Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But you might tell me what you could have countered it with...short of a general answer of "B.S."
I gave him credit for addressing the question with an answer specific to it rather than the usual vague generic response
Maybe I'm just easily impressed
I would have countered with....
'Your answer did not address the question..which was WHY would God allow the tree to fall on the animal. Try again.'
First, There are animals and there are trees and rocks. All were created by God. At various times a rock or tree will fall on an animal and cause pain.
Pain was created by God to let us know when something is wrong. For example when we touch something glowing red, we get burned. So, in the future we avoid this glowing red thing until we can determine if it is safe to touch. However the glowing red thing is good, especially if it can cook our food and kill the bacteria in our food to keep us living longer or without stomach pain due to some dysentery.
So the animal that had a branch fall on it, got hurt and realized to stay away from falling branches. And the animal that had a tree fall on it learned real well to stay away from falling trees, that is if it survived.
You were doing pretty well until then. IF it survived. IF it didn't then the pain was pointless. And if a lot of animals die in a rockslide it's pointless. They haven't learned anything. And if a lot of poeople die in a natural disaster, it's pointless. What does that teach us? That there's nobody there but us chickens, is what.
Quote:
When you say "innocent" animals, you are refering to a point which is irrelevant. Innocent of what? How does innocence prevent the laws of physics? Or why should someone who is innocent not have the laws of physics applied to their person when it can cause their pain or demise?
It is far from irrelevant. If our creation was not by God then he has no business coming and interefering. So I'm assuming you suppose we and animals were made by God. What have animals done to annoy God? Sin? I'm not even talking about Adam's fall in which animals did not share, so they should live forever. Maybe you don't believe Genesis, though I'd bet heavily that you do. But animals have done only what is in their nature. Only what they were MADE like. So of course they are innocent.
Quote:
Why do human have to be there to make the tree falling on the animal any more relevant to the animal or to God?
Because we are supposed to have a moral code from God. It is supposed to teach us that you don't inflict harm for no good reason. You don't do overkill to teach people a lesson. You don't break an animal's back with a rock just to teach it to keep away from loose rocks. The relevance is that we observe these things and wonder 'Why is God letting this happen?'. That it is is to teach us something does not stack up. It looks much more like it's just bad luck and no god is in charge.
Quote:
The moral of the story...God created trees and rocks. Sometimes they fall and if they do stay away from them!
The moral of the story is that if it all looks like it's just happening ...trees or rocks fall because of...random factors, really. It probably just is. And it's not just falling rocks and trees - that's just minimising the problem so as to dismiss it. There's also volcanoes, floods, earthquakes and that's natural stuff a god could presumably do something about. There's also wars and new religions all of which claim to be the right one and none can point to such success that proves that any one god is behind it.
The moral of the story is that, taken as a whole, the Problem of evil looks like there just isn't a God.
Sorry...guess I should have indicated the answer more clearly. "Since man wasn't there to suffer from having to witness, maybe God has it arranged so that the animal doesn't feel pain or suffer."
I like that. That's one of the best 'Well maybe..' answers I've heard. But why, then, if God is going to have, as part of His great plan, a rock or branch fall on an animal and just to make it all nice he anesthsizes it so it doesn't suffer, why the freak not just have the rock or branch NOT fall on it in the first place?
I like that. That's one of the best 'Well maybe..' answers I've heard. But why, then, if God is going to have, as part of His great plan, a rock or branch fall on an animal and just to make it all nice he anesthsizes it so it doesn't suffer, why the freak not just have the rock or branch NOT fall on it in the first place?
I might have pushed on with further questions but, even though I had originally said an acceptable enough(specific) answer would made me agree to listen more to what they were pushing, I wasn't subjected to it.
That answer was delivered by the first lady and he never showed up at my door again
The first lady did but by then she had just begun to enjoy it and I had to remind her she wasn't supposed to associate with non-members just for fun and friendship......she looked sad but left and didn't come back
Last edited by old_cold; 08-05-2010 at 12:43 PM..
Reason: memory correction
You were doing pretty well until then. IF it survived. IF it didn't then the pain was pointless. And if a lot of animals die in a rockslide it's pointless. They haven't learned anything. And if a lot of poeople die in a natural disaster, it's pointless. What does that teach us? That there's nobody there but us chickens, is what.
It is far from irrelevant. If our creation was not by God then he has no business coming and interefering. So I'm assuming you suppose we and animals were made by God. What have animals done to annoy God? Sin? I'm not even talking about Adam's fall in which animals did not share, so they should live forever. Maybe you don't believe Genesis, though I'd bet heavily that you do. But animals have done only what is in their nature. Only what they were MADE like. So of course they are innocent.
