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

[JayJayDee]

I'm not particularly interested in Christian theology. I find it to be one of the least sensible descriptions of reality out of most major world religions when compared to the evidence of the history of the earth.

I appreciate your view and was only trying to demonstrate that answers to your questions could be provided within the Biblical framework.

Predation, death, immense natural disasters- these things predated humanity by millions of years. Those ideas and texts were formulated when people didn't understand the history of the planet very well.

I don't believe that the Bible was given as a scientific textbook, or as an in depth history of the planet, but when it touches on matters of science, its simple accuracy is truthful without going into all the complex detail. (Job 26:7, Isa 40:22, 23; Job 36:27; Isa 55:10)

So a trillion deaths are needed for eventual perfection?

We believe that a very powerful entity challenged the Creator's right to set limits for his creation at the outset. As one who can recreate life as simply as he takes it, a trillion deaths is not really of any consequence to him. He is not governed by sentimental emotion, like humans are.

He does as his will dictates, and we as his creation do not get to dictate our flawed sensibilities to him. Like the potter and the clay....the clay does not get to tell the potter he got it wrong. (Isa 29:16; Rom 9:20-23)

Most of it is not, judging by the track record of weather on earth, including ice ages, periods of immense heating, times when the sun was blocked for years, etc.

Most of that occurred before humans inhabited the planet. We have no proof that humanity has been affected by most of those past natural disasters like ice ages or periods when the sun was blocked, etc.
If animals were alive and affected, where is the evidence that these things impacted on their consciousness? Human reasoning doesn't always supply the correct questions or answers regarding these things.

I saw a documentary where a mother lion let the young ones kill an antelope, and they brought it down but didn't quite know how to kill it yet. She let them keep trying, probably so they eventually get practice, as the prey kept squirming around in an unrecognizable bloody mess for a long time. It eventually bled out.

As a Bible believer, my response to that is that the devil is the ruler of this world and can influence its inhabitants. (1 John 5:19)
No predation or suffering was reported in the Bible prior to the creation and fall of man. The devil took over world rulership from then on to now.

If there is one word that describes sentient, moral beings committing atrocities on other sentient, moral beings, it's the term "inhuman". What does this word mean?
It means that it is not in the realms of "normal" human activity to think up, or to perpetrate such things. If something is "not human", then where else do we search for the source of such activity? The Bible tells us, but the majority of people reject the notion. It makes perfect sense to me, though it might not to you.

I saw another show where these beluga whales were in the arctic ocean, which freezes mostly over in winter. In order to breathe, they have to find and try to maintain small holes in the ice, and they get trapped because miles in each direction has a solid ice covering. These whales were trapped at a hole for about 6 months straight without food, having to go up and breathe every few minutes, and polar bears waited at the hole to keep trying to kill a whale, and every once in a while they got one. All of the whales had enormous deep scars covering every inch of their backs from multiple attempted bear attacks over the course of the winter. So that's about six months straight of repetitively getting cut up and going hungry, and they face that risk every winter.

As long as the devil's rulership is permitted then we will go on hearing about these things, only it is worse when beings with a sense of morality and a conscience ignore all their natural instincts and act in ways that animals do not. No animals commits an atrocity because he is not a morally motivated creature. His behaviour is purely instinctual. Animals operate by the laws of nature, not the laws of man. We are an entirely different species with cognitive abilities and language and communication methods that animals cannot even comprehend.

The idea that animals don't suffer from pain seems to be speculative wishful thinking. Our nervous systems are quite the same as other species. Ever have a pet? I saw a dog when her kidney burst from a disease, and she was spasming and letting out the most sickening high pitched squeals all while she was rushed to the vet to be looked at and then put down.

No one can deny that animals feel what can be described as pain...but how they interpret that sensation, no one really knows. The animals cannot tell us. We know from their cries and body language that it is unpleasant.

I had to have my own dog put down who had been with me for 17 years. He had cancer and was in some distress, and I have no idea how he interpreted that distress....but the one thing I do know is, that he did not know that his trip to the vet was going to be his last. Even as the needles was paralysing his heart and lungs, he dissolved into my arms so very gently, that I was assured that his death was not unpleasant. As for animals in the wild....we can only speculate. But again, no moral laws are broken by creatures who have no moral sense.

What makes you say that? Predation existed for millions of years.

Science assumes that predation has existed for millions of years. Just because creatures have a certain set of teeth does not automatically mean that they were predators.

From the Bible, I believe that animals probably began to prey on other animals when man himself was given permission to eat flesh. Only then was fear instilled into them. The creatures who feed on carrion are flesh eaters too but they are not predators...merely nature's garbage collectors. They would need teeth to eat meat but it didn't mean that they had to kill it.

Basically all of this has to ignore all scientific understanding of the history of the planet in order to be said. So it's not really all that relevant. A proper defense of the claim doesn't have to ignore or alter known facts about the world and the universe.

I don't see the Bible as altering or ignoring science at all. I see total agreement with what science "knows" to be true, as opposed to what science "assumes" to be true.

I see true science and theoretical science as being poles apart.
If science has to rely on phrases such as "might have", "could have", "may have", "leads us to conclude that..." then you can hardly call that scientific evidence couched in scientific terminology. Science can no more "prove" its evolutionary theory by cold hard evidence, than I can prove the existence of an Intelligent Designer. That is a fact.

