Christianity says that we are fallen creatures and that's why we are linked to sin and we have a predisposition to it. Then why do animals masturbate, commit cannibalism or necrophilia in nature? They are no subject to sin, they act on impulse

Why would humans be any different? Why are we condemned by sin when animals do the same atrocious act that humanity has done? Why do they do these atrocious acts if they are not bound to sin?

>>17813017 (OP)
originally they claimed animals only did those things because of mans fall, but when it became clear that actually they were doing said things before man was even a thing they had to invent multiple new copes

>>17813017 (OP)
Who cares, motherfuck religion

>>17813017 (OP)
not really an argument against the existence of god maybe against the daddy figure moral god but then again humans have discernment and can think about their actions unlike animals or they won't have any sort of morality so not even a real argument for that either

>>17813032
Hm but some animals do show remorse for their actions, like dogs when they did something wrong and know they will be punished so they do realize that there are consequences for their actions to an extent

>>17813017 (OP)
>God doesn't exist because animals masturbate
This is what we're going with?

>>17813045
I don't see how this is a bad argument. Why is it a sin for humans if it's a natural thing that animals do in the wild and is an act observed in multiple species, not only in apes but horses, walruses etc... If it's something that happens in nature, why is it bad for humans to partake in it?

>>17813017 (OP)
Earth was made for humans after committing the original sin and so its natural it would be surrounded with the same sins humans perform
Though these creatures that perform that same sins as humans do not have free will so they cannot truly sin, its merely an artistic sin

>>17813048
Because humans are given are higher standard to follow than animals. We have so much more potential for greatness and destruction and we we're given dominion over the Earth. Why would God NOT hold us to a different standard than animals?

>>17813053
I think this Anon also brought a good point >>17813024
What if animals were this degenerate before humans were created? Why were they like this from the beginning?

>>17813058
Animals have their own problems to deal with in the food chain.
We also know demons regularly fuck with and possess animals.
>Mark 5:13 - So he gave them permission. And the unclean spirits came out and entered the pigs; and the herd, numbering about two thousand, rushed down the steep bank into the sea and drowned in the sea.
Outside of that, I can't really give you any other grounded theology, other than animals don't suffer from original sin.

>>17813064
That verse also crossed my mind. I believe in God but I'm honestly having a hard time wrapping my head around the horrible things that happen in nature. Because things like that happened before Adam and Eve were created apparently

But yes. Dolphin are demonic, Nephilim created, chimera that survived the flood and are obsessed with spreading their DNA by raping everything in sight. It's only worse they have a Jewish PR team.

>>17813017 (OP)
The Christian conception of God being inaccurate doesn't mean God isn't real.

It depends, if you think God has to act as an explantory principle or some probaliity of some form, it works pretty bad as an explanation. Link related. Some philosopher like Hegel and Kierkegaard argued that if one did have a proof for God it would make belief in god superflous and make our belief in God not really belief in God. The question then becomes what if any rational reason can one have to believe in God given what reason we could have and not involve explanations of any kind.

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

Great, another demoralization thread.

>>17813122
Not impressed.

>>17813017 (OP)
What a strange edit

>>17813017 (OP)
I can give a basic biblical answer for this, and then add a more in depth response afterward to help answer some of your other questions which are related to this. Firstly, according to the biblical worldview, death and disorder came into nature via sin. Without sin, there would be no death or disorder.

Sin came into nature because of what happened in the garden of Eden in Genesis chapter 3. Until that sin was introduced, there was no disorder or death in the world. After Adam and Eve sinned, the effects of their sin encroached on the surrounding nature which they had been put in charge of, as a kind of corrupting effect. It's hard to imagine exactly what the uncorrupted version of nature would look like, compared to the way things are now. Death would be out of the picture however.

"For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."
- 1 Corinthians 15:21-22

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"
- Romans 5:12

>>17813017 (OP)
>Then why do animals masturbate, commit cannibalism or necrophilia in nature?
The curse for sin was against Adam's dominion as well
>Why would humans be any different?
Are animals using a computer and reading words on the internet right now?

>>17813058
>>17813068
When God enacted the six days of creation on Earth, everything that was created was complete, new and perfect, according to the Bible. Sin and death had not encroached upon it.

One can ask where sin even came into the picture at all. Well, the Genesis account makes it clear that there had to be another rebellion older than that of Adam. This needed to have already happened prior to the events of Genesis chapter 3, where the serpent shows up. For reasons explained below, it makes most sense to place this event before Genesis 1:2 but after Genesis 1:1.

I believe the best explanation for these facts is "ruin and reconstruction" creationism. That is to say, the Bible indicates that there was a rebellion against God that took place between the events of Genesis 1:1 and the events of Genesis 1:2. This fits with the Genesis account in particular because the original rebellion against God must have happened before Adam. It would account for why and how the earth became ruined and completely flooded with water by the time of Genesis 1:2. This seems to be the only explanation, because according to the Bible everything God creates is always new and perfect.

