DeepSight:
I have often paused to contemplate the spectre of physical hunger and what it implies for the nature of the world in which we live. A living creature cannot subsist in the world of matter without energizing itself through the consumption of food. This food, consists of other living creatures, other living things or their by products. In essence, in the great circle of nature, life must consume life to subsist.

This very reality sets the pace for the entire food chain: the global economy of all living things - the global ecosystem in which the activity of each creature has a ripple effect on the survival and activities of other creatures and thus sets up a complex economy of all creatures. For the purpose of this thread I will refer to this simply as the "living economy."

This Living economy has both positive and negative consequences, both beautiful and macabre aspects. Almost every predatory action in the wild serves a function within an ecosystem: while predators control the population of cattle and keep cattle fit, alert and agile, scavengers such as the vulture ensure a most thorough "clean up" work of the remains of carcasses: insects interact with plants in the process of pollination and in some weirder instances some creatures will actually take up residence inside other creatures and eat and survive within their hosts. Not in all cases are these parasites harmful: in some cases the host derives benefits from the activity of the parasite.

I say all of that to establish that the "living economy" does have its own sense, its own rhythm, its own beat, its own pulse and it would appear its own very purpose. If man for instance, had no need to eat in order to survive, the compulsion to work might not exist and absent that compulsion humanity would certainly degenerate very fast and lose most of its creative capacities.

Nonetheless having said all that, I write to draw attention to the more macabre aspect of the living economy: particularly that aspect which involves conscious creatures eating one another for food. There is something intrinsically barbaric about the act especially as one observes it in the wild, that one has a compulsion to feel that this "living economy" could not be the creation or design of any benevolent designer.

It is true when it is said that nature is very cruel: absolutely unforgiving and could be the harshest and most merciless parent any creature could hope for: it abhors the weak and dispatches them mercilessly either at the hands of the elements or at the hands of disease or other beasts. In many ways the natural instincts of many creatures betrays such a horrendous innate cruelty that one must recoil: in taking over a pride, lions will not only kill or exile the displaced male: they will ensure that they murder every single cub of that pride in order to establish and perpetuate themselves. Some creatures kills their partners whilst mating as standard fare, other creatures such as some frogs and some snakes consume one another live and whole. In many instances the creatures which are prey will suffer significant levels of torture or misery in the process: and this is not a consequence of any particular wrong which they have done: it is simply the "living economy".

So there is this acid that works within our stomachs and other more powerful acids that work within the stomachs of other creatures. If you do not eat, this acid will burn you. It will begin first to consume the very same stomach walls. Then your body will start feeding on its own self until you die a horrible death.

You are therefore compelled to eat by this acid: by the imperatives of your body and in so doing you will eat other living things and likely other creatures too. It is an absolute compulsion: and never doubt that if absolutely necessary - this acid will force you to eat your own fellow human beings as well if there were no other food for a sufficiently long period of time. History is replete with it: and it is horrible.

Thus, hunger, this requirement to eat: drives many nasty things in the world: it drives greed, it drives selfishness, it drives oppression, it drove slavery, it drives imperialism, it drives corruption, it drives crime of every nature as well. And when one really thinks about it, in the complexity of the "living economy", with the presence of hunger, you will always have these consequences in a material world.

I will stop here for now, but the thought just crossed my mind what a grave danger those stomach acids are to a peaceful world: and how unpleasant the deities who constructed this world are: who have thus given it over to be ruled by such a nasty and implacable force such as Hunger.

DeepSight:


@ Truthislight - how come you quote my post without writing anything of yours?

truthislight:


See my take above.

Your OP rekindled an observation I had about the monster in our heads.

DeepSight:


Thank you. However I would have rather concentrated your thoughts on why the system is so wired in the first place. For it is, you must agree, a mercenary, crude, barbaric and savagely opportunistic "living economy" that has thus been set in place for all creatures on earth including humans.

Do you think that the author of this savagery is the primordial light itself which is God: or is more likely to be the simulation of intelligent beings within or outside this simulated universe: beings watching a savage game in play for the purposes of experiment or entertainment.

truthislight:


Ok, meanwhile, be for I say anything about your observation above, I wish you give and opinion about a scenario.

Assuming that all humans has the good health to survive on fruits and herbs/plants alone, do you think satisfying the demand of the brain for energy will be a problem?

Since I am a creationists as stated in the Bible, am aware that the initial plan was for all to thrive on plants and herbs/fruits. No Animal meat.

The eating of meat as a command came after Adam failed. It was first given to Noah to eat Animal meat after the flood.

Hence my question, if plant products were to be the staple food for living creatures, would hunger have been an issue?

SirWere:
Fascinating.

However, to go by a Christian Design perspective, one can say that animals and plants do not have "souls", neither do they have the ability to praise God (which was what Man was created for)

[s]Even though as I write this, a part of me is cringing and laughing at how riddiculous this is[/s].]/quote]

And it should.