Micro-evolution is used to prove macro-evolution, but micro-evolution is hardly proof of anything more than adaptation within a species. Every example I have ever been given for evolutionary change has always used micro-evolutionary evidence, One does not prove the other. Fish stayed fish. Insects stayed insects and animals were just slightly altered forms of the same basic creature.

There is no evidence for organic evolution, i.e. one "kind" did not evolve into another unrelated "kind". All the changes happened within just one "kind"....organic evolution I believe, is science fiction, not science fact.

Do you believe that speculation and scientific guesswork add up to scientifically established facts?

IMO Science doesn't know as much as it claims...it's just good at pretending that it does.

This is just my viewpoint but I can understand also where you are coming from.

 

[JayJayDee]

So, you think it's a sensible design? My take would be that it's about as convoluted and ridiculous a method for acquiring basic nutrients as you could imagine.

You've got to admit, it demonstrates imagination....I'm just not sure whose.

Nup, it's a wasp. If you're point is that the wasp doesn't act with any evil intent, and that we can't expect 'moral behaviour' from it, then of course I would agree. It's completely unrelated to the point I am making though. I am not questioning the morality of the wasp, but the design principles of the Creator.

My point was that the victim is a cockroach. It is one of the longest surviving life forms on this planet according to science. I can't see how any of the creatures who prey on cockroaches have ever decimated the population...no matter what form of capture or death was inflicted on them.

If this method of predation between two non-sentient creatures cause us concern, then perhaps we should point to to Syria, Somalia or Ukraine at the moment. This I believe should be of greater concern to us because humans are wreaking havoc and mayhem on other humans...even their own people. They should know better and behave better than creatures with no brain or moral sense...shouldn't they? :sad:

Whether the activity of this wasp was a design of the Creator or a product of the influence of his enemy, it is foretold in scripture that nothing in the realm of living things will "do any harm or cause any ruin" in the restoration of the earth to come. (2 Pet 3:13; Isa 65:21-25)

Of one thing we can be sure...whatever we found nasty in this world, will not exist in the 'new earth'.

I specifically included the example as a discussion point around the issues of God and existence of evil using a non-human context. My point is that acts we would see as needlessly complicated for their purpose, needlessly painful, and unrelated to human activity can be identified.

And I cannot dispute that nor can I give you a reason for it. All I know is that it wont be a problem in the future. All will be revealed then...I have faith in that.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of my position since it's admittedly subjective in nature. I am merely offering a simple, single example of what I would see as poor design involving pain and suffering in the non-human world.

And comparing the sentient, morally cognisant human world with the instinctually programmed animal kingdom leads us to what conclusions? That God must be bad if animals suffer, so therefore God can't exist?

We all have to make up our minds about that one lewisnotmiller.

I am settled in my choice.....what about you?

 

[dust1n]

Makes sense to me. Humans have been in revolt against nature for thousands of years, anyway. That's not a bad thing.

Of course. What are humans suppose to do, sit around and take nature's injustices at its own will instead of ours?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Of course. What are humans suppose to do, sit around and take nature's injustices at its own will instead of ours?

Totally with you on that, man. :yes:

 

[Penumbra]

I appreciate your view and was only trying to demonstrate that answers to your questions could be provided within the Biblical framework.


I don't believe that the Bible was given as a scientific textbook, or as an in depth history of the planet, but when it touches on matters of science, its simple accuracy is truthful without going into all the complex detail. (Job 26:7, Isa 40:22, 23; Job 36:27; Isa 55:10)


We believe that a very powerful entity challenged the Creator's right to set limits for his creation at the outset. As one who can recreate life as simply as he takes it, a trillion deaths is not really of any consequence to him. He is not governed by sentimental emotion, like humans are.

He does as his will dictates, and we as his creation do not get to dictate our flawed sensibilities to him. Like the potter and the clay....the clay does not get to tell the potter he got it wrong. (Isa 29:16; Rom 9:20-23)



Most of that occurred before humans inhabited the planet. We have no proof that humanity has been affected by most of those past natural disasters like ice ages or periods when the sun was blocked, etc.
If animals were alive and affected, where is the evidence that these things impacted on their consciousness? Human reasoning doesn't always supply the correct questions or answers regarding these things.



As a Bible believer, my response to that is that the devil is the ruler of this world and can influence its inhabitants. (1 John 5:19)
No predation or suffering was reported in the Bible prior to the creation and fall of man. The devil took over world rulership from then on to now.

If there is one word that describes sentient, moral beings committing atrocities on other sentient, moral beings, it's the term "inhuman". What does this word mean?
It means that it is not in the realms of "normal" human activity to think up, or to perpetrate such things. If something is "not human", then where else do we search for the source of such activity? The Bible tells us, but the majority of people reject the notion. It makes perfect sense to me, though it might not to you.


As long as the devil's rulership is permitted then we will go on hearing about these things, only it is worse when beings with a sense of morality and a conscience ignore all their natural instincts and act in ways that animals do not. No animals commits an atrocity because he is not a morally motivated creature. His behaviour is purely instinctual. Animals operate by the laws of nature, not the laws of man. We are an entirely different species with cognitive abilities and language and communication methods that animals cannot even comprehend.

No one can deny that animals feel what can be described as pain...but how they interpret that sensation, no one really knows. The animals cannot tell us. We know from their cries and body language that it is unpleasant.

I had to have my own dog put down who had been with me for 17 years. He had cancer and was in some distress, and I have no idea how he interpreted that distress....but the one thing I do know is, that he did not know that his trip to the vet was going to be his last. Even as the needles was paralysing his heart and lungs, he dissolved into my arms so very gently, that I was assured that his death was not unpleasant. As for animals in the wild....we can only speculate. But again, no moral laws are broken by creatures who have no moral sense.

