..specifically, the suffering of animals.
you can talk about free will/sin/people choosing to not listen to god etc to explain human suffering being allowed.. but how can you love a god that allows animals, that haven't sinned or chosen to not have anything to do with god, to have their short lives ended in often long, drawn out, painful ways.
i could list stories i've read that would probably make you feel ill, but i'm not looking to shock anyone or start an emotional debate.
@Cofty: Its very muscle fibers called myosin are of a particular type that permits it to accelerate to 60mph to catch its hapless victims.
Now what makes you think its because of prey that cheetahs are built to run that fast? So does this mean other animals that hunt similar prey to cheetahs are at a loss for not evolving speed muscles?
..specifically, the suffering of animals.
you can talk about free will/sin/people choosing to not listen to god etc to explain human suffering being allowed.. but how can you love a god that allows animals, that haven't sinned or chosen to not have anything to do with god, to have their short lives ended in often long, drawn out, painful ways.
i could list stories i've read that would probably make you feel ill, but i'm not looking to shock anyone or start an emotional debate.
@Cofty: Did anybody really think god made cheetahs able to run at 60mph so they could be first to the best grazing?
Your reasoning is pretty much flawad on this, you do realise that variation was consistent in creation. Thats the beauty of it. Different animals with different features excelling at different things.
@Ziddina:
I always find it hilarious that humans think that they "design" and "create" things, independent of ANY other natural process...
If one looks at the procession of human technology, one will find that human technology EVOLVES.... Despite the human efforts at "creating" things...
Let me see if I can get a decent progression of the evolution of the automobile, here...
One thing you are missing here is the fact the progression of technology does not change the the product, it only improves it. Just check the evolution of cars and how much has changed over the years and yet they are still called cars. They dont change. So how does is compare to the evolution where one organism changes entirely to another?
..specifically, the suffering of animals.
you can talk about free will/sin/people choosing to not listen to god etc to explain human suffering being allowed.. but how can you love a god that allows animals, that haven't sinned or chosen to not have anything to do with god, to have their short lives ended in often long, drawn out, painful ways.
i could list stories i've read that would probably make you feel ill, but i'm not looking to shock anyone or start an emotional debate.
@The quite one: Let me start by asking you to define suffering in the context of your post, i see you mentioned animal suffering, well what about plant suffering too? when you buy that orange from the market and slice it up to fill your desire do you in any way feel the orange might have suffered? after all its a living thing too right? So why just concern yourself with animals?
Is it because plants cant make those sad faces? or perhaps because they dont have blood? If i am allowed to speak my mind, frankly i think most of you are acting hipocratically. Why are you pretending to care for animals all of a sudden?
If there is one thing i find intruiging, its how evoltion tries to clasify humans and animals as not so different, i mean dont they teach that we all stemed from the same ancestry way back in time? And i am not too familiar with the concept of evolution but if life started in a basic singular from then dont both animal and plants share the same ancestory? So its like
(Human = Animal = Plant) = Life(Billions of years back) . i could be wrong though but i think you get my point.
Now back to your question about why God allows suffering(animals specifically). If there is anything to be said i think the bible has quite detailed answers about your question, that is if you believe its credible enough for you.
Genesis 1: 30(KJV) = And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
That should give you an idea of how God intended things to be. Man and animals alike were not created carnivorous from the beginning, they were made to be herbivous from the start. And it was so till the falling away. One thing you should realize is that the earth was made for man, and man was to dominate it all. Any action of man did not just have effect on him alone, but on the earth and all that exist on it too.
The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was the enbodyment of all the principles of good and evil we experience today, violence, pain,suffering to name a few.
and please don't do so with the standard "i don't know the answer - but there surely must be one.
" or some other lame attempt to defend god/bible without a real explanation.. here goes:.
i find it incredibly interesting how hard the mind works to prevent rational thought when it suits it's purpose.
@NewChapter: Then exactly who owned them? We've already established that the egyptian cattle was all dead.
Isn't is obvious that the Israelites owned the cattle?
And that the Israelite firstborns were skipped---if they had the blood on the post.
That is if you are implying the Israelites had their cattle with them in their houses, and last i checked cattle dont live in houses, which means the means the rule of losing first borns applied to them(cattle) as well.
So what was left to kill?
I am thinking you are just being sarcastic, you do realize that its two acts that happened there right?
