The Amazing Spider-Man And The Gospel - Review and Opinion

I've got to admit that I did like the movie. It was a reboot, but it also changed a few details to make the movie's story unique. I don't agree with all the criticism about the way Andrew Garfield portrayed Peter Parker. I think that Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone were excellent in their roles. I think that a newer spin was put on Parker. I think it fit the current culture much more to portray Parker as more confident and less socially awkward that the way he has been depicted in the past (especially from the 2002 film). If you haven't seen it, I suggest that you might like it and it's worth go seeing.  If you have seen it, here are some other articles that may be interesting to you.

Who Was That In The Amazing Spider-Man's Credits Scene?

Here are a good break down comparing the original Spider-Man trilogy with the latest movie

TR Review/Comparison: The Amazingly (Unnecessary) Spider-Man 

If the reports are true that perhaps the footage that was cut out the movie so that they can go into the sequels then I don't think it was unnecessary. A lot of loose ends were left tangling but it was set up for those to be tied up later. 

One of the best things about the character is that Spider-Man is selfless. He doesn't try to judge anyone such that they are are undeserving of his help or protection. He also grows as  a person. His getting powers doesn't just solve all his problems it adds to them. His Uncle Ben does not utter the famous line  "With great power comes great responsibility" in this movie. Instead the message is that if there is something you can do to help someone else, you should. I think this is the central message of the character. Is it a part of the Christian Gospel?

Yes, but it's a more watered down version of what Jesus said.


⁴⁷ “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. ⁴⁸ But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked. - Luke 12:47-48

Notice that in both formulations, responsibility and talent are tied together. Jesus' words are in context of explaining a parable of a manager who has been put in charge of a task and how bad it looks if the master returns and the task is not being carried out. Go back and read the parable. It's not that the manager could not do the job. Like us, God does not give us stuff to do that we can't do. Instead God gives us talents and opportunities to do the things that he has commanded us to do and we are judged by what we do because it's not that we don't know.  If we are faithful carrying out what we know and can do, more power and responsibility is added to us and if we are not faithful we will loose what we have. Look at the context and notice that its not about salvation it's about rewards and just life here. The biggest difference I see between the ethics the Spider-man character is built around and the commands of our Lord and Master Jesus Christ is that Jesus is clearly not pointing to just responsibility but also our accountability to the one who gives us our powers and responsibilities.  It's not a minor difference. One one hand to do good but no real reason given for why. Jesus tells us why: We owe it to God.

Related articles

• Sony Announce 'the Amazing Spider-man' Will Be A Trilogy

  ---

• The Amazing Spider-Man Review

  ---

• The Amazing Spider-Man (Yellow)

  ---

Amazing Spider-Man: What’s With The Cut Scenes? | ComicBook.com

I like this article about the missing scenes in the Amazing Spider-Man. How we know that they are missing? They were in the trailers but they were not the theatrical cut I saw. I have a fuller review with links to other reviews. One scene I was hoping to see that was cut when we Peter was asked to join the football team and he shook his head and quipped "Too Dangerous!" I do hope that there will be an extended director's cut.

Amazing Spider-Man: What’s With The Cut Scenes? | ComicBook.com

Do YOU understand the Higgs Boson?

How far do you make it down this flow chart?

Do YOU understand the Higgs Boson?

Teenagers: 1982 vs 2012 [infographic] - Holy Kaw!

From: BestEducationDegrees.com

Teenagers: 1982 vs 2012 [infographic] - Holy Kaw!

Debunking Christianity: What Happened When Humpty Dumpty Met the Sons of Gods

Cathy Cooper has written an article analyzing Genesis 6:1-4. I'm really surprised some if it is actually good and true. There are a couple of things that are wrong.

1. 'B'nai Elohim'  does indeed mean "Sons of God" because it's referring to Yahweh who is single in Being but plural in person. "Elohim" was a title not a name like "god" and could be used to refer to multiple gods. 
2. The fact that some of ancient Israel did worship other gods alongside or instead of YHWH does not mean that they were supposed to or that there was some progression from polytheism to monotheism. The Bible is really clear that there was polytheism even in Genesis forward, from many people, including Abram's extended family, but not Abram himself. 