Science assumes that predation has existed for millions of years. Just because creatures have a certain set of teeth does not automatically mean that they were predators.

From the Bible, I believe that animals probably began to prey on other animals when man himself was given permission to eat flesh. Only then was fear instilled into them. The creatures who feed on carrion are flesh eaters too but they are not predators...merely nature's garbage collectors. They would need teeth to eat meat but it didn't mean that they had to kill it.

I don't see the Bible as altering or ignoring science at all. I see total agreement with what science "knows" to be true, as opposed to what science "assumes" to be true.

I see true science and theoretical science as being poles apart.
If science has to rely on phrases such as "might have", "could have", "may have", "leads us to conclude that..." then you can hardly call that scientific evidence couched in scientific terminology. Science can no more "prove" its evolutionary theory by cold hard evidence, than I can prove the existence of an Intelligent Designer. That is a fact.

Micro-evolution is used to prove macro-evolution, but micro-evolution is hardly proof of anything more than adaptation within a species. Every example I have ever been given for evolutionary change has always used micro-evolutionary evidence, One does not prove the other. Fish stayed fish. Insects stayed insects and animals were just slightly altered forms of the same basic creature.

There is no evidence for organic evolution, i.e. one "kind" did not evolve into another unrelated "kind". All the changes happened within just one "kind"....organic evolution I believe, is science fiction, not science fact.

Do you believe that speculation and scientific guesswork add up to scientifically established facts?

IMO Science doesn't know as much as it claims...it's just good at pretending that it does.

This is just my viewpoint but I can understand also where you are coming from.

The fact that the entirety of your explanation seems to deny known facts about reality, makes it uninteresting to me.

If an explanation involves denying that animals suffer, denying the existence of macro-evolution, denying that animals with sharp teeth or venom evolved to use them for the purpose of predation, then I don't think your explanation and the real world have much overlap.

 

[JayJayDee]

The fact that the entirety of your explanation seems to deny known facts about reality, makes it uninteresting to me.

I personally find all the imaginative guessing around the theory of evolution to be uninteresting.....to each his own.

If an explanation involves denying that animals suffer, denying the existence of macro-evolution, denying that animals with sharp teeth or venom evolved to use them for the purpose of predation, then I don't think your explanation and the real world have much overlap.

I don't think I denied that animals suffer...I just said we don't really know how they interpret suffering. We don't know that they interpret suffering as we do.

Regardless of the perceived suffering in a small number of living things, do you believe that your theory of evolution gives a more valid explanation for suffering? Why do we perceive it as undesirable and why is it seen as an unnatural thing, if it is all we have ever known? If we evolved it, surely it must have some advantage?

Can evolution explain why we humans have a collective expectation that the life we live should always be so much better than it is? Do we see animals with such an expectation? If death is natural for them, why is it unnatural for us?

Why do we long for peace and security when it seems unattainable? Others of our own species are taking it away from us.

Can evolution explain why we see death and aging as foreign and why humankind demonstrate an inner expectation that our life should go, without end, even though the human race has never known anything but the final destination of old age and death? Ask any old person who enjoys a measure of health, how old they feel on the inside? You will find a young person trapped in an old body.
When will we evolve our way out of that do you think?

I have yet to see any solid evidence for macro-evolution but I have no problem at all accepting adaptation within a species, whether that involves a change of color, a change in height, the shape of a beak, or even a change in the shape of their teeth. The ability to adapt to a change in environment or food source is inherent in all living things. It comes under the definition of micro-evolution in my understanding. The "kind" remains the same. Stretching micro to macro Is taking the theory way beyond the actual evidence. I know that you do not see this.

My explanations and the real world do not accommodate the notion of a living organism that exhibits exquisite and intelligent design, yet its existence, appearance and behaviors are attributed to the blind forces of random chance.
What

Do you know how many very beneficial random 'accidents' it takes to explain the existence of the millions of diverse living things on this planet? Too many.

But that's OK. It is my view and we are all entitled to the one we feel most comfortable with.

I do not believe that everything in this world is as it appears...but you are free to discount that.

 

[monti]

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.

Yes, I imagine that was this Gods worrying concern; Adam and Eve had had their eyes opened to what kind unbalanced individuals these gods could be and maybe started to ask too many questions.

Genesis 3:22.

What the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Maybe that was yet another mistranslation and should read;

Behold! man is become one of us, to know gods are good and evil. So before they get far too clever and wise up to us we will make sure they don’t live long enough to gain the knowledge to work out we are a bunch of frauds who only created them as slaves to do our bidding and die for us in our wars. So let us make sure they never live long enough to gain that wisdom and we will teach them only what we need them to know.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You've got to admit, it demonstrates imagination....I'm just not sure whose.

ROFL...I see what you did there...

My point was that the victim is a cockroach. It is one of the longest surviving life forms on this planet to science. I can't see how any of the creatures who prey on cockroaches have ever decimated the population...no matter what form of capture or death was inflicted on them.

This doesn't quite mesh with your comments later. After all, humans are 'spreading'. Are actions resulting in the death of humans therefore legitimate?

If this method of predation between two non-sentient creatures cause us concern, then perhaps we should point to to Syria, Somalia or Ukraine at the moment. This I believe should be of greater concern to us because humans are wreaking havoc and mayhem on other humans...even their own people. They should know better and behave better than creatures with no brain or moral sense...shouldn't they? :sad:

Which is entirely beside the point, of course. If I pointed to human
evil, you'd be sad, and suggest that this was brought on by human failings in Biblical times which lead to corruption. So instead I point to non-human 'evil'. And you point still to human failings.