1. Egyptians lose their cattle ---------- Israelites retain all their cattle.
2. Epyptians lose their firstborns( man and livestock) ------------ Israelites lose the firstborn of all livestock.
Simple as ABC.
and please don't do so with the standard "i don't know the answer - but there surely must be one.
" or some other lame attempt to defend god/bible without a real explanation.. here goes:.
i find it incredibly interesting how hard the mind works to prevent rational thought when it suits it's purpose.
@AK-Jeff:
Exodus 9:1-6
And the LORD did that thing on the morrow, and all the cattle of Egypt died: but of the cattle of the children of Israel died not one.
Its clear that none of the cattle of the Egytpians remained where as all the cattle of the Ishraelites lived.
But in Exodus 12: 1, 13, 29,
13 - And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.
Here we see that the only exception is to the houses that have the blood on their posts. The Israelites were to sprinkle the blood on the doorposts of the houses they observed the act in, which means neither their cattle or other livestock were excluded from the destruction that was to come.
29 - And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all thefirstborn of cattle
Not only did the Egyptians lose their firstborn sons but they also lost the firstbort live of their livestock. The Isrealites also lost the firstborns of all their livestock( cattle included) because the blood was meant for their houses and not their animal farms.
12 - For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD
firstborn of all cattle , does not mean the Egyptians owned them.
paragraph 15: "he vowed that if god gave ammon into jephthah's hand, the first one to come out of the door when he returned home would be jehovah's.
as jephthah returned home from subduing ammon, his daughter came running to meet him.
(judg.
rocketman:It was not a human sacrifice. Jepthah would have exercised the option of redeeming his daughter by means of a lamb as an offering instead.
The girl weeped over her virginity, which would be perpetual due to her temple service. She wasn't weeping over her untimely death.
are you kidding me ?. The guy who made the oath said he was going to offer a burnt offering, not a person for life servitude.
Judges 11: 36 - From the horses own mouth
And she said unto him, My father, if thou hast opened thy mouth unto the LORD, do to me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth;
Judges 11 : 39
And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed
need i say more?.
paragraph 15: "he vowed that if god gave ammon into jephthah's hand, the first one to come out of the door when he returned home would be jehovah's.
as jephthah returned home from subduing ammon, his daughter came running to meet him.
(judg.
Sic Semper Tyrannis:The man shouldn't have made the oath, whether or not it was his own daughter or a servant girl. It's a disgusting practice regardless of what period of time he lived in. Upon finding his daughter coming out first, Jephthah should have offered up his own sorry ass in her place.
exactly, he should not have make the oath, he thought making the oath would cause God to give him victory, he didnt know God would have given him the victory regardless of any oath.
undercover:Who the hell is Jepthah to make a promise to send his daughter into servitude at the temple for life? Who is he to deny her the choice of having a family? She didn't make any promises. She obviously didn't want to serve at the temple (and obviously wouldn't have been too keen on the sacrifice bit either, I'm sure) thus crying over her virginity (if she was even a virgin to begin with. Dad was off to war...who knows what went on in his absence...
what makes you think gender played any role over here? the outcome would have been the same regardless of who came to meet him first, it could even have been his dad or bros.
paragraph 15: "he vowed that if god gave ammon into jephthah's hand, the first one to come out of the door when he returned home would be jehovah's.
as jephthah returned home from subduing ammon, his daughter came running to meet him.
(judg.
Well sounds retarded right? typical of WT$ ,it baffles me how they expect people to shove things like that into their throats knowing very well that it does not make sense?
an effort at a summary... still learning about atheists/agnostics and what they believe at this point on the journey.... .
religionistsatheists/agnosticsbelieversthe "god of religion"embracerejectrejectsupremacist, sectarianembracerejectrejectself-righteousness via:.
embracerejectreject- legalism (rules).
dude, your charts does not really make sense to me. What do you mean my religionist/believers?... and also about believers rejecting moralism?
i have no doubt that in a few weeks when the campaign to spread memorials invites is underway that my good friend, the jw, will give me an invitation.
she has already told me that she would support me when walking in, telling me that i could sit next to her and she wouldnt give a damn what others would think that she was encouraging a disfellowshipped person.
she is very sweet, and i appreciate her thoughts.. however, i would rather not go because i believe the whole thing is done wrong anyway.
1Co 11:23 - 26 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
I have been to the JW's memorial once and its nothing like in the scriptures above, i dont think i would ever set my foot to any one of their memorial services.
On the other hand.
1Co 11:27 - 31 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
So the question is, do you regard yourself worthy to partake in the communion?, the scripture says let each man examine himself.
