All because YHWH couldn't just selectively kill the bad people.... Remember the GB hate "false God pets" because they detract from Kingdom Service..
DD
Theists, why does God allow suffering..
by The Quiet One 754 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Jon Preston
So if God is real he is bound by Scientific and physical Laws and principles. And yet if hes all powerful and knows all, sees all, blah blah....why doesnt he do anything? There is ZERO point in this logic. No reason to continue to let people suffer, no reason to not intervene (especially when he makes a mild summer to pring WT bibles eh? ;-), selectively destroy the bad eggs so the good genetics can thrive...honestly i dont really see one good thing about it....maybe false hope to get through tough times?
-
defender of truth
"All because YHWH couldn't just selectively kill the bad people...."
Exactly.. Just think of Isaiah 37:36, from this weeks book study. And that was just one angel.. -
defender of truth
"So I'll just list the times that God killed or commanded others to kill animals."
http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.co.uk/2009/01/how-many-animals-has-god-killed.html -
defender of truth
"Owner Genna Robinson has spoken of her anguish after her two-year-old Labrador was taken, tied to a brick and thrown in the Trent and Mersey Canal"
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/dog-snatched-murdered-yobs-who-3368368 -
Perry
Because the universe as it is, not as we would imagine it, allows for its possibility. When Adam fell, and became God's enemy ....everything in Adam, and under his dominion became disconnected one way or another - from the Source of Life.
-
Jon Preston
So perry, is the universe as it is cause of adam?
-
defender of truth
"The most common answer given by Christians is that the pain and suffering of animals is explained by the sin of human creatures, most notably the Fall of Adam. After all, Romans8:19-22seems to imply that the suffering we find in the natural world is part of the “groaning of creation”--a creation which cries out for redemption from the crippling effects of Adam’s sin.Isaiah 24:2-6directly states that (at least much of) the natural evil in the world derives the fact that the peoples of the earth “disobey the laws,” “violate the statutes,” and “break the covenants.”However, given the very powerful evidence that animals (and their pain, suffering, death, and predation) pre-existed the first human beings, that view seems incomplete. If the pain and suffering of animals predates Adam’s existence, it is hard to see how his (or our) sin could fully explain it...it is worth asking this question: “If all animal pain and suffering came after Adam’s Fall, would the Fall be a potentially good explanation for that pain and suffering?”Many Christian theologians have thought so (Calvin endorses this view in his commentary on chapter 8 of the book of Romans for example). But this explanation has one difficulty, a difficulty I call the “fragility objection.” To see the objection we must consider this question: “What is the supposed connection between Adam’s Fall and animal pain?”...In either case, however, it is hard to see why God would have made the integrity and well-being of nature, and of the innocent creatures in it, susceptible to the faithful obedience of humans (an obedience God knew they would not sustain). Why was nature made so very fragile in this way? Is not that fragility itself a defect (or evil) in creation?...Of course, many will find a solution to the problem that relies on the claim that animals do not experience pain and suffering to be extraordinarily implausible. What might we say then? I think there are two other possible solutions. I will offer one here (and leave the other one for you to discover in chapters 5 and 6 of the book! (it is too long to outline here)). When I have discussed the question of the pain and suffering of animals with Christian scientists, they almost always explain it like this: “Animals feel pain and suffering because without such pain and suffering they would be unable to avoid injury! Pain is the body’s warning system!” Is that a good response? Might pain and suffering be necessary for embodied organisms to avoid injury? "http://www.reasonablefaith.org/animal-suffering1
-
defender of truth
"Animal suffering seems at odds with the Christian idea of a loving and powerful God.
After all, if God was all-powerful he could prevent suffering, and if God was perfectly good he would want to prevent suffering.
But animals do suffer on a colossal scale, and as there doesn't seem to be any logical necessity for them to do so Christians have some explaining to do.
This problem of animal suffering is part of the general problem that Christians face in explaining the existence of evil and suffering in God's world.
Theologians and philosophers have tried to deal with animal suffering - here are some of their attempts..."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/christianethics/animals_1.shtml#section_4 -