Whether the activity of this wasp was a design of the Creator or a product of the influence of his enemy, it is foretold in scripture that nothing in the realm of living things will "do any harm or cause any ruin" in the restoration of the earth to come. (2 Pet 3:13; Isa 65:21-25)

Of one thing we can be sure...whatever we found nasty in this world, will not exist in the 'new earth'.

I understand your viewpoint, although I certainly don't agree with it. I suppose I could not put 'sure' in any sentence where the entire rationale lies in 'faith'.

And I cannot dispute that nor can I give you a reason for it. All I know is that it wont be a problem in the future. All will be revealed then...I have faith in that.

Can't argue with that!

And comparing the sentient, morally cognisant human world with the instinctually programmed animal kingdom leads us to what conclusions? That God must be bad if animals suffer, so therefore God can't exist?

I find it strange that you should be dismissive of this line of thinking, since I think (although I wouldn't swear to it) that you've used a version of the watchmaker argument at times. You point to 'design' as proof of God. And yet a question about the form of that design is met with a shrug? It seems inconsistent.

We all have to make up our minds about that one lewisnotmiller.

I am settled in my choice.....what about you?

Well, I am comfortable with my choice. It makes far and away the most sense to me. But I try never to be completely settled in anything. I prefer to try and keep my mind somewhat open to the arguments and viewpoints of others.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Well it makes sense to me.
To elaborate a bit more on what I was getting at.
Judging something to be harsh, especially when we start talking about the universe or nature of something, we have to decide is there really a definitive meaning to the word harsh. (this is where the majority jump on the subjective ship, missing a wonderful world of mystery and revelation)
What are we comparing that word against? Against a moving target? (albeit slavery is harsh today, but years ago not so much to the slave owners who enjoyed it)

Is a moving target of harsh really a definition, or is it a watered down version of "something" we lazily call harsh?

Words become useless, as you may well know, if they are apt to mean just about anything one wishes it to mean.

However, when an individual is shall I say bold enough, courageous enough to admit underneath all the watered and moving versions of the word harsh, exists an unalterable meaning to which it resides outside of human construct.

Perhaps it is we humans that are aware of harshness proper, but we did not invent it. Then who did, and where did it come from?

If nothing is harsh then we should never have known of the word to begin with, and I hope others take the time to riddle this out for themselves.

Regardless of ones spiritual outlook, there is a fact within this reasoning that leaves one on a ground that has shifted a little.

Hope that isn't to mystical sounding.

Nope, not too mystical sounding. But I don't agree, assuming I;ve understood you correctly.

We have words to describe all sorts of things, and there is not an unalterable meaning to them. Pick a word, and you can trace the changes in it over time. Find me a word whose meaning has not changed.

Harsh is subjective. Just like good and evil. That doesn't mean I can bring any meaning to the word I like without it being nonsensical. The word has an understood definition. But the application of the definition is subjective.

 

[JayJayDee]

ROFL...I see what you did there...

Even criminal behavior when it displays ingenuity can gain a reluctant admiration, don't you think? It would be a heinous scenario between sentient, morally aware beings, but between insects, it is merely interesting to me.

This doesn't quite mesh with your comments later. After all, humans are 'spreading'. Are actions resulting in the death of humans therefore legitimate?

I don't quite understand your point here....no action that results in the death of humans was meant to happen, nor is it accepted as a natural part of our existence....so our response to death seems to fight with the notion that we evolved. Animals for the most part are 'programmed' for death, along with most other aspects of their behavior. But they are not equipped with the ability to plan their future except in the immediate, nor can they contemplate their own demise. If humans evolved, then we would expect that our species would have adapted to death and accept it as a natural part of our existence.....but we don't. We have a collective expectation that life should continue...indefinitely. Why?

Which is entirely beside the point, of course. If I pointed to human
evil, you'd be sad, and suggest that this was brought on by human failings in Biblical times which lead to corruption. So instead I point to non-human 'evil'. And you point still to human failings.

My point was that concentrating on mindless creatures who seem to demonstrate 'unkind and cruel' predation methods when they are not capable of analysing or even understanding them is a bit pointless when comparing the activities of humans who are fully cognizant of their behaviors but commit atrocities on other humans (and animals) anyway.

If there were no human sensibilities to interpret behavior and no moral sense with which to judge them, would 'cruelty' or 'suffering' exist as a concept in the first place?

I understand your viewpoint, although I certainly don't agree with it. I suppose I could not put 'sure' in any sentence where the entire rationale lies in 'faith'.

For those of us who put 'faith' in the word of God, (and I am fully aware that many do not for what they see as valid reasons) 'assurance' is what keeps us sane in this world of 'dog eat dog'. If I didn't have a reason for the way humans behave (going from bad to worse as the Bible foretold) and if I did not see a bright future, fully independant of the actions of men, (corrupt to the core) I am not sure I would want to go on living, or to bring children into this seemingly hopeless situation. :no:

Faith in the actions of men is still faith...isn't it? On what do you base such faith, given man's track record?

I find it strange that you should be dismissive of this line of thinking, since I think (although I wouldn't swear to it) that you've used a version of the watchmaker argument at times. You point to 'design' as proof of God. And yet a question about the form of that design is met with a shrug? It seems inconsistent.