She correctly shows that many people disagree that with what the passage means. Her opinion is definitely from a non-believer. So how about after reading Cathy Cooper's take on the passage, whose conclusion I don't come agree with and is linked below:

Debunking Christianity: What Happened When Humpty Dumpty Met the Sons of Gods

Watch and listen to Dr Hank Hanegraaf answer the question and other relevant questions.

Questions and Answers with Hank - 07-05-2012

Who are the “Sons of God” in Genesis 6?

The Science of Lying [Video]

This was an interesting video. But does have it's problems.




Video Description:

Hank gets into the dirty details behind our lying ways - how such behavior evolved, how pathological liars are different from the rest of us, and how scientists are getting better at spotting lies in many situations.

The Science of Lying [Video]


I  was disappointed with the video because it gave a reason for why humanity knows it is immoral to make lying a day-to-day practice \or a way of life, but does not give  any evolutionary explanation for how and why humanity became presupposed to be liars. The video goes as far admitting that we all lie even from an early age but stops short of calling it what it is. Sin. Lying is evil. Plain and simple.  No one likes being lied to or lied on. Why,  if it is so natural and a good thing? It's not.  So my question is: How do we free ourselves with it? Sometimes when the truth is inconvenient, how do you avoid the temptation to lie? How do you break free? We all know what it's like to fall for it and lie almost without even thinking about it. Why would any one of us think that we won't have to pay for that? We know we have told lies. We know we have hurt other people. So wshat what are you going to do about it?

The truly unfortunately thing is that when the video points out how religion may have helped people realize that lying was bad for society, it references medieval Europe as if the Bible, and many other things had not already been in place - just to take a jab at Christianity.

Stephen Hawking – Higgs Discovery has lost me $100 [Video]

Well,there seems two opinions: either the Higgs-Boson has been discovered or there has been enough evidence that some experts believe we are close to discovering it. Apparently Dr Stephen Hawking is sold on the idea.




Stephen Hawking – Higgs Discovery has lost me $100 [Video]

And here is a video explaining what the fuss is all about

How To Explain Why Star Trek Is Better Than Star Wars [Comic]

How To Explain Why Star Trek Is Better Than Star Wars [Comic]

Parting Shot: 'Who is Miles Morales?' Fan Film [Video] - ComicsAlliance | Comic book culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

Parting Shot: 'Who is Miles Morales?' Fan Film [Video] - ComicsAlliance | Comic book culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

Who pays more taxes, Spider-Man or Batman? | The Beat

 Yup, Batman is one of the 1% and Spider-Man is part of the 99 with the rest of us!

Who pays more taxes, Spider-Man or Batman? | The Beat

Facepalm of the Day - Assuming that God is Limited To A Gender

Recently I had been "challenged" by Ryan Anderson on a previous blog post regarding God's gender. You can  read the post and the comments at this link: http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2012/06/secular-outpost-20-questions-for_26.html. Grant it the post has nothing to do with the complete confusion of categories and logical fallacies included in the sophomoric concept that God is limited to human conceptions of gender. It appears that Ryan Anderson wanted to find something to argue against the posts in which I talk about God with the pronoun "He". Ryan Anderson complained:

I guess we don't have better noun than Father. Why no reference to "God the Mother"? Mother would certainly describe many of it's alleged qualities...

 His contention is that the Bible never applies feminine terms or imagery to God. Ryan Anderson refused to open his mind and really look at what the texts say. It doesn't take long to find a lot of material demonstrating that God has no gender as humans do and that both male and female imagery is applied by scripture to help us understand who and what God is and is not.  Here is a good link to an article on this subject written by a Christian.

Bible Verses They Never Taught You in Sunday School… | Purging my soul…one blog at a time.

People think that because the Bible is such an ancient text that it prescribes and condones sexist attitudes for men and and against women. Unfortunately some go as far as accusing the Bible of misogyny. The history of the church and God's people is filled with various examples of such stupidity and mistakes. This is because of our sin not because of our God - Jew and Christian alike. Such attitudes are not Biblical nor pleases God. God is described using female imagery showing that without femininity humanity is incomplete. Sure the ignorant my counter that if I'm right than its because of Christians coming along and changing everything that was Jewish. Completely wrong. Here is a link to an article discussing the feminine imagery of God from a Jewish views of scripture!

