https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ej4txktV64

DeepSight:


Do I understand you to be saying that God is fed by souls? If so, this is an extremely interesting proposition. Can you please expatiate on it?

Since evil presides over all that is corruptible, in other words over all that is alive, it is absurd to try to prove it comprises less being than good does, or even that it contains none at all. Those who identify evil with nothingness suppose they are thereby saving their poor Good Lord. We save Him only if we have the courage to sever His cause from that of the Demiurge. Having refused to do so, Christianity inveterately sought to impose the inevidence of a merciful Creator: a hopeless enterprise which has exhausted Christianity and compromised the God it sought to preserve.

In other words: when we attribute omnipotence to the figure of the creator of the universe, all attempts to absolve him from the evils of the world are futile. If God exists, he is guilty, according to non-dogmatic perspectives that have no commitment to defend him. Throughout the history of the great monotheistic religions there has been a tremendous effort to spare God from being guilty of the world's evils.

True rhetorical juggling was employed in the efforts to exonerate God from being guilty of the evils suffered by creatures. However, from the perspective of negative or pessimistic philosophy, from the perspective of thinkers such as Schopenhauer and Cioran, the creator, if he really existed, would be guilty. What is more, he would deserve our contempt and hatred if he really existed. Misotheism (an aversion or hatred of God or gods) would not be a gratuitous act of rebellion, but a perfectly justifiable response.

SimplePlan34:



Since evil presides over all that is corruptible, in other words over all that is alive, it is absurd to try to prove it comprises less being than good does, or even that it contains none at all. Those who identify evil with nothingness suppose they are thereby saving their poor Good Lord. We save Him only if we have the courage to sever His cause from that of the Demiurge. Having refused to do so, Christianity inveterately sought to impose the inevidence of a merciful Creator: a hopeless enterprise which has exhausted Christianity and compromised the God it sought to preserve.

In other words: when we attribute omnipotence to the figure of the creator of the universe, all attempts to absolve him from the evils of the world are futile. If God exists, he is guilty, according to non-dogmatic perspectives that have no commitment to defend him. Throughout the history of the great monotheistic religions there has been a tremendous effort to spare God from being guilty of the world's evils.

True rhetorical juggling was employed in the efforts to exonerate God from being guilty of the evils suffered by creatures. However, from the perspective of negative or pessimistic philosophy, from the perspective of thinkers such as Schopenhauer and Cioran, the creator, if he really existed, would be guilty. What is more, he would deserve our contempt and hatred if he really existed. Misotheism (an aversion or hatred of God or gods) would not be a gratuitous act of rebellion, but a perfectly justifiable response.

This is ultra-brilliant and cuts deep to the point without sentiment, and absolutely without the default defense of an indefensible God which one finds everywhere. Thank you.

Nonetheless you have not really explained what you meant by God feeding on souls - unless you did and i have missed it - in which case I would plead that you break it down further.

And more on the Demiurge please.

KnownUnknown:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ej4txktV64

One thing I find with almost all theistic discussants on this subject is a dismissal of animal pain and suffering with respect to the issues raised. Any close observer of animals knows that many animals experience grief as well, just as surely as they experience physical pain, and yet their suffering is always lightly dismissed when these issues are discussed.

I will never forget the video of the hyena who goes after the testicles of a Buffalo, rips them off and starts feasting even as the Buffalo wails in pain. This is nature at work - and you cannot blame "original sin" for this kind of suffering. You cannot blame "duality" in the lower worlds for this kind of suffering, apologies to Benodic. It is just what nature is - brutal and heartless, simple.

DeepSight:


This is ultra-brilliant and cuts deep to the point without sentiment, and absolutely without the default defense of an indefensible God which one finds everywhere. Thank you.

Nonetheless you have not really explained what you meant by God feeding on souls - unless you did and i have missed it - in which case I would plead that you break it down further.

And more on the Demiurge please.

