A Religious Question for Christians on a Sunday Afternoon re. Animal Suffering

[null]

unless you have been behind the eyes of the animal how would you know?

for each question, in either case

the image of God is not found amongst them, they copy sexuality but only on biological timers. So its arguable they are like higher dimensional robots that you dont fully perceive

as I said in another thread, is it paws to the earth or their claws to the earth?

just make an assertion breh. or two.

or one even.

 

[MMS]

just make an assertion breh. or two.

or one even.

re-read what I said

why do you need assertions?

are you saying you need to be told rather then compelling you to think for yourself?
​

Sisera - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Also according to the Midrash,[19] Sisera had previously conquered every country against which he had fought. His voice was so strong that, when he called loudly, the most solid wall would shake and the wildest animal would fall dead. Deborah was the only one who could withstand his voice and not be stirred from her place. Sisera caught enough fish in his beard when bathing in the Kishon to provision his whole army, and thirty-one kings followed Sisera merely for the opportunity of drinking, or otherwise using, the waters of Israel.[14]

 

[null]

re-read what I said​

no.

why do you need assertions?

are you saying you need to be told rather then compelling you to think for yourself?​

yes. too much esoteric babble and my eyes glaze over .

 

[MMS]

no.



yes. too much esoteric babble and my eyes glaze over .

then maybe you should look for something else

Its a problem that you ultimately are carrying from the JWs

cause that is their mantra

you can't science your way to understanding despite how "logical" that world may appear

 

[invalid]

in the second sentence the "because" is not ME implying causation i.e. i think a miracle happened, it is part of the scenario being presented.

it is not saying that i believe in "miracles".

no.

using that example, i would flag your use of "because" not because you believe "a miracle" as an event "turned a cat into a dog". my argument is that by saying “because of a miracle,” you’re treating miracles as something that could cause that transformation. the issue isn’t your belief in miracles — it’s that your phrasing assumes miracles have that kind of causal power in the first place. “If cats were dogs” is a neutral hypothetical adding “because of a miracle” makes it a claim about what miracles can do not about the "hypothetical" event.

it is in fact implying causation.
just not in the way you perceived it to be.

it is me using the conditional of a commonly held position.

and I see this is your stumbling block.
see above.

 

[null]

and I see this is your stumbling block.
see above.

that is not an assertion. it is a scenario.
that's simple grammar.
let chatgpt (or a friend) explain it to you.

 

[invalid]

that is not an assertion. it is a scenario.
that's simple grammar.
let chatgpt (or a friend) explain it to you.

ok, well let me explain this to you.

this cannot be answered:

is it therefore moral for people to make christians suffer today, because they are also due to get restitution in the future?

because there is something wrong with this:

If animals can morally be allowed to suffer because they will get a reward or restitution (as individuals) in the future

and something is wrong with it......


because of this:

because they will get a reward or restitution (as individuals) in the future

let chat gpt or a friend explain why that is.

i'm out.

 

[null]

then maybe you should look for something else

nah. i'll just not pay YOU no mind.

 

[MMS]

nah. i'll just not pay YOU no mind.

i dont even see the purpose of why you make these threads

you should instead make a thread: why did the "big bang theory cause animal suffering"

and see if the responses are less esoteric

 

[invalid]

@null

consider this - you are making a number of assumptions here:

Why did god build a system where billions of animals suffer through no fault of their own?

If animals can morally be allowed to suffer because they will get a reward or restitution (as individuals) in the future, is it therefore moral for people to make christians suffer today, because they are also due to get restitution in the future?

i.e. Does future restitution justify current suffering (across the board)?

than what you have listed here:

[assumptions: God makes the rules. God allows the sufferin

and what may be a stumbling block for you is:

it is me using the conditional of a commonly held position.

as to why you're not able to perceive it.