Visions of the Divine Gender in Textual Imagery By Esther Shkop

 Dr. Esther Shkop wrote:

One can only be impressed by the majestic beauty and profound emotion which Jewish sources, especially in the Prophets, conjure through the use of feminine imagery. The numerous and various strong feminine images more than balance the masculine ones. While we must remember that the Divine is beyond form and gender, human language by necessity conceives even the most Abstract in visual images. The multiplicity of feminine images alongside the masculine, and the context in which one or the other is used requires close study and (often mystical) understanding. Careful analysis of the Hebraic texts will reveal that religious experiences and the immediacy of God are to be found in the world of women no less than in that of men. It would be a tragedy - and a travesty - to "castrate" the language, for it would then remove God from the experiential milieus of both men and women, rendering us mortals mute, unable to commune with or communicate about our Creator. 

Silly, Atheist, God is for everybody. I totally agree with Dr Shkop on this. I think it's important to look at a few (not all) of the references she and the other referenced article are using.

1. Genesis 3:21
2.  Jesus Washing the disciples feet is noteworthy because in the first century only slaves and women did that work. This is what made the act so noteworthy given the status of slaves and women.
3. Jeremiah 31:20
4. Isaiah 42:14
5. Isaiah 46:3-4.
6. Deuteronomy 32:18
7. Isaiah 49:15
8. Isaiah 66:12-13
9. Isaiah 66:9
10. Isaiah 42:14
11. Matthew 23:37

You have got to love the following written by Dr Shkop:

Yet we must realize that God does have a name, the famous Tetragrammaton, or four-lettered name of Hashem - which is made up of the letters yud-heh and vav-heh. The ineffable name of Hashem is a contraction of the Hebrew verb, to be, in past, present and future, and is therefore often translated as The Eternal. However, in the Hebraic source this name is written as a feminine noun - and signifies the aspect of rachamim, which, as indicated earlier, is quintessentially feminine. Thus every blessing and prayer we say, every evocation of the Eternal Presence [Kabbalistically called the "Shechina" ] is in fact an evocation of the feminine concept - the unconditional love of the Creator. 

 The Bible presents men and women as ontologically equal and necessary to one another, but neither equivalent nor interchangeable. We need each other to fulfill the purpose of humanity and together we are the image of our Creator. God is neither male nor female and to try to cast those categories on the infinite God shows that one has no idea who God is.

²⁹ Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God." - Matthew 22:29

FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: The Gospel of Matthew Caught In A Lie

Harry McCall keeps releasing material that makes no sense attacking the Bible. It makes me wonder what translations that he is using and who is he talking to? This particular post actually answers some of those questions. 


Jesus speaking: 
“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church (τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ•). And if he refuses to listen even to the church (τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ•), let him be to you as a Gentile (ὁ ἐθνικὸς ) and a tax collector.” (Matthew 18: 15 – 18) 


I looked up a few translations and realized that McCall is using the New American Standard version. I think it helps to look at several translations.  Let me help: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt%2018:17&version=NIV;KJV;ASV;NASB;AMP

Notice that other translations do not translate ἐθνικὸς  as "Gentile" but "Pagan" More on this later. 



Here we have a Jesus doing no miracles, but just talking to his disciples about how to deal with a sinful brother. So an excellent question would be to ask why is a Jewish Jesus –who was not a Christian and never attended a religious meeting called a church (Greek word “the church” (τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ))- giving Church Discipline? 

Hold up and let's get rid of this when McCall attempts to butcher answering the question.

Secondly, why are gentiles (non-Jews) and tax collectors (Jews who worked for Rome) excluded from salvation by having committed some unpardonable sin? 

Looking  at the Greek of the text makes these issues much clearer. ἐθνικὸς means more than just "gentile". McCall erroneously and humorously thinks that Jesus hated Gentiles.  The word means the following:

1. adapted to the genius or customs of a people, peculiar to a people, national

1. suited to the manners or language of foreigners, strange, foreign

1. in the NT savouring of the nature of pagans, alien to the worship of the true God, heathenish

1. of the pagan, the Gentile

For Jews, Gentiles were people who were godless. No where does the Bible tell us that all Gentiles are godless and by godless I mean not worshiping the one true God. 

