling through space and slamming into planets and moons. We know that impact events have most likely caused massive extinction events on this planet in the past. They may well do so in the future. Then there's the issue of stars dying and taking everything around them with them. One day our Sun will die and that will be the end of this solar system.

What's the point of all this violence, death and destruction? You can't possibly claim in seriousness that Adam and Eve's fabled "sin" is the cause of the very order of the entire cosmos. So why did your god create such a violent realm where almost all life requires the death of living beings to survive? Why couldn't your god make us all like plants who subsist directly on energy from the Sun and water?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Now how do you figure that one?
Who is ever in a position to judge the one who is ultimately the judge of all?



Whoa....divine knowledge? No Penguin, there is nothing divine about a knowledge of evil. For everything there is an equal opposite. Evil exists as an equal opposite of good....But God was going to keep that knowledge from his children because he knew it would not benefit them. He was not going to expose them to evil at all. It was supposed to be all good.

You are correct however....if Adam and Eve had not sought to disobey the only command that carried the death penalty, Christ's sacrifice would never have been necessary. It never figured in God's original purpose, but became necessary only when sin entered into the world. (Rom 5:12) It was after the fall was the prophesy in Gen 3:15 given as a response to their actions.

No sin would have meant no death....no death would have meant no need for a savior....no need for the kingdom, no need for this awful existence where life is short and fraught with problems and tragedy.

Plan A was wonderful.....it got messed up. Plan B was introduced to bring us full circle and back to Plan A. It really not that complicated.

What was the sin of Adam and Eve? Eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Through their sin, humanity gained the ability to judge God. If you're saying that we don't have this power, then you're saying that Adam and Eve never sinned.

You do agree that Adam and Eve sinned, right?

 

[MattersOfTheHeart]

What was the sin of Adam and Eve? Eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Through their sin, humanity gained the ability to judge God. If you're saying that we don't have this power, then you're saying that Adam and Eve never sinned.

You do agree that Adam and Eve sinned, right?

Sorry, very bad assumption here. humans haven eaten from the tree of good and evil, does not make them perfect at discerning good and evil, only that they are aware of it, and if properly trained can discern better than others (hence Cain and Able)

So judging God with this new awareness is simply not implied.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sorry, very bad assumption here. humans haven eaten from the tree of good and evil, does not make them perfect at discerning good and evil, only that they are aware of it, and if properly trained can discern better than others (hence Cain and Able)

So judging God with this new awareness is simply not implied.

So God made the tree of knowledge of good and evil imperfectly?

 

[MattersOfTheHeart]

So God made the tree of knowledge of good and evil imperfectly?

You are implying things not there.
having the awareness of good and evil is not the same thing as being able to discern perfectly between the two.
That is the whole point of life (according to Jesus) is choosing well within our heart, which we must do, now that we are endowed with this circumstance.

Hence the next line, lest they eat from the tree of life and live forever, get them the heck out of that garden, because no one is suppose to live forever not having good and evil worked out yet.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Many anti-theists point out that the Abrahamic God would be a cruel God if it existed, to allow such human suffering that we witness around us.
Then they will visit the plains of Africa and when a child gasps at a lion feeding on a giraffe, the child is told, it is the circle of life and while it seems hard, it is a beautiful and harsh part of our life, all at the same time.

It seems to me there is a slight double standard here, and slight hypocrisy, maybe?

Not really, considering that these two scenarios are completely contextually different, and each of these arguments serve completely different purposes, and would be made for completely different reasons.

 

[MattersOfTheHeart]

Not really, considering that these two scenarios are completely contextually different, and each of these arguments serve completely different purposes, and would be made for completely different reasons.

That just isn't always true. I have been in plenty of conversations, that have been about this very topic.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

That just isn't always true. I have been in plenty of conversations, that have been about this very topic.

You've been in plenty of conversations where a non-theist brought up the problem of evil in the same context of them telling a child about the circle of life after they witnessed an animal kill another animal? You've been privy to this scenario plenty of times? Really?

 

[JayJayDee]

Only thing I can offer hear, is dinosaurs obviously lived way before humans, and death occurred while they were here, so there is an inherent problem with the idea that ALL death and suffering began ONLY with humans and falling Adam.

I'm sorry if my original reply to you (post #21) was too long (for most to bother reading,) but if I may ask that you take the time, I never said that "ALL death and suffering began ONLY" with the fall of man.

God giving humans a penalty for disobedience that was not clearly understood would have been rather pointless. Animals were never designed to live forever. Only humans, made in God's image, were given that option. Death in the animal kingdom is, for the vast majority of living things, a natural occurrence. It is clearly not natural for us. Once we exist, we cannot imagine ever being out of existence...we are actually programmed to go on living.

Mortal beings inhabit planet earth. But humans alone were given the means to enjoy unending life in the most enjoyable surroundings imaginable. They were not immortal, but had the means made available to them, never to lose their gift of life.

What I am suggesting, from my own study of the Bible over many years, is that flesh eating animals i.e. carnivores (not carrion animals or birds) were more than likely herbivores in the beginning. Man too was vegetarian in the garden.

If the restoration prophesies indicate a return to this original state, then it stands to reason that animals were never meant to prey on one another in God's original purpose.

In the Bible, satan is identified as the god and ruler of this world.....I believe that his influence is behind all suffering on this earth.

When humans were first given permission to eat flesh after the flood, rules applied as to its slaughter, preparation and consumption. Some animals that carried risks to human health were placed in a category that the Jews identified in their law as "unclean".

A 'fear of man' was instilled in animals at that time and perhaps it was then that the animals were also made to consume the flesh of one another? The Bible doesn't say, but it also gives no reason why humans needed to become consumers of animal flesh at that time. God must have had his reasons for this, but he did not reveal them.

In the animal kingdom predators by and large, kill their prey quickly and mercifully. We have no idea how much recognition animals have of their fate, but their flight response at least makes the process something that the predator has to work for, and it is obvious that they are not always successful.

When we see blatant cruelty demonstrated in the animal kingdom, (not something commonly found) I never discount the devil's influence on all the creatures on this planet. If he targets humans, and can influence sentient beings, why not animals?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Animals were never designed to live forever. Only humans, made in God's image, were given that option.

So animals won't be in your "paradise"?