Markup /brabant/10773

Comment
>>10771
>Why is living considered by you as suffering? 
That's not what I'm talkng about, something can live, suffering is when something experiences agony and pain, for example, a baby gazelle gets viciously mauled some time after it is born and painfully bleeds to death. That creature is innocent, why did the innocent have to suffer?
>Because why??? Because you are a whiny faggot that """moralfags""" about le ebil God that made nature like it is? Evendoe everything works according to its own needs, God isn't obliged to create organisms without the need for nutrition, growth, and so on.
Im not stating that these creatures can't experience growth, God can give them a life with no suffering where they can grow and eventually die without harm. If God is not obligated to minimize suffering upon animals who are innocent, then that God is not all-loving.
>Now yuo see, they live so because they don't need to do more than this unlike other creatures.
This fails to explain why God chose to create many species that do require extreme violence to survive. If peaceful existence is biologically possible for some, then the argument that violent survival is necessary collapses.
The very existence of non-predatory species proves predation isn't biologically required — it was a design choice, not a necessity.
>Animals don't know meanings of the bad, evil, good, etc., and they don't know God and didn't do, they just live their lives and that is all. Why do they need more? 
Sentience, not moral reasoning, is the basis for suffering. Animals experience pain, fear, and distress. Their lack of moral understanding doesn't diminish the reality of their suffering.
If a dog can feel pain, it doesn’t matter if the dog understands “evil”, it still suffers.
If moral understanding were the only criterion for deserving concern, infants and mentally disabled people would also not count.
>Only in the context of sin
If animal suffering predated human sin (as evolution and fossil records show), then it cannot be the result of sin. So either:
1. God designed suffering before sin (meaning it wasn’t a punishment), or
2. You must reject evolution, and accept that animals didn’t suffer until humans sinned — which contradicts massive scientific evidence.
>Death justification
Strawman fallacy
It’s not about justifying death — it’s about questioning why suffering had to be part of the system at all.
The point is not to say “death is better,” but to say that needless suffering is unjustifiable, especially if it serves no redemptive or moral purpose (e.g. that baby gazelle example)
>See the picrel. God is NOT obligated to make animals not animals. Also, this suffering isn't actually needless. Everything in nature has a cause. Therefore it's not God's fault. 
Suffering may have a biological cause — that doesn’t mean it’s morally justified.
If God created the system, then He is responsible for the causes. Saying “it has a cause” doesn’t absolve Him.
>He gave them life, and life is His gift. This is a manifestation of love. So no, He doesn't hate them. Anyway, I could rather say that He is neutral towards them, because they just exist and He doesn't have any plans for them, while there's the man who was planned to serve the Lord but became sinful, and there's also the "beast" which made him sin, and their antagonism is the main theme of the Scripture.
Giving life doesn’t equal love. If you give life and design it to suffer, it may be cruel, not loving.
Saying “God is neutral” concedes that God doesn’t love animals which contradicts the claim that He is omnibenevolent. “He doesn’t have plans for them” makes animals sound like disposable background entities.