The word church (ἐκκλησίᾳ) only occurs three times in the Gospels. Of these, all three occurrences are in Matthew (twice in this pericope and once in Jesus’ statement to Peter (Matt. 16: 18 which scholars feel has been interpolated (added) into the story give Peter authority). Yet, it's an acknowledged fact that Jesus was a Jew who attended the synagogue (never the Church) plus, thelingua franca of Jesus was Palestinian Aramaic which had no word for church as Greek did (a term taken over from Greek philosophical schools). 

I disagree that Matthew 16:18 is an extrapolation but that is a rabbit trail I will avoid for now. There wasn't a church for Jesus to go to because He started Christianity. The word church (ἐκκλησίᾳ) does not have solely a Christians context. The word church (ἐκκλησίᾳ) has the lexiconical entry:

a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly

1. an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating

1. the assembly of the Israelites

1. any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously

1. in a Christian sense

1. an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting

1. a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order's sake

1. those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body

1. the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth

1. the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven

There was not yet a Christian sense when Jesus said this so I see no reason to assume such a context. 

Apologetically, one pastor tried to explain some of the contradiction by telling me that Jesus (as both God and all knowing) knew the Church would appear after his ascension to Heaven (Acts 1), so he was simply prophesying Church Discipline.

My counter to his response was that if Jesus (as an all knowing God) really did know the Church was coming, then why didn’t Jesus also know that gentiles would be a major part of it? Why did JesusNOT know about the strong conflicts between Peter and Paul over gentiles? What was the whole purpose of the “pillars” council concerning gentiles in Acts 15 headed by Jesus’ brother James? 

I think McCall is missing something. Although the word church (ἐκκλησίᾳ) is not in Aramaic, I wondered how the passage would work in Aramaic? You can find out. http://www.peshitta.org/ Remember to read it right to left!! You will see that there is a word being used "Congregation". And it's used in the Old Testament. 

1. Psalm 26:12
   My feet stand on level ground; in the great congregation I will praise the LORD.
   
2. Psalm 68:26
   Praise God in the great congregation; praise the LORD in the assembly of Israel.
   

Congregations is what God's people had before we had churches. 

Conclusion
Like the conflicts and contradictions in the Birth Narratives and the Resurrection Stories; what we have in this pericope is a firsthand look at how the Jesus tradition was put together though totalcreative fabrication (lies). What we have in Matthew’s Gospels a total anachronistic screw up of the facts in order to give credence and total truth to the Church! 

Harry McCall

Yeah just like the conflicts and contradictions in the Birth Narratives and the Resurrection stories, this one is also bogus. Also the Bible does not teach that the total truth is the Church. Some churches teach that. The Bible teaches total and complete truth is the Gospel of Jesus Christ!

Debunking Christianity: The Gospel of Matthew Caught In A Lie

The Secular Outpost: 20+ Questions for Theists #12

John Loftus has posted a link to a  list of questions for theists from another blog. Rather than answer all of them in a single post, I will take each of them one at a time. Today:

12. Why are pain and pleasure so connected to the biological goals of survival and reproduction, but morally random? Is there some greater good that logically requires (or logically requires risking) that suffering be used to motivate animals to pursue the biological goal of self-preservation? Does some moral end make it desierable for suffering to continue even when it serves no biological purpose? For example, why do sentient beings, including animals which are not moral agents, experience pain or pleasure that we do not know to be biologically useful?

The goal of self-preservation is not what the purpose of life. Suffering in life is not for a biological purpose. The reason for the confusion is that we need to know why creation is subjected to suffering and why.

¹⁸ I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. ¹⁹ For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. ²⁰ For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope ²¹ that^[h] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.

²² We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. ²³ Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. ²⁴ For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? ²⁵ But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.

²⁶ In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. ²⁷ And he who searches our heartsknows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God’s people in accordance with the will of God.