Because we are supposed to have a moral code from God. It is supposed to teach us that you don't inflict harm for no good reason. You don't do overkill to teach people a lesson. You don't break an animal's back with a rock just to teach it to keep away from loose rocks. The relevance is that we observe these things and wonder 'Why is God letting this happen?'. That it is is to teach us something does not stack up. It looks much more like it's just bad luck and no god is in charge.
The moral of the story is that if it all looks like it's just happening ...trees or rocks fall because of...random factors, really. It probably just is. And it's not just falling rocks and trees - that's just minimising the problem so as to dismiss it. There's also volcanoes, floods, earthquakes and that's natural stuff a god could presumably do something about. There's also wars and new religions all of which claim to be the right one and none can point to such success that proves that any one god is behind it.
The moral of the story is that, taken as a whole, the Problem of evil looks like there just isn't a God.
You deserve kudos for the patience you displayed with this post.
I restrained from posting what was running through my mind
Do you wonder if there is some sort of training that neophite Christians are going through....sort of like running the gauntlet...and this forum is part of it?
You can't prove it...but you can make some damned good inferences. If a tree falls on an animal, you don't think it feels pain? How about this: if God arranged for animals to have nervous systems, wouldn't you think it's capable of feeling pain? And if it feels sufficient pain, might it not experience what a human being would call suffering?
If that JW had been standing in front of my door, that's exactly what I would've said to him. Or her. To either of them!
You deserve kudos for the patience you displayed with this post.
I restrained from posting what was running through my mind
Do you wonder if there is some sort of training that neophite Christians are going through....sort of like running the gauntlet...and this forum is part of it?
I have sometimes wondered! On an earlier forum I asked a deconvert who had exhibited the archetypal behaviour and he sweared that it wozzn't so. It's just a pure desire to show us how wrong we are.
The patience needed there was very little. A post like that I can type with one hand while stir- frying with the other and listening to Stravinsky at the same time. It's all part of the corpus of refutation that the goddless need to protect them against the door - to door peddlers of 'pologetics.
Sorry...guess I should have indicated the answer more clearly. "Since man wasn't there to suffer from having to witness, maybe God has it arranged so that the animal doesn't feel pain or suffer."
What a silly answer! Animals feel pain, period, whether anyone is there to see it happen or not. And what an inexcusably anthropocentric worldview is implied in that answer.
What a silly answer! Animals feel pain, period, whether anyone is there to see it happen or not. And what an inexcusably anthropocentric worldview is implied in that answer.
True. We have to bear in mind that the Bible - view is utterly anthropocentric. (Goes into Evolutionist preacher mode ) Darwinist science - religion teaches that we are animals and the world was not made for our convenience and animals are not just 'things' with which to do as we like.
Bible -Religion teaches that we are at the centre of the world, we are the most important thing on this earth and the only reason animals are here is to be of convenience to us, which is why I can't imagine why Noah took mosquitoes, locusts and bubonic plague bacteria on board the Ark.
Thus, if animals get hurt it is only because God intends it to be somehow for our benefit.
That of course makes incoherent nonsense of all the theist explanations suggested either by that JW door - pounder or by our mate Nikk above.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-06-2010 at 05:16 AM..
OK, I'll play. As per the bible, all things on the earth are put here by god for the use of man, right? That makes them essentially tools and resources, not Disney style little human emotion feeling fuzzy critters with human personalities.
Since they are mere tools and don't contain spirits like people supposedly do, their pain, suffering and death is irrelevant and basically non-existant. It would be as silly as assuming a rock felt pain as it rolled off a cliff and into a ravine, or a tree felt pain for being cut down and made into part of a church.
Therefore, god could not be considered cruel or indifferent for letting it happen.
Nor could it be considered wasteful or unnecessary, because the the death of the animal would serve to put nutrients in the ground that would eventually feed the trees of the forest, which could then be cut down for human use.
Not my personal philosophy, but how can you refute a resource (as defined by the bible) experiences human suffering if it is being used (even indirectly) by humankind, as per the origional intent of it's creation?
Do I win a gold star?
Chango.....you have given the most Biblically sound answer, thus far. I assume that's why no one has responded to you. See....these cats don't really want reasons to love or believe in God. They want more reasons not to believe. That's the way a majority of these threads are designed.
Yes.... 2 gold stars!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
On an earlier forum I asked a deconvert who had exhibited the archetypal behaviour 
and he sweared that it wozzn't so. It's just a pure desire to show us how wrong we are. 