All civilisation from the Mesopotamian to the Greek to the Egyptian records the spiritual of how humanity feeds the Gods. Only Christianity exenorate God. The imbalance in creation is what feeds the Gods. Enik/Hades/Lucifer feeds on our fear. Enik/Yahweh/ Zeus is the one in power. But u need to do find out urself. Remember nature itself is imbalance if there is beauty there is ugly. If there is strong there is weak. The strong prey on the weak.

DeepSight:


I will never forget the video of the hyena who goes after the testicles of a Buffalo, rips them off and starts feasting even as the Buffalo wails in pain.

I agree with everything you said but I’ve never been able to fully watch that video.
If there is a god, I have to assume that it has been called in front of the council of gods and have its super power stripped away. Why?
Because it created a shit show! A beautiful horror show. It’s a veritable tragicomedy.

KnownUnknown:


I agree with everything you said but I’ve never been able to fully watch that video.
If there is a god, I have to assume that it has been called in front of the council of gods and have its super power stripped away. Why?
Because it created a shit show! A beautiful horror show. It’s a veritable tragicomedy.

Some people say its a lower rank "god" still learning the ropes.
Like a child in a cosmic creation class.
Experimenting with us.

SimplePlan34:


All civilisation from the Mesopotamian to the Greek to the Egyptian records the spiritual of how humanity feeds the Gods. Only Christianity exenorate God. The imbalance in creation is what feeds the Gods. Enik/Hades/Lucifer feeds on our fear. Enik/Yahweh/ Zeus is the one in power. But u need to do find out urself. Remember nature itself is imbalance if there is beauty there is ugly. If there is strong there is weak. The strong prey on the weak.

What I want to know is if you mean -

1. That we create "the gods" from our imagination, fears, fantasies, wishes, etc. The gods thus being a projection of our minds OR -
2. The gods actually exist and are energized by human souls which they actively feed on. In the way that we feed on food.

DeepSight:


What I want to know is if you mean -

1. That we create "the gods" from our imagination, fears, fantasies, wishes, etc. The gods thus being a projection of our minds OR -
2. The gods actually exist and are energized by human souls which they actively feed on. In the way that we feed on food.

2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKRteNG01VE

SimplePlan34:


2

Considering the cycle of life we are familiar with on Earth, I cannot lightly dismiss this. But can you expatiate a little on how exactly this consumption of souls occurs. Is it at the point of death or something like that.

DeepSight:


One thing I find with almost all theistic discussants on this subject is a dismissal of animal pain and suffering with respect to the issues raised. Any close observer of animals knows that many animals experience grief as well, just as surely as they experience physical pain, and yet their suffering is always lightly dismissed when these issues are discussed.

I will never forget the video of the hyena who goes after the testicles of a Buffalo, rips them off and starts feasting even as the Buffalo wails in pain. This is nature at work - and you cannot blame "original sin" for this kind of suffering. You cannot blame "duality" in the lower worlds for this kind of suffering, apologies to Benodic. It is just what nature is - brutal and heartless, simple.

We are naturally clannish, the suffering or death of those closest to us has more impact then those far from us talk less of an entirely different species of being. We may have learnt empathy but I think our general capacity for it gets quickly exhausted and we hardly have any for the other species that shares this planet with us. The religious often weaponise this clannishness to sometimes an absurd degree.

DeepSight:
There is something really curious about the age old human mind set which seeks to conjure into existence a creator of this world who is loving and merciful in a warm and cozy way. This can only be attributable to humanity's need to find some comfort and solace in what is otherwise a dark, perplexing, cold, brutal and nasty existence. People just have this inherent need to believe in this idea of some warm love awaiting us beyond the horizon, and it is in fact entirely understandable because without such crutches to hold on to, humanity may actually collectively despair.