²⁸ And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who^[i] have been called according to his purpose. ²⁹ For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. ³⁰ And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. - Romans 8:18-30

The Secular Outpost: 20+ Questions for Theists

The Red Light Morality Scale [Pic]

Ever notice that the "color" red is often associated evil in this culture? hmmmmm

The Red Light Morality Scale [Pic]

The Secular Outpost: 20+ Questions for Theists #9

John Loftus has posted a link to a  list of questions for theists from another blog. Rather than answer all of them in a single post, I will take each of them one at a time. Today:

11. If you believe humans have free will, why would humans have free will if God exists? Why are we able to exercise free will in some situations but not others?

I don't believe humans have free will. The Bible says, and observation and personal experiences bears it out, that people are enslaved to sin. We are not free willed because we can't choose not be under the guilt of sin. Our guilt is deserved because everyone of us sins - either voluntarily or involuntarily. The first question doesn't make sense from this point of view and besides why make God's existence contingent on our free will? It doesn't. The second question actually supposes that we don't have free will (as much of philosophy expresses it "libertarian free will"). If we had that kind of free will I would expect that we would be able to do anything we want in any situation and we cannot. I'm not saying that humans have no will of our own - we do and it is enslaved to sin. The Gospel is that Jesus came to free us and you can be freed and finally see and think clearly. This is what Jesus taught and what the Apostles taught. How does God's sovereignty and our will interact? That depends on what God decides. Sometimes God supersedes that and changes us so that we don't even realized that we would have willed something else - that is definitely the case whenever anyone of us does something "good". And sometimes God makes it plain God is doing something outside of our own will be allowing us to see things transpire contrary to our desires.



The Secular Outpost: 20+ Questions for Theists

Related articles

• I Have Faith...in Atheism

  ---

• PZ Meyers and Sye Bruggencate video

  ---

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Thank You, Douglas Wilson

Ken has posted an awesome summary post on a couple of lectures Pastor Douglas Wilson gave on human sexuality and it's place as God has designed reality. It give links to all of the videos, Dr James White's comments on his Podcasts, and links to Wilson's debate against James White and Wilson's debates against Christopher Hitchens. A virtual treasure trove in a single blog post!

The comments Ken makes on the material, as well as Dr White's comments on his web cast or well worth considering! Get the material at the following link

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Thank You, Douglas Wilson

The Secular Outpost: 20+ Questions for Theists #8 and 9 and 10

John Loftus has posted a link to a  list of questions for theists from another blog. Rather than answer all of them in a single post, I will take each of them one at a time. Today:


8. Why would God desire to create embodied moral agents, as opposed to unembodied minds (such as souls, spirits, or ghosts)? Why is the human mind dependent on the physical brain


I gave a response to this one before the post was edited at:  http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2012/06/secular-outpost-20-questions-for.html


9. Did Australopithecus have a soul? What about homo habilis? Homo erectus? Neanderthals? Why or why not? (HT: Keith Parsons)


I'm not sure if we can really conclusively prove that  Australopithecus,  homo habilis, Homo erectus, or Neanderthals  were fundamentally different from us or represent the varying stages in human evolution. It is am interesting fairytale that I just don't think that there is enough evidence to accept as fact. Therefore being asked about whether or not they had souls is not appropriate. Many people who raise this question don't think modern people have souls either, so it's just sad attempt to make people doubt their own soul's existence based on not being able to answer the same question about "ancestors" that we don't really have much information about. For the sake of argument let's say that these earlier hominids did exist, how would you go about testing their cognitive functions? How would you talk to them about their hopes and dreams? On this subject, if you accept evolution, agnosticism is the only honest position. Concluding that they had souls and that they did not have souls would be a move of blind faith - believing something that you have no evidence for. 


10. How do souls interact with physical matter? Do you have any answer that is not tantamount to "I don't know?" (HT: Keith Parsons)


Souls interact with physical matter in their bodies that God gave us. Easy peasy. 

The Secular Outpost: 20+ Questions for Theists

Answering Muslims: Muslims Stone Christians (NSFW)

So some Christians were recently attacked by Muslims - Men, Women, And Children - while peacefully carrying signs about Christianity as they walked through an Arabic cultural festival. Where did such a thing take place? Egypt? Saudi Arabia? Afghanistan?





