Christians, why did god decide to have animals affected by the sin of Adam & Eve?

[orcel]

I'm with Koldo on this. Lego isn't sentient. Lego can't drown and experience pain and fear whilst doing so. If you take a literal reading of the story, then this is what your god did. All because of 'sin' entering one species??

Again, to insist that we have rights before God merely because we are sentient is a logical falicy. Rights are like rules between equal parties. We are not equal with God and therefore do not have rights before Him.

For example, we as a society do not condone dog fighting, we say its inhuman. That's not to say dog fighting lessens the humanity of dogs, they are not human to begin with. We detest dog fighting because to support it diminishes us, we become inhuman.

 

[Koldo]

ahh yes, this is were we often get hung up. As a culture we are so obsessed with human rights, which we understand to be God given. But what we miss is those humnan rights are specific for inter-human relations. IE I have human rights, of which you and no other human has any right to take from or deny me. However before God we do not. Regardles of feelings, pain or emotion, we have no rights before God.

Oh, no. That is not it. For a first, I am talking about all sentient creatures existent in general.

Actually it is exaclty that. To have rights before God is to have rights that are an authority over God, and by definition nothing has authority over God. When we try to claim that God owes us something, anything at all, we are elevating ourselves as greater then God.

Once again, you are confusing matters. It is not about humans rights. God owes us nothing. I have already said it, if God is omnibenevolent then there are certains things God will do and others he won't. We don't even have to ask for them.

When in the Bible God is described as benevolent, or vengeful, or jelous or even loving, the Bible is using human emotions to discribe God or God's motovations in human terms. Its kinda a close enough decription.

Think about it... If God is truely infinate in being, infinate in love, infinate in goodness. Can we really comprehend not to mention describe with language infinate love?

And the point of your argument is...?

 

[Koldo]

Again, to insist that we have rights before God merely because we are sentient is a logical falicy. Rights are like rules between equal parties. We are not equal with God and therefore do not have rights before Him.

For example, we as a society do not condone dog fighting, we say its inhuman. That's not to say dog fighting lessens the humanity of dogs, they are not human to begin with. We detest dog fighting because to support it diminishes us, we become inhuman.

To make it more simple for you to understand i will use your example. If God is omnibenevolent this means that God has a moral code which he follows. If he transgresses this moral code then it dimishes him as he becomes not-God*.

God* = Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnibenevolent.

 

[orcel]

Oh, no. That is not it. For a first, I am talking about all sentient creatures existent in general.

ah, fair enough.

Once again, you are confusing matters. It is not about humans rights. God owes us nothing. I have already said it, if God is omnibenevolent then there are certains things God will do and others he won't. We don't even have to ask for them.

okay, i can accept that.

And the point of your argument is...?

It is merely an attempt to remind everyone that describing an infinate God in human terms will usually fail somewhere. IE Describing God as omnibenevolent then trying to justify God's commands to ancient Hebrews to kill all the Cannanites.

 

[orcel]

To make it more simple for you to understand i will use your example. If God is omnibenevolent this means that God has a moral code which he follows. If he transgresses this moral code then it dimishes him as he becomes not-God*.

God* = Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnibenevolent.

Agreed

 

[Koldo]

It is merely an attempt to remind everyone that describing an infinate God in human terms will usually fail somewhere. IE Describing God as omnibenevolent then trying to justify God's commands to ancient Hebrews to kill all the Cannanites.

Therefore, there are two possible conclusions:

1. There is a way that God is still omnibenevolent while doing things that are regarded by mankind as evil.

2. There is a blatant logical contradiction.

 

[orcel]

Therefore, there are two possible conclusions:

1. There is a way that God is still omnibenevolent while doing things that are regarded by mankind as evil.

2. There is a blatant logical contradiction.

But to assume either we again either unjustifibally elevate humanity to God or deminish God to some human standard. As both place human understanding as the basis for judgement.

How can we judge an infinate God when our minds are incapable of comprehending Him?

 

[Luminous]

Therefore, there are two possible conclusions:

1. There is a way that God is still omnibenevolent while doing things that are regarded by mankind as evil.

2. There is a blatant logical contradiction.

3. God never did those evil things

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Free will is not subject to mandatory perfection. An omnibenevolent being would have to create beings with their own will, otherwise they would be the latter.

That kills the entire argument.

 

[McBell]

they dont 'have' souls...they 'are' souls.

ne′phesh and psy‧khe′ are applied to both mankind and animal kind in the scriptures and the meaning of soul is the physical body...not some spiritual part inside the body.

“The belief that the soul continues its existence after the dissolution of the body is a matter of philosophical or theological speculation rather than of simple faith, and is accordingly nowhere expressly taught in Holy Scripture.”—The Jewish Encyclopedia (1910), Vol. VI, p. 564.

“There is no dichotomy [division] of body and soul in the O[ld] T[estament]. The Israelite saw things concretely, in their totality, and thus he considered men as persons and not as composites. The term nepeš [ne′phesh], though translated by our word soul, never means soul as distinct from the body or the individual person. . . . The term [psy‧khe′] is the N[ew] T[estament] word corresponding with nepeš. It can mean the principle of life, life itself, or the living being.”—New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Vol. XIII, pp. 449, 450.