When people look at the doubtless beauties and wonders of nature they exclaim "God is wonderful!" However each time I hear this sort of reaction I am just befuddled at how people are selective with respect to what they see. The truth about Earth life is far starker: every living thing must consume other living things in order to survive, living things are thrust into a desperate and competitive battle for survival and if there is anything that is certain about the wild - it is its sheer brutality. Nature is cold, pitiless and unrelenting - and it operates without any discernible sentiments - it is absolutely unemotional - the weak new born creature will die off quickly - often being killed by its own siblings or other creatures who will tear it up as a quick and easy snack - and the killing methods of most animals are absolutely pitiless. Many people try to say that the evil in the world is solely attributable to mankind, but one only has to take a look at nature and the wild to know that this is a massive lie: strife and brutal competition are hardwired into the very fabric and system of Earth life at all levels.

In addition to all of this, there is the existential conundrum of purpose faced by those creatures such as our selves who are sapient enough to contemplate death. No matter how lucky you may be in this life, no matter how long and prosperous your life may be - death still awaits you - and everyone you love. You will either mourn them or they will mourn you - and this is a best case scenario because it could always be that you all perish at once in some mass disaster or even die young. Humans throughout the ages have invented stories to comfort themselves about the cold reality of death but the truth is that probably no one has ever had any idea as to what happens at death and most probably no one ever will. All that we do is console ourselves with every manner of religious and spiritual myth and fantasy in this regard - and death - implacable as ever, remains un-appeased. There is thus a very significant possibility that everything that we are is and will be entirely meaningless in a short while for one and all and the universe will not even notice our extinction as a species.

Worst of all, life is, and always has been richly spiced with such unspeakable heart wrenching tragedies that one must shudder at the thought of existing on this plane at all, given the seeming randomness with which such events are flung into the lives of even the gentlest and kindest of us. When we are forced to wonder why we were born, some are wont to say that we had a pre-existence in which we ourselves requested to come to this world. While this is a thought that I must confess I myself have often leaned towards, the stark truth is that no one knows this for sure: all that we know is that one day we just open our eyes and find ourselves here and that's it: its a rat race of horror until death.

All of the above and much more grounds my belief that if a God exists who created this world, he/she/it can only be a cold and maniacal sadist of the worst kind imaginable.

The Anunnakis

SimplePlan34:


The Anunnakis

Frankly, I incline towards the idea that whatever is responsible for Project Earth-Life and Project-Humanity might just be some cold and calculating ET out there.

DeepSight:


Frankly, I incline towards the idea that whatever is responsible for Project Earth-Life and Project-Humanity might just be some cold and calculating ET out there.

The 5th kind YouTube channel

SimplePlan34:


The 5th kind YouTube channel

Paul Wallis. Love him.

Oga deepsight


A broken or failed electric bulb sits sadly in darkness wondering why the house builder did not provide a device that would illuminate or light up the house.

justcool:
Oga deepsight

A broken or failed electric bulb sits sadly in darkness wondering why the house builder did not provide a device that would illuminate or light up the house.

Long time great brother.
I hear you. But I think we are saying different things.
You are talking about something broken or failed.
I am saying that the fundamental construct itself, where working fine, is cruel.

So for example, the very dictate that living things must consume other living things to live. This is fundamental. It did not arise by reason of man's failure. Its fundamental to Earthlife. And this inescapably provides for certain strife in nature - which, even if arguably healthy for the system, does not dispose of animal suffering therein.

DeepSight:


Long time great brother.

Yes bro it’s been a while. I’ve been on a retreat. I haven’t quite decided to return, but your posts are thought provoking and have a way of calling or grabbing my attention even when I try to turn a deaf ear.

DeepSight:


I am saying that the fundamental construct itself, where working fine, is cruel.

[/quote

I beg to differ.

[quote author=DeepSight post=113875607]

So for example, the very dictate that living things must consume other living things to live. This is fundamental.

The things provided for consumption are plants (fruits, and vegetables) which, although living, do not feel pain.

If mankind had not interfered or halted the development and evolution of creation, at this point man and animals would have evolved out of meat consumption and become vegetarians.