Nope? Dearborn, MI - in the United States!!!! I guess there is no free speech in Michigan. Read David Wood's comments at the following link. The one problem I have in this video is the attempt to try to tie President Obama to what happened because no President would be in a real position to do anything. I wouldn't expect Bush or Clinton to have committed political suicide, why should I expect Obama to do it? Of course it's the right thing, but not the Political thing to do. I think it's important to hold Obama to the same standard I would his predecessors and I think those standards should be higher.

Answering Muslims: American Muslims Stone Christians in Dearborn, MI

The Secular Outpost: 20+ Questions for Theists #7

John Loftus has posted a link to a  list of questions for theists from another blog. Rather than answer all of them in a single post, I will take each of them one at a time. Today:

7.  Why would God use biological evolution as a method for creation? Do you have any answer that is independent of the scientific evidence for evolution?

First, who said that God used biological evoluion as his method for creation? The Bible doesn't. And consensus notwithstanding, there isn't enough evidence at hand that points to macroevolutionary theory as an an answer to how humans got here - in my opinion. I wonder why is it okay for anti-theists to conclude that there isn't enough evidence to believe God exists but it's not okay to come that conclusion regarding macroevolution. Counterfactuals against Christian Theism amounts to people complaining that the world does not look like they think it should had they been God. Big deal. Counterfactuals against macroevolution includes the origin of consciousness plus everything that makes us uniquely human.

The Secular Outpost: 20+ Questions for Theists

FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Why don't all animals photosynthesise? (the Problem of Evil revisited)

Jonathan Pearce has posted one of his videos on Debunking Christianity. It is an attempt to pose the Problem of Evil in such a way that "free will" theodicies will not work."Free Will" theodicies annoy me almost as much as arguments like the ones presented below.





Pearce writes:

The follow on question, asked in the book, is why it was deemed necessary to design a system whereby animals need energy at all. There is a much wider debate vis-a-vis energy in this here universe.

And here is the video's description:

This video seeks to pose a really difficult question that God needs to answer! If God is omnibenevolent, -potent and -scient then why dis he design a world where the pain and suffering of billions of animals is required so that other animals can merely exist?

The problem is arguments like this that ask why did God create a world in which animals must kill other animals to survive miss a very key point: we are looking at the creation after the fall. According to scripture, there was nothing killing anything before Adam disobeyed God. There was no dying or death. We miss the fact that sin is really that bad. There was no decay. There was no pain or suffering. God's creation was perfect and then by choosing to reject God we started evil in this world. Everyone. Even those who have repented did not start that way.

When God restores the universe back to the way it was before people screwed up. we won't have animals killing other animals.

⁶ The wolf will live with the lamb,
    the leopard will lie down with the goat,
the calf and the lion and the yearling^[a] together;
    and a little child will lead them.
⁷ The cow will feed with the bear,
    their young will lie down together,
    and the lion will eat straw like the ox. - Isaiah 11:6-7


²⁴ Before they call I will answer;
    while they are still speaking I will hear.
²⁵ The wolf and the lamb will feed together,
    and the lion will eat straw like the ox,
    and dust will be the serpent’s food.
They will neither harm nor destroy
    on all my holy mountain,”
says the Lord. - Isaiah 65:24-25
I know what you are thinking.:  I didn't answer the question for why God didn't make us so that we would make food using photosynthesis or some other mechanism. It's moot. Had we not been sinners, there would be no death. However, the reason why God doesn't spontaneously intervene so that we have no evil or death because if He did, none of us would be here. We would not have been born. And God has a purpose and reason for everything that happens or is done.The Bible even tells us why. Have a look at Paul's Theodicy:

¹⁸ I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. ¹⁹ For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. ²⁰ For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope ²¹ that^[h] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.
²² We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. ²³ Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. ²⁴ For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? ²⁵ But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.
²⁶ In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. ²⁷ And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God’s people in accordance with the will of God. - Romans 8: 18-27




Debunking Christianity: Why don't all animals photosynthesise? (the Problem of Evil revisited)