[quote]Besides, nowhere was it written that Adam actually eat any animal or even a whole plant.
He was intially designed to eat fruits, perform descriptive Taxonomy
and praise God.


Ergo......

DeepSight:


Thank you for your question.



It is perfectly possible for humans to survive on a vegetarian diet alone: a lot of humans do this, particularly Hindus. In fact I understand that it is said to be particularly healthy, limits toxins in the body and also generally leads to greater longevity (I cannot confirm any of these). However I am personally favorably disposed to the idea as it is less barbaric than killing and consuming other conscious creatures such as animals and eating their corpses which is a somewhat hideous practice of ours in my estimation. (Moreso when we freeze the corpses to preserve them, then eat them again, while marinating the corpses which all manner of spices for our hideous enjoyment) - but I digress.



Please can you guide me to where this is made clear within scripture?



I am not sure that this is quite the case in scripture. Nevertheless please point it out to me within scripture please.



Well yes, there would still be an issue - although a less barbaric issue as I have described the eating of animal corpses above to be a most hideous practice of human beings.

The issue is because what is at play here is not just the question of what we eat but the fact that we must eat compulsively: thus we must work to gather such food compulsively and this inevitably leads to the evils mentioned in the OP: greed, selfishness, oppression, vicious competition for resources (which has always led to wars throughout history) etc. I mean just look at the slave plantations of the Americas - they were not harvesting meat, were they? They were dealing with plants and yet the labor was so great that men had to enslave other men in gruesome circumstances for centuries to assure that "living economy" could thrive.

The point therefore remains the same: what twisted mind would have conceived a world such as this, where underlying premises such as hunger, would eternally dictate sure and certain evil and barbarity for all time. . . ?

DeepSight:

Please can you guide me to where this is made clear within scripture?

DeepSight:

I am not sure that this is quite the case in scripture. Nevertheless please point it out to me within scripture please.

truthislight:




Genesis 1:29,30
29 Then God said: “Here I have given to you every seed-bearing plant that is on the entire earth and every tree with seed-bearing fruit. Let them serve as food for you. 30 And to every wild animal of the earth and to every flying creature of the heavens and to everything moving on the earth in which there is life, I have given all green vegetation for food.”
.............................

From the above, Animal was not to be part of the food for living things.
The plants was to give more than enough food for a perfect man. no mention of Animal as forming part of the food chain.



Genesis 9:3,4

3 Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. Just as I gave you the green vegetation, I give them all to you. 4 Only flesh with its life—its blood—you must not eat.
..........................................
The above was a new thing to man.

So, the plans change from the original concept.

It appears that humans from an imperfect stage can't readily sustain themselves adequately from eating plants since they were now no longer perfect.

Being imperfect, concession was made for them to eat Animal meat to supplement their protein intake.

Unfortunately, he had to let the initial plan pend to allow the contrary independent one run for all to see that his initial plans was the best.

DoctorAlien:
This write-up assumes that the "living economy" has always existed i.e. things has always been so.

If the writer of this piece can prove that the "living economy" was the original intention, product and design of the Creator, only then would he have the right to label the Creator as cruel and not-benevolent.

DeepSight:


Is there any evidence to the contrary?

Is the living economy not what we see and have always historically known?

If it was different in times past, does the onus not rest on you who claim so to prove that?

Do this living economy not also stretch to wild animals?

Did the creator intend lions to chew the cud?

DoctorAlien:


The absence of proof is not the proof of absence. The fact that you cannot determine whether things has always been this way proscribes labelling the Creator as not-benevolent on your part.

If you must call the Creator names, you must proof that He is really what you think. Or else you refrain from calling Him names.

Can you find out the moral standing and personality(the goodness or badness of the person) of an architect by studying the edifice he designed? If the building which the architect designed(accurately) collapses tomorrow, is the architect evil and horrible?

Edited.

DoctorAlien:

If the building which the architect designed(accurately) collapses tomorrow, is the architect evil and horrible?

Edited.

DeepSight:


Gotcha. I had forgotten my verses, pardon me.



But why?

What is the co-relation between the fall of man and consumption of meat?

I don't see the co-relation.



This is surely not true. There are life long vegetarians.

I once had a Hindu colleague who had never tasted meat in his life and he was middle aged.
This gentleman was the freshest, fittest, soundest looking of all of us always.

Surely this shows that it is not true to say that man cannot survive without meat.



The constant revision of the plans of a supposedly unchangeable God, a God who is the same yesterday, today and forever - is quite befuddling, wouldn't you say?

DeepSight:


This is a bad analogy. You have not shown that the living economy was ever anything different from what we all see. You then claim that it was different and then you ask us to prove that it was not! In this you then bring in "The absence of proof is not the proof of absence."

That is beyond odd my friend, and I will not engage you further unless I see anything tangible in whatever you say going forward. Otherwise consider this conversation over.

DeepSight:


The architect may be criminally negligent and in the case of a building that is actually designed to murder its occupants in the way that nature is designed to murder us all, or consume us all for food - the architect may be psychopathic.