It is true that at the initial stages, animal consumption is necessary, however this is not cruelty. At the initial stages of our earth lives, during our infancy, we suckled our mother’s breasts for nutrition. But this is expected only at the stages of infancy and once this stage is passed, the child is weaned off its mother’s breast.
Some women have confessed that breastfeeding their children gave them indescribable joy. But do you know that breastfeeding is painful.
Only a weakling will say that it’s cruel that infants have to suckle their mothers, which is physically painful to the mothers.
As with individuals, so with the entire mankind. Indeed, the development of a child mirrors the development of the entire human race. At the initial stages of development of the physical realm, living things had to feed on others to survive. This is quite beneficial to both the prey and the predator, as it keeps them in motion, preventing indolence and laziness which is detrimental to life. Animals gladly incarnate into this physical realm either to become a prey or predictor, as this helps their souls evolve. The hunting for food or running away from predictor gives the animals impetus to become alert; and this alertness helps their souls evolve. It appears cruel only looking at it from the physical perspective, however once you overlook the entire process, you will observe the blessing inherent in the process.

The animals, like goats, cows, and chickens, that incarnate to provide food for mankind are like mothers who sacrifice their bodies, or gladly offer their nipples to infants. When one considers the joy that mothers feel when they see their children grow, the consequential pain that accompanies breastfeeding becomes negligible.

DeepSight:


It did not arise by reason of man's failure. Its fundamental to Earthlife. And this inescapably provides for certain strife in nature - which, even if arguably healthy for the system, does not dispose of animal suffering therein.

You can say that strife is fundamental to earthlife; however, strive is not tantamount to suffering. Whenever excessive suffering arises, there you see the failure of mankind. The creator does not wish the His creatures suffer.

Human beings are supposed to be portals or dispensers of Love. After incarnating on earth mankind could have made this earth a reflection of paradise over time. Had they kept to the laws of creation, overtime, they would have evolved their physical bodies to the point where it doesn’t require meat eating anymore; by now mankind should have become vegetarians. However, mankind failed in evolving to this stage. Hence our present earth bodies still require meat eating.
Also, had mankind not failed in unfolding their spiritual gifts, animals would also have been driven to further along in their development. Love, emanating from the human sprits would have permeated everything, even the animals, making them milder and less aggressive.
Where the animal uses aggression to keep itself and its environment in motion, the human spirit uses love. The human spirit stands above the animal soul, and hence has a leading role on creation. The will or desire of humans has a strong effect on animals. You must have observed how domestic animals sense and obey the will of their master.
The excessive aggression we see in animals is due to the failure of mankind. Rather than flooding the earth with love which will permeate all creatures and bring peace, humans flooded it with hate, anger, lust, greed, etc. These negative radiations have effect on animals, making them very hostile.
When mankind finally fulfill their spiritual duties, then animals will gradually become milder and less hostile, even the lions will become vegetarians.

We cannot blame the creator for the cruelty in the world when we, the anti-cruelty agents He introduced or allowed into the world fail to do our work.

DeepSight:


One thing I find with almost all theistic discussants on this subject is a dismissal of animal pain and suffering with respect to the issues raised. Any close observer of animals knows that many animals experience grief as well, just as surely as they experience physical pain, and yet their suffering is always lightly dismissed when these issues are discussed.

I will never forget the video of the hyena who goes after the testicles of a Buffalo, rips them off and starts feasting even as the Buffalo wails in pain. This is nature at work - and you cannot blame "original sin" for this kind of suffering. You cannot blame "duality" in the lower worlds for this kind of suffering, apologies to Benodic. It is just what nature is - brutal and heartless, simple.

That's one thing the theistic religions promotes very well - lack of empathy towards other animals and indeed other peoples as well. The only important thing to them is self and selfish pursuit of personal wellbeing.