The form of design exhibited in nature as a whole is what I find awe inspiring. That awe is not dispelled by staring at a few pixels in the big picture for which I have no real understanding at present. There are a few questions that will no doubt be answered in time and I will be interested to hear the 'whys' explained in detail, but for now, a few dead pixels do not spoil the big picture for me.

Well, I am comfortable with my choice. It makes far and away the most sense to me. But I try never to be completely settled in anything. I prefer to try and keep my mind somewhat open to the arguments and viewpoints of others.

It is our choice to make.
I love listening to the views of others and always try to appreciate the factors that draw people to a particular belief system or lack of it.

There are spiritual people and non spiritual people....there are slackers and there are fanatics and everything in between, in all persuasions. There are materialists and there are ascetics. Who and what we become in our lives is what is dictated by our own heart (the real us). This is why God judges us by this criteria, not by performance or any pretence carried out with insincerity. To love God requires an us breakable loyalty to him, not because we are blind, but because we have had our eyes opened.

In the Revelation Jesus mentions those who are 'neither hot nor cold', the 'lukewarm' ones who make him sick. Doubt is what creates this lukewarm, wishy washy attitude. A doubter is at the mercy of every whim that comes into the minds of those who can frame a convincing argument. The devil's propaganda works. :sad:

I am not a doubter; I want to be found among those who are 'hot'....not 'lukewarm' in my approach to God's worship. I will not be found stumbling over every stone placed in front of me. The Bible is my bulldozer.
But I am not closed minded either because I am still open to learn. The difference is, I am not predisposed to give up easily when my beliefs are challenged and I will continue to dig in order to answer my own questions. This is what builds faith...one brick at a time.

It's hard to build a wall of faith when someone is giving you reasons to take bricks out as you try to build.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Even criminal behavior when it displays ingenuity can gain a reluctant admiration, don't you think? It would be a heinous scenario between sentient, morally aware beings, but between insects, it is merely interesting to me.

Yep...I can admire ingenuity whilst deploring the moral lack which leads to an action (for example). But my comment, if faescitious, wasn't related to that. You mentioned 'you have to admit, it demonstrates imagination' which struck me as amusing. I would admit it, but only in a colloquial sense. Of course, if being serious, I would admit no such thing. I see no evidence of 'imagination' nor of the sentience this indicates.

I don't quite understand your point here....no action that results in the death of humans was meant to happen, nor is it accepted as a natural part of our existence....so our response to death seems to fight with the notion that we evolved.

You mean 'Nor do you accept it as a natural part of our existence'. For my part, I do accept it as entirely natural.

Animals for the most part are 'programmed' for death, along with most other aspects of their behavior.

Sorry...I'm honestly unsure what this means.

But they are not equipped with the ability to plan their future except in the immediate, nor can they contemplate their own demise. If humans evolved, then we would expect that our species would have adapted to death and accept it as a natural part of our existence.....but we don't.

Why would that be the case? What evolutionary benefit does adaptation to death provide, even were I disposed to concede that we 'don't accept it as part of our existence'

We have a collective expectation that life should continue...indefinitely. Why?

Who does? Me? Really???
:no:

I'd prefer to remain alive, if a quality of life were maintained. The alternative is kinda a void (like trying to imagine life before I was born) and on the balance of things, I quite enjoy life.

My point was that concentrating on mindless creatures who seem to demonstrate 'unkind and cruel' predation methods when they are not capable of analysing or even understanding them is a bit pointless when comparing the activities of humans who are fully cognizant of their behaviors but commit atrocities on other humans (and animals) anyway.

Fair enough. But that was never my point. Concentrate less on the mindless creature, and more on the sentient being you believe created them.

If there were no human sensibilities to interpret behavior and no moral sense with which to judge them, would 'cruelty' or 'suffering' exist as a concept in the first place?

In my world view? Probably not. In your world view? Of course. You believe in objective truth, as defined by a being greater than us.

For those of us who put 'faith' in the word of God, (and I am fully aware that many do not for what they see as valid reasons) 'assurance' is what keeps us sane in this world of 'dog eat dog'. If I didn't have a reason for the way humans behave (going from bad to worse as the Bible foretold) and if I did not see a bright future, fully independant of the actions of men, (corrupt to the core) I am not sure I would want to go on living, or to bring children into this seemingly hopeless situation. :no:

Okay. And yet my children are happy, I love them, and they love me. It's not how I define hopeless. But we've been down this path before. I am, I guess, an optimist.

Faith in the actions of men is still faith...isn't it? On what do you base such faith, given man's track record?

Man's record, of course. On my ability to live a happy life. On the ability of those around me to also do so. This is not to suggest that bad things don't happen. But I like my life. It's really pretty simple.

The form of design exhibited in nature as a whole is what I find awe inspiring. That awe is not dispelled by staring at a few pixels in the big picture for which I have no real understanding at present. There are a few questions that will no doubt be answered in time and I will be interested to hear the 'whys' explained in detail, but for now, a few dead pixels do not spoil the big picture for me.

It's far more than 'a few pixels'. The is little justification for believing in the 'perfection of creation'. And this from an optimist...

It is our choice to make.
I love listening to the views of others and always try to appreciate the factors that draw people to a particular belief system or lack of it.

I appreciate, truly, the time you take to respond to all arguments and discussions put forward. It speaks well, I think, to your commitment to the spiritual.