So, between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, some kind of judgement took place because of disorder and rebellion. In the process, Earth became ruined and flooded, leading to the picture that we see in Gen. 1:2.

God then chose to start over by mending or repairing the atmosphere of Earth and creating new life there. This would be the familiar six days of creation. If the Bible is to be believed, the six days of creation must be literal days; but I have never seen any indication of how much time passed between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

There are of course biblical indications that the six days of creation were really a reconstruction of a ruined/flooded world, with Isaiah 45:18 being perhaps the most convincing proof that this is what the Bible teaches.

>>17813048
>I don't see how this is a bad argument.
Because you are blind and dead. Humble yourself and repent

>>17813269
Genesis 1:1 is a preface. No time passed between it and 1:2 because time doesn't pass between literary devices

>>17813280
Is that the only reason you can think of, anon?

>>17813269
That's really interesting Anon, where can I read more about this idea of a rebellion prior to the one of Adam and Eve?

>>17813017 (OP)
Because its a cunthair away from paganism, which just makes it a religion again.

>>17813024
>when it became clear that actually they were doing said things before man was even a thing they had to invent multiple new copes
The Earth is 6,000 years old and all of your archeological layers of mud were deposited by the Great Flood of Noah.

>>17813495
>not believing in god is basically like making sacrifices to zeus at mount lykaion
These coping mechanisms are becoming more and more elaborate.

>>17813017 (OP)
I don't want to alarm anybody here but nobody with a brain believes in free will anymore because science already proved it is not real.

If you ask ChatGPT to go over all the evidence and come to a occlusion he will always say there is no free will due to experiential evidence.

Your brain makes decisions before you are even consciously aware of them and this was proven like 50-100 years ago. All the experiments prove that we basically make decisions without being aware of it, and then our brain makes up the illusion of choice after our brain already made the decision so it feels like we make the decision ourself.

Scientists like Jose Delgado already did some unethical experiments where he tried to control a person's hand movements by shocking their brain, and the subject did not recognize the difference between when they consciously moved their hand, and when he moved it for them, they thought both times was a conscious movement because their brain just takes credit for everything lol.

>>17813705
>nobody with a brain believes in free will anymore because science already proved it is not real
Kek, truely epic Hylic moment

>>17813518
This

>>17813017 (OP)
>Why believe in God when Naturalism exists?
Because God is real. You are a stupid person.
>>17813017 (OP)
>Then why do animals masturbate, commit cannibalism or necrophilia in nature? They are no subject to sin, they act on impulse
Which proves... Nothing. One reason God made animals is to provide examples for humans to study. The fact that they do something does not mean that God condones that behavior in humans. Think before you speak. Better yet, get a lobotomy so I never have to be subjected to the worthless cancer that is your "thought" again. Thanks!

>>17814134
This? I don't see OP's argument.

>>17813454
There are a few Bible passages about it, otherwise all you have is speculation and inferences.

Isaiah 14:4-23 and Ezekiel 28:11-19 refer to these events in an oblique way by criticizing earthly rulers and comparing them to satan.

In Genesis 9:11 we have a reference to two different cataclysmic floods. This is because the earlier flood, before Gen. 1:2 resulted earth in its entirety being destroyed, even the atmosphere. There was no air and everything had to be reconstructed.

This earlier flood is also mentioned in 2 Peter 3:5-6. It's not to be confused with the flood of Noah, which was also cataclysmic but didn't destroy the atmosphere. You notice in the next verse 7 it says, "the heavens and the earth which are now," which implies that the previous world that was destroyed had a different atmosphere than the one we have now. God's act of separating the waters which are above (clouds) with the waters below (sea) and creating the firmament (sky or atmosphere) was crucial to making it possible for life to exist. Peter in this part of the New Testament seems to actually be referring to this earlier flood rather than to Noah's flood.

If the destruction of this flood was so severe that the atmosphere itself were destroyed, nothing like a human being could survive in it since there would be no air. Nobody could survive in an ark, and arguably no life at all could exist under the conditions of Gen. 1:2.

Isaiah 45:18 requires this to be the case. It says, "For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited:"

The word "in vain" here is the same word used to describe the earth in Genesis 1:2, where it says "the earth was without form and void." The Bible (in Isaiah 45:18) is directly saying that God did not create the earth like that, so something must have happened to it before Genesis 1:2 to make it like that. Some kind of judgement.

>>17814268
>le gap theory
Tick tock.

>>17814278
>The seventh-day adventists who came up with flood geology must be right
Do you believe that George McCready Price and Ellen G. White, and later Henry M. Morris, have to be correct?

>>17814330
I'll answer your question if you can first answer this honestly: Are you retarded?

>>17814367
>Are you retarded?
No.

I never used the term "gap theory," that was you. It's a rhetorical term coined by the SDA to defend their cosmology.

>>17814377
You couldn't answer honestly, so I'll just let you stew in your delusion.