The hyena example is rampant with humans particularly with adherent of theistic religions. Defrauding a person of his life's savings and life's work is no different from ripping the buffalo of its balls. The person will die slowly of the pains and grief of the difficult life ahead. His children and dependants might also die from the sufferings induced by the scammers. In all these the scammer doesn't care but thank his God for providing a free meal (meat) off the pains of others. This is also nature at its most brutal.

We humans (blacks) even take to the basic animalistic level by actually ripping out the balls (or virgina of women) and eating it (selling it for money) as a means of survival. What makes them different from the hyena.

The irony is 100% of people that engage in this type of animalistic brutal behaviour claim to be theists.

On thing I have learn from decades of being an atheist is that theism kills or deaden human conscience and allows him do evil things without the feeling of remorse.

justcool:

The things provided for consumption are plants (fruits, and vegetables) which, although living, do not feel pain.

Studies have shown that plants do indeed feel pain and respond to external stimuli, but it does so at a much slower time frame.

If mankind had not interfered or halted the development and evolution of creation, at this point man and animals would have evolved out of meat consumption and become vegetarians.

How did man interfere or halt the development and evolution of creation? Are you insinuating that man changed and destroyed God's plans?

It is true that at the initial stages, animal consumption is necessary, however this is not cruelty. At the initial stages of our earth lives, during our infancy, we suckled our mother’s breasts for nutrition. But this is expected only at the stages of infancy and once this stage is passed, the child is weaned off its mother’s breast.

Evolutionarily man started out as a vegetarian, as he had no facilities to hunt, eat and digest meat. But the need for more concentrated energy source to drive his increasing brain size and capacity made him include meat in his diet. Even up till now digesting meat is a problem for the human digestive system even after cooking (which partially digest it).

Some women have confessed that breastfeeding their children gave them indescribable joy. But do you know that breastfeeding is painful. Only a weakling will say that it’s cruel that infants have to suckle their mothers, which is physically painful to the mothers.
As with individuals, so with the entire mankind. Indeed, the development of a child mirrors the development of the entire human race.

Breastfeeding is only painful at the initial stage - the first few days after childbirth. After that it becomes pleasurable until the woman starts weaning the child of breast milk.

At the initial stages of development of the physical realm, living things had to feed on others to survive. This is quite beneficial to both the prey and the predator, as it keeps them in motion, preventing indolence and laziness which is detrimental to life. Animals gladly incarnate into this physical realm either to become a prey or predictor, as this helps their souls evolve. The hunting for food or running away from predictor gives the animals impetus to become alert; and this alertness helps their souls evolve. It appears cruel only looking at it from the physical perspective, however once you overlook the entire process, you will observe the blessing inherent in the process.

Agree with this postulation. The dynamics between prey and predator keeps an ecological balance for the environment. Predators keep the population of prey in check as they they usually breed in large numbers. Not keeping them in check would be destructive to vegetation of the environment. Preys are usually small in numbers due to the difficulties and dangers of associated with hunting prey.

The animals, like goats, cows, and chickens, that incarnate to provide food for mankind are like mothers who sacrifice their bodies, or gladly offer their nipples to infants. When one considers the joy that mothers feel when they see their children grow, the consequential pain that accompanies breastfeeding becomes negligible.

Don't agree with this. I am certain goats, cows, and chickens did not elect to sacrifice their bodies to feed mankind or any other animal. It's just the nature of nature.

You can say that strife is fundamental to earthlife; however, strive is not tantamount to suffering. Whenever excessive suffering arises, there you see the failure of mankind. The creator does not wish the His creatures suffer.

I agree that strife is fundamental to earthlife. I also agree that man contributes to excessive strife (sufferings) by our greed and lack of empathy. But to to put the blame solely on human is unacceptable to me. Nature plays a huge part in suffering also, aka diseases, famine, natural disasters, etc.
Are you insinuating that man can alter God's wishes? If that is possible, how come you guys continue to argue for his omni this and omni that?

justcool:

If mankind had not interfered or halted the development and evolution of creation, at this point man and animals would have evolved out of meat consumption and become vegetarians.