There are spiritual people and non spiritual people....there are slackers and there are fanatics and everything in between, in all persuasions. There are materialists and there are ascetics. Who and what we become in our lives is what is dictated by our own heart (the real us). This is why God judges us by this criteria, not by performance or any pretence carried out with insincerity. To love God requires an us breakable loyalty to him, not because we are blind, but because we have had our eyes opened.

I don't love God. How could I? So I suppose God can judge me for the lack, if it so pleases him. It's not like I've never judged God. But to be honest, your last sentence sounds trite to me.

In the Revelation Jesus mentions those who are 'neither hot nor cold', the 'lukewarm' ones who make him sick. Doubt is what creates this lukewarm, wishy washy attitude. A doubter is at the mercy of every whim that comes into the minds of those who can frame a convincing argument. The devil's propaganda works. :sad:

Can you direct me to the verse? Please understand, I'm not questioning your interpretation. I find some Biblical verse quite interesting. For what it's worth, I suppose I am 'cold' on this scale. I'd also consider myself a doubter, who would happily have their mind changed by a convincing argument. Surely this is positive for any who seek to proselytize? Else why bother?

I am not a doubter; I want to be found among those who are 'hot'....not 'lukewarm' in my approach to God's worship. I will not be found stumbling over every stone placed in front of me. The Bible is my bulldozer.
But I am not closed minded either because I am still open to learn. The difference is, I am not predisposed to give up easily when my beliefs are challenged and I will continue to dig in order to answer my own questions. This is what builds faith...one brick at a time.

I would never ask you to give up easily. I would hardly respect someone who did. But I would suggest that JW methods aren't always in concert with what I would generally consider 'open-mindedness'.

It's hard to build a wall of faith when someone is giving you reasons to take bricks out as you try to build.

Very true. But I've never found 'faith' as helpful, so I kinda see that as a positive.

 

[JayJayDee]

Yep...I can admire ingenuity whilst deploring the moral lack which leads to an action (for example). But my comment, if faescitious, wasn't related to that. You mentioned 'you have to admit, it demonstrates imagination' which struck me as amusing. I would admit it, but only in a colloquial sense. Of course, if being serious, I would admit no such thing. I see no evidence of 'imagination' nor of the sentience this indicates.

Since I do not have the Creator's specs, I cannot really make a decision about which sentient being is responsible for the animal (or insect) behavior that is called into question. For certain there are some odd habits that if humans engaged in them might result in standing before the Human Rights Commission....but since there is no Insect Rights Commission, and the Bible says that no creature will cause harm or ruin in the new world to come, I will have to wait until then to gain an understanding of what is taking place in the natural world at present.
Since satan is identified as its god and ruler, perhaps it is he who has influenced creatures to exhibit these traits....I simply don't know more than what the Bible tells me on this subject.

You mean 'Nor do you accept it as a natural part of our existence'. For my part, I do accept it as entirely natural.

Many atheists have adopted this position lewisnotmiller. But for the majority of spiritually inclined individuals of all religious persuasions, there is an expectation of a better life after this one. This idea has been with humankind for millennia.

Sorry...I'm honestly unsure what this means.

Animals do not possess a concept of the future, They cannot contemplate their own demise. They cannot consciously plan for the future based on taking in knowledge of their own volition. They are programmed by their Creator to do what they do instinctively. We are not. Animals accept death as a natural part of life...humans by and large fight death and see it as an undesirable outcome...even when we are old, we don't want to die unless life has become a burden.

Why would that be the case? What evolutionary benefit does adaptation to death provide, even were I disposed to concede that we 'don't accept it as part of our existence'

Since animals have no sense of death like we do, would you say that they have adapted to death? They don't really mourn or grieve like humans do so do you believe that humans will ever adapt to death the way animals appear to have done?

Fair enough. But that was never my point. Concentrate less on the mindless creature, and more on the sentient being you believe created them.

I've been watching a lot of David Attenborough docos lately. I have marvelled at the creatures that inhabit our world. Most of them have the most amazing lives and behaviors. Their courtship rituals are sometimes hilarious (especially in the bird world) and the tender care of their young is nothing short of astounding. How do predators who prey on the young of others, not want to eat their own? How does evolution explain that?
I know there are exceptions to all the "norms" but I have no explanation for them...but neither does science; in fact I'd venture to say that science has less explanation for all these things than the Bible does. Each explanation has to be taken on faith.

In my world view? Probably not. In your world view? Of course. You believe in objective truth, as defined by a being greater than us.

It's the only thing that makes sense to me. I have experienced this 'being greater than us' in so many ways in my life, that it would be a dishonest denial of him to doubt his existence and his abilities on the testimony of others.

Okay. And yet my children are happy, I love them, and they love me. It's not how I define hopeless. But we've been down this path before. I am, I guess, an optimist.

Happiness is not the sole possession of God's worshippers. One's own disposition and situation in life can create happiness to an extent, but it is the finite kind dependant on this situation continuing. A Christian's happiness depends on nothing external. In fact happiness can be experienced in spite of great personal hardship.

Man's record, of course. On my ability to live a happy life. On the ability of those around me to also do so. This is not to suggest that bad things don't happen. But I like my life. It's really pretty simple.

I am pleased that your life is happy. You sound like a very reasonable and emotionally stable person; it's not hard to imagine that you have passed these traits onto your children. The more simple life is, the less complicated you make everything. I wish it worked like that for everyone. Not too many walking around without baggage these days.

 

[JayJayDee]

It's far more than 'a few pixels'. The is little justification for believing in the 'perfection of creation'. And this from an optimist...

Haven't we defined "perfect" before?