Gen 1:20 And God went on to say: “Let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living souls ...24 And God went on to say: “Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to its kind.”
30 And to every wild beast of the earth and to every flying creature of the heavens and to everything moving upon the earth in which there is life as a soul


Lev. 24:17, 18: “In case a man strikes any soul [Hebrew, ne′phesh] of mankind fatally, he should be put to death without fail. And the fatal striker of the soul [Hebrew, ne′phesh] of a domestic animal should make compensation for it, soul for soul.”
the same Hebrew word for soul is applied to both people and animals.


Gen. 9:5: “Besides that, your blood of your souls [or, “lives”; Hebrew, from ne′phesh] shall I ask back.” Here the soul is said to have blood.

Josh. 11:11: “They went striking every soul [Hebrew, ne′phesh] that was in it with the edge of the sword.” The soul can be touched by the sword, its the physical part of us.

Thank you.

 

[Koldo]

Free will is not subject to mandatory perfection. An omnibenevolent being would have to create beings with their own will, otherwise they would be the latter.

That kills the entire argument.

No, it doesn't.

Explain the flood.

 

[Koldo]

3. God never did those evil things

That is part of (2).
There is a blatant logical contradiction,...therefore God never did those evil thing.
OR
There is a blatant logical contradiction,...therefore God is not omnibenevolent.
And so on and on.

 

[Koldo]

But to assume either we again either unjustifibally elevate humanity to God or deminish God to some human standard. As both place human understanding as the basis for judgement.

How can we judge an infinate God when our minds are incapable of comprehending Him?

Actually, the second one does just like that.
However, the first one does not.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

No, it doesn't.

Explain the flood.

He killed all the evil in the world, and I have to tell you.. 5000 something years ago, in those barbaric times, seeing one fret over it is quite stupid. He obvious has many reasons for doing so.
Perhaps he saved more lives in the long run. But that's not going to sway the mind of someone who simply wants God to be evil. In fact, it won't be until God makes you a god that you start calling him okay. It's ludicrous.
I say this all in one tight knot because I know some will argue till their face is blue as if one actually deserves to even be alive period.

 

[Koldo]

He killed all the evil in the world, and I have to tell you.. 5000 something years ago, in those barbaric times, seeing one fret over it is quite stupid. He obvious has many reasons for doing so.
Perhaps he saved more lives in the long run. But that's not going to sway the mind of someone who simply wants God to be evil. In fact, it won't be until God makes you a god that you start calling him okay. It's ludicrous.
I say this all in one tight knot because I know some will argue till their face is blue as if one actually deserves to even be alive period.

Were the animals,that died during the flood, evil?
There is no mention of this fact in the bible.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Were the animals,that died during the flood, evil?
There is no mention of this fact in the bible.

Who cares? They are beings not subject to hell and their lives here on Earth are vain because they do not learn or master good and evil as we do. They are here to serve us.

A good reason God gave Noah permission to eat animals was because all the plants died. I guess nobody thought about that..

 

[Koldo]

Who cares?

An omnibenevolent being surely does.

A good reason God gave Noah permission to eat animals was because all the plants died. I guess nobody thought about that..

Not ALL plants were dead by the time Noah set his foot out of the ark. Read Genesis 8:10-11.

[10 He waited seven more days and again sent out the dove from the ark. 11 When the dove returned to him in the evening, there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf! Then Noah knew that the water had receded from the earth.]

Also, what were the herbivore animals supposed to eat if there were no plants back then?

 

[Sum1sGruj]

An omnibenevolent being surely does.
Not ALL plants were dead by the time Noah set his foot out of the ark. Read Genesis 8:10-11.

[10 He waited seven more days and again sent out the dove from the ark. 11 When the dove returned to him in the evening, there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf! Then Noah knew that the water had receded from the earth.]


Also, what were the herbivore animals supposed to eat if there were no plants back then?

An omnibenevolent being sent his creatures to Heaven. An animal is vain enough without serving Earth in some way. And they that served no purpose but to serve evil men. It all fits perfectly.

And so what did Noah, his family, and all the animals eat?
They ate fish. That's pretty much the consensus matching possibility.

They had the herbivores live off the little plant life they had in stock and in the wilderness until the crops came in.

 

[orcel]

Actually, the second one does just like that.
However, the first one does not.

I have to disagree. The first determins that perhaps there is some method of which God can be benevolent and adheair to mankind's definition of good. IE God is being judged by human standards.

So both arguments attempt to judge / understand God via human standards.

 

[Koldo]

An omnibenevolent being sent his creatures to Heaven. An animal is vain enough without serving Earth in some way. And they that served no purpose but to serve evil men. It all fits perfectly.

Provide biblical reference to where in the bible it is said that:

1. Animals are sent to Heaven.
2. An animal is vain without serving Earth in some way.

And so what did Noah, his family, and all the animals eat?
They ate fish. That's pretty much the consensus matching possibility.

Consensus?
According to whom?