What evidence do you have that lions for example were ever plant eaters?

Hi wirinet

Nice to hear from you

wirinet:

Studies have shown that plants do indeed feel pain and respond to external stimuli, but it does so at a much slower time frame.

Response to stimulus is not the same as feeling pain. Scientifically speaking, it’s impossible to feel pain without brain and central nervous system.

wirinet:


How did man interfere or halt the development and evolution of creation? Are you insinuating that man changed and destroyed God's plans?

Man interfered or halted the development of material creation by choosing not to play the role assigned to him. Every creature has a role to play in the evolution of its environment. Creatures like man, endowed with the gift of freewill can choose paths contrary to the Will of God.

Yes, man can delay God’s plan. But I’m the end the Will of God will triumph. The man who stubbornly clings to wrong path will end up being destroyed in the end.

wirinet:


Evolutionarily man started out as a vegetarian, as he had no facilities to hunt, eat and digest meat. But the need for more concentrated energy source to drive his increasing brain size and capacity made him include meat in his diet. Even up till now digesting meat is a problem for the human digestive system even after cooking (which partially digest it).

Yes, you can say that man started as vegetarians.

However, he didn’t become carnivorous just for concentrated energy. On the contrary, plants are more efficient energy providers than meat. The largest animals like elephants, cows, etc, that need a lot of energy for metabolism are vegetarians.

No other primates eat meat; mankind started eating meat after the incarnation of human spirits. Mankind needed to eat meat this stage in their development to keep their spirits firmly connected to to the earth. I do not want to elaborate on this now, because it will take us away from the topic at hand. Let me just say that meat eating allows the body to produce a certain binding radiation which firmly binds the soul to the physical body. This is why some people fast or stay away from meat momentarily for some spiritual purposes.

wirinet:


Breastfeeding is only painful at the initial stage - the first few days after childbirth. After that it becomes pleasurable until the woman starts weaning the child of breast milk.

At least you agree that it is painful at a stage, that’s enough to make my point. Also you can replace breastfeeding with childbearing and birth. These are equally physically painful process which mothers joyfully and willingly pass through to offer others souls the opportunity to live on earth.

wirinet:


Agree with this postulation. The dynamics between prey and predator keeps an ecological balance for the environment. Predators keep the population of prey in check as they they usually breed in large numbers. Not keeping them in check would be destructive to vegetation of the environment. Preys are usually small in numbers due to the difficulties and dangers of associated with hunting prey.

Good

wirinet:


Don't agree with this. I am certain goats, cows, and chickens did not elect to sacrifice their bodies to feed mankind or any other animal. It's just the nature of nature.

You are certain? You actually talked to their souls before they incarcerated?

At best you will admit that what you wrote here is just your view or perception. Certainty is out of the question.

My view here is my perception as well.

wirinet:


I agree that strife is fundamental to earthlife. I also agree that man contributes to excessive strife (sufferings) by our greed and lack of empathy. But to to put the blame so let on human is unacceptable to me. Nature plays a huge part in suffering also, aka diseases, famine, natural disasters, etc.
Are you insinuating that man can alter God's wishes? If that is possible, how come you guys continue to argue for his omni this and omni that?

Yes, I’m actually saying that man can interfere with creation and cause things to develop wrongly or contrary to God’s intention. Man is the master of his fate; and as spiritual beings, man will rules in subsequent creation or lower worlds with includes the physical plane to which the earth belongs.

“Omni this and Omni that” is totally different from the meaning that people ascribe to it. However, going into that will derail this tread. If you are interested in knowing my views on that, you can start another trade for us to discuss it.

Thanks and remain blessed

Hi LordReed

LordReed:


What evidence do you have that lions for example were ever plant eaters?

And where did I say that lions for example were ever plant eaters?

justcool:

Hi LordReed



And where did I say that lions for example were ever plant eaters?