I appreciate, truly, the time you take to respond to all arguments and discussions put forward. It speaks well, I think, to your commitment to the spiritual.

Thank you. Commitment is a serious business. If I was not serious about what I believe I wouldn't be here. I see that you are honest and straightforward in your own responses and appreciate your straight answers without ill will. It is refreshing.

I don't love God. How could I?

I would answer that by stating the opposite. I love God with everything I am. What's not to love?
Once you have a handle on who he really is and who we are by comparison; what he's done and is doing, and how he achieves the final outcome....it's easy.

So I suppose God can judge me for the lack, if it so pleases him. It's not like I've never judged God. But to be honest, your last sentence sounds trite to me

My last sentence was what I honestly believe. If we really want to open our eyes, they will be opened...not by us but by God. If we want to believe that he is the big mean guy in the sky, then that is all we will see. (John 6:44)

Can you direct me to the verse?

“To the angel of the congregation in La·o·di·ce′a write: These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God: 15 ‘I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were cold or else hot. 16 So because you are lukewarm and neither hot nor cold, I am going to vomit you out of my mouth. 17 Because you say, “I am rich and have acquired riches and do not need anything at all,” but you do not know that you are miserable and pitiful and poor and blind and naked, 18 I advise you to buy from me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, and white garments so that you may become dressed and that the shame of your nakedness may not be exposed, and eyesalve to rub in your eyes so that you may see." (Rev 3:14-18)

Please understand, I'm not questioning your interpretation. I find some Biblical verse quite interesting. For what it's worth, I suppose I am 'cold' on this scale. I'd also consider myself a doubter, who would happily have their mind changed by a convincing argument. Surely this is positive for any who seek to proselytize? Else why bother?

Those who are open to 'hear God's voice' (figuratively speaking) will be given every opportunity to "see" God as he really is, not the distorted version presented by those who do not know him except through the teachings of Christendom. Do you remember that this is what Jesus said of the Pharisees?

"I am one who bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me.” Then they said to him: “Where is your Father?” Jesus answered: “You know neither me nor my Father. If you did know me, you would know my Father also.” (John 8:18, 19)

The Father was misrepresented by the religious leaders to the people. I believe that the same is true today. Jesus perfectly represented his Father.

I would never ask you to give up easily. I would hardly respect someone who did. But I would suggest that JW methods aren't always in concert with what I would generally consider 'open-mindedness'.

I guess that is because we would define "open-mindedness' differently.

I have a belief system that I have explored very carefully over many years. I cannot find errors in that belief system as it pertains to Bible teaching. I am open to any new thoughts and definitions as they relate to that belief system. But when something fights with what I believe, then I must research it and square it away in my own mind. If I cannot defend my beliefs against all opposition, then I would lose faith in the God who gave it to me. I have known him and relied on his word and his spirit to sustain me through many trials. I cannot deny him, nor can I deny his presence among his people. It is visible and palpable.

Very true. But I've never found 'faith' as helpful, so I kinda see that as a positive.

I know you have described yourself as an optimist. I think I am too, (although for different reasons) but I am also a realist.

Can you be optimistic in the face of the constant failure of man with regard to successful government, care of earth's ecology, promotion of peace and harmony with fellow humans and other living things on this planet? Can you describe yourself as a realist if you still put your faith in man despite the fact that he has failed on all counts thus far in his history?

Where do you see the earth and its inhabitants in the 22nd century and beyond? Are you optimistic about our future if things continue as they have been in the last 5 decades?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Many atheists have adopted this position lewisnotmiller. But for the majority of spiritually inclined individuals of all religious persuasions, there is an expectation of a better life after this one. This idea has been with humankind for millennia.

Yep. As has fear of the bogeyman under the bed. What is death, if not the ultimate bogeyman?

Animals accept death as a natural part of life...humans by and large fight death and see it as an undesirable outcome...even when we are old, we don't want to die unless life has become a burden.

You really see that difference in animals? I could post a hundred videos which suggest animals very much fight against death and see it as an undesirable outcome, but haven't only for fear of causing distress.

Since animals have no sense of death like we do, would you say that they have adapted to death?

Nope. I'd suggest their level of intelligence determines their actions, in the main.

They don't really mourn or grieve like humans do so do you believe that humans will ever adapt to death the way animals appear to have done?

I think of it in entirely the opposite sense. 'Smarter' animals, including elephants and primates, have certainly displayed clear grieving rituals and behaviours.

I've been watching a lot of David Attenborough docos lately. I have marvelled at the creatures that inhabit our world. Most of them have the most amazing lives and behaviors. Their courtship rituals are sometimes hilarious (especially in the bird world) and the tender care of their young is nothing short of astounding. How do predators who prey on the young of others, not want to eat their own? How does evolution explain that?

The simplest explanation would be that an animal species which consistently consumed it's own young would be what is generally termed 'extinct' in pretty short order. There are, of course, plenty of animals who will eat their young on occasion.

I know there are exceptions to all the "norms" but I have no explanation for them...but neither does science; in fact I'd venture to say that science has less explanation for all these things than the Bible does. Each explanation has to be taken on faith.

Well...no actually. I'll offer just the briefest of examinations, but can offer more if you're actually interested.

Infanticide (zoology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is no 'faith' in this. There are things we don't know, and there are things we think we know. Of the things we think we know, we can utilise various means of determining them. Personal experience. Scientific method. Hearsay. Cultural explanations. There is no 'faith' in scientific method. It is our best guess based on performed experiments and observation. It's neither perfect, nor claims to be.