You said that humans interfered with nature and made things the way they are. By inference a lion didn't use to be a carnivore according to your narrative. On the other hand if I am wrong in my inference then the lion has always been a carnivore, how then did humans interfere with its nature?

justcool:


Human beings are supposed to be portals or dispensers of Love.

I would rather say that mankind are portals and dispensers of every potential tendency in existence and not just love.

After incarnating on earth mankind could have made this earth a reflection of paradise over time. Had they kept to the laws of creation, overtime, they would have evolved their physical bodies to the point where it doesn’t require meat eating anymore; by now mankind should have become vegetarians. However, mankind failed in evolving to this stage. Hence our present earth bodies still require meat eating.
Also, had mankind not failed in unfolding their spiritual gifts, animals would also have been driven to further along in their development. Love, emanating from the human sprits would have permeated everything, even the animals, making them milder and less aggressive.

One thing I find disconcerting among many theists is the tendency to blame mankind for every evil in the universe. An Adherent friend of mine once argued on this same subject that if man were well behaved, no such creatures as mosquitoes, flies, maggots and other such would even come into existence at all. And that they exist because of the evil of man. I had to shake my head at the fact that he ignored the ancient role all these play in the ecosystem. Long before the time of man on Earth.

I am generally of the view that a creator cannot blame a created thing for its faulty nature. There is a thread where I discussed this. No matter how you slice it dice it, a fundamental responsibility as to the nature of a created thing rests with its creator. I dont understand why man is in such a hurry to excuse his creator from the problem of evil, heaping it exclusively on himself, when it is evident that evil well transcends infinitesimal mankind.

DeepSight:

I would rather say that mankind are portals and dispensers of every potential tendency in existence and not just love.
One thing I find disconcerting among many theists is the tendency to blame mankind for every evil in the universe. An Adherent friend of mine once argued on this same subject that if man were well behaved, no such creatures as mosquitoes, flies, maggots and other such would even come into existence at all. And that they exist because of the evil of man. I had to shake my head at the fact that he ignored the ancient role all these play in the ecosystem. Long before the time of man on Earth.
I am generally of the view that a creator cannot blame a created thing for its faulty nature. There is a thread where I discussed this. No matter how you slice it dice it, a fundamental responsibility as to the nature of a created thing rests with its creator. I dont understand why man is in such a hurry to excuse his creator from the problem of evil, heaping it exclusively on himself, when it is evident that evil well transcends infinitesimal mankind.

God created man in His own image {Genesis 1:26} and because they have the nature of the God who can be blamed if He err man must blame himself for not living up to expectation as the one and only earthly creature made in the likeness of God! Romans 3:23

MaxInDHouse:


God created man in His own image {Genesis 1:26} and because they have the nature of the God who can be blamed if He err man must blame himself for not living up to expectation as the one and only earthly creature made in the likeness of God! Romans 3:23

This is upside-down reasoning. It is exactly because man is said to be created in the image of God that the matter is so damning for God - because the nature of man then effectively discloses the nature of God.

DeepSight:

This is upside-down reasoning. It is exactly because man is said to be created in the image of God that the matter is so damning for God - because the nature of man then effectively discloses the nature of God.

Man has freewill so he can choose to be active or faulty! Proverbs 27:11

MaxInDHouse:


Man has freewill so he can choose to be active or faulty! Proverbs 27:11

Exactly: a factor a creator must have taken into consideration no?
And if this freewill were expected to ever only be exercised in a particular manner, then it was never free.
Thus the very existence of alleged free will already contemplates negative exercise of same.

LordReed:


You said that humans interfered with nature and made things the way they are. By inference a lion didn't use to be a carnivore according to your narrative. On the other hand if I am wrong in my inference then the lion has always been a carnivore, how then did humans interfere with its nature?

Your inference is totally wrong and actually very contrary to my explanation.

Please read my post again

justcool:


Your inference is totally wrong and actually very contrary to my explanation.

Please read my post again

Good so the question is how did humans interfere with lions if they have always been carnivores and what is the evidence for this interference?