It's the only thing that makes sense to me. I have experienced this 'being greater than us' in so many ways in my life, that it would be a dishonest denial of him to doubt his existence and his abilities on the testimony of others.

Fair enough.

Happiness is not the sole possession of God's worshippers. One's own disposition and situation in life can create happiness to an extent, but it is the finite kind dependant on this situation continuing. A Christian's happiness depends on nothing external. In fact happiness can be experienced in spite of great personal hardship.

This will sound more insulting than I mean it to be, so I apologize in advance. My wife works with the mentally ill, and there are both happy and unhappy deluded people. The very delusion which marks them as ill can also make them happy, in some cases.

Equally, I could offer people of other religions who experience happiness in spite of great personal hardship due to their connection with Allah/God/Wodin, etc.


As for happiness not being conditional...well, to be honest I find that extremely doubtful. For some, the required conditions are simple and achievable, whilst others seem unable to achieve happiness regardless, but I think there are conditions on the happiness of all humans.

I am pleased that your life is happy. You sound like a very reasonable and emotionally stable person; it's not hard to imagine that you have passed these traits onto your children. The more simple life is, the less complicated you make everything. I wish it worked like that for everyone. Not too many walking around without baggage these days.

Agreed. And to a large degree I think simplicity is the key. Life is complicated, but the important things remain the same as ever.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Haven't we defined "perfect" before?

I'm not sure, to tell the truth! I don't actually have a good working definition of perfect though.

My last sentence was what I honestly believe. If we really want to open our eyes, they will be opened...not by us but by God. If we want to believe that he is the big mean guy in the sky, then that is all we will see. (John 6:44)

Well...I would certainly agree that preconception colors vision. I don't see God as the big mean guy in the sky, though.


“To the angel of the congregation in La·o·di·ce′a write: These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God: 15 ‘I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were cold or else hot. 16 So because you are lukewarm and neither hot nor cold, I am going to vomit you out of my mouth. 17 Because you say, “I am rich and have acquired riches and do not need anything at all,” but you do not know that you are miserable and pitiful and poor and blind and naked, 18 I advise you to buy from me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, and white garments so that you may become dressed and that the shame of your nakedness may not be exposed, and eyesalve to rub in your eyes so that you may see." (Rev 3:14-18)


Thank-you.

Those who are open to 'hear God's voice' (figuratively speaking) will be given every opportunity to "see" God as he really is, not the distorted version presented by those who do not know him except through the teachings of Christendom. Do you remember that this is what Jesus said of the Pharisees?

"I am one who bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me.” Then they said to him: “Where is your Father?” Jesus answered: “You know neither me nor my Father. If you did know me, you would know my Father also.” (John 8:18, 19)

The Father was misrepresented by the religious leaders to the people. I believe that the same is true today. Jesus perfectly represented his Father.

I understand the position of your religion far better now than before I came to this site.

I guess that is because we would define "open-mindedness' differently.

Perhaps we would.
*ponders*

So, I cannot help the preconceptions I bring to a discussion. My version of open-mindedness, then, is to try and be aware of these, and to listen with the understanding that my preconceptions are effecting how I hear things. To try and postpone judgement of them until the message is delivered, and to provide a considered response, rather than one driven by my gut.

Not exactly a concise definition, I will admit. Your turn!

I have a belief system that I have explored very carefully over many years. I cannot find errors in that belief system as it pertains to Bible teaching. I am open to any new thoughts and definitions as they relate to that belief system. But when something fights with what I believe, then I must research it and square it away in my own mind. If I cannot defend my beliefs against all opposition, then I would lose faith in the God who gave it to me. I have known him and relied on his word and his spirit to sustain me through many trials. I cannot deny him, nor can I deny his presence among his people. It is visible and palpable.

Well...I commend anyone who evaluates their own position constantly.
A question, although it's a little off topic. Assuming God's authenticity, and for sake of argument, assuming Jesus' too, what is it that makes the Bible infallible? Obviously we aren't going to agree on any of this anyway, but I have to admit I am ignorant of why the Bible is considered infallible even if God and Jesus are exactly 'as advertised'.

I know you have described yourself as an optimist. I think I am too, (although for different reasons) but I am also a realist.

*chuckles*
Me too. I know...it's an internet forum. I could be anything. But I've lived in poor countries, grew up blue collar, seen death and violence (thankfully in small doses) and work in a high-stress industry where I work directly with people ranging from CEOs of major businesses to the AP clerk. Life has a way of keeping me grounded. To be honest, I suspect a portion of it is genetic. My mother was similar (although not an atheist). She saw the green on her side of the fence, I suppose.

Can you be optimistic in the face of the constant failure of man with regard to successful government, care of earth's ecology, promotion of peace and harmony with fellow humans and other living things on this planet? Can you describe yourself as a realist if you still put your faith in man despite the fact that he has failed on all counts thus far in his history?

I'm an optimist, but also a realist. Man is man. He has always been flawed, and imperfect. I don't believe in perfection, only in improvement.

Where do you see the earth and its inhabitants in the 22nd century and beyond? Are you optimistic about our future if things continue as they have been in the last 5 decades?

Depends on which particular aspect we're focused. We seem to be casting off some baggage at great rates, whilst also burdening ourselves with new baggage. But overall I am cautiously optimistic. I've mentioned it before, also, but I find your habit of comparing today to the 1950's is interesting/dubious/informative. But hey, at least we know if things keep going the way they have, our murder rates will be ridiculously low in the future.