|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Adam & Eve to be blamed, or god! | |||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hangdawg13 responds to portmaster1000:
quote:quote: Incorrect. I have directly addressed it: Of course innocence can end...but not through the deliberate intent of the innocent. A rock can fall on your head, but that doesn't mean you wanted a rock to fall on your head...even if you deliberately pulled on the stick that loosened the boulder that fell on your head. Actions have consequences, yes, even if you don't understand what those consequences are...including punishment for those actions. Punishment for actions, however, requires analysis of the intent of the action in order to determine the appropriate level. That's why we distinguish between first and second degree murder as well as among murder, manslaughter, and negligent homicide. That's why we don't impose criminal sanctions upon those who do not understand the difference between right and wrong. Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge and lost their innocence. They even ate from the tree deliberately (it isn't like the snake told them to eat from the tree or the fruit fell in their mouths accidentally.) But they didn't sin when they ate from the tree because, being innocent, they were incapable of sin.
quote: Then why did Adam and Eve not know of good and evil until after they ate from the tree? And why was their panic over being naked rather than over disobedience to god and the only commandment they had ever been given?
quote: One cannot "disobey" if one is innocent. Obedience requires knowledge of good and evil and Adam and Eve didn't have that since they hadn't eaten from the tree yet.
quote: Chapter and verse, please? Where does Genesis even remotely hint at this? Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
portmaster1000 writes:
quote: But that's precisely what the Bible says: Genesis 2:23: And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Her name was, indeed, "Woman" until after the fall. "Adam," but the way, mean "Man." Eve is the first person to have a name that isn't a biological descriptor. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
portmaster1000 responds to me:
quote:quote: Um, you're not looking at it correctly. We call the man in Genesis 2 "Adam" because there is no other word used to refer to him: 'adam. It may have been his name (he was, after all, given the task of naming everything), but the name and the word would then be the same thing. Genesis 1:27: And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them. va.yiv.ra e.lo.him [b][i]et-ha.a.dam[/b][/i] be.tsal.mo be.tse.lem e.lo.him ba.ra o.to za.khar u.ne.ke.va ba.ra o.tam: Genesis 2:5: No shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up; for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground; ve.khol si.akh ha.sa.de te.rem yih.ye va.a.rets ve.khol-e.sev ha.sa.de te.rem yits.makh ki lo him.tir a.do.nai e.lo.him al-ha.a.rets [b][i]ve.a.dam[/b][/i] a.yin la.a.vod et-ha.a.da.ma: Genesis 2:7: Then the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. va.yi.tser a.do.nai e.lo.him [B][i]et-ha.a.dam[/b][/i] a.far min-ha.a.da.ma va.yi.pakh be.a.pav nish.mat kha.yim va.ye.hi ha.a.dam le.ne.fesh kha.ya: And so on and so on. Contrast this to the concept of "man" and "woman" used here: Genesis 2:23: And the [b][i]man[/b][/i] said: 'This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called [b][i]Woman[/b][/i], because she was taken out of [b][i]Man[/b][/i].' va.yo.mer [B][I]ha.a.dam[/b][/i] zot ha.pa.am e.tsem me.a.tsa.mai u.va.sar mib.sa.ri le.zot yi.ka.re [b][i]i.sha[/b][/i] ki [b][i]me.ish[/b][/i] lu.ko.kha-zot: So the word "'adam" means "man," but because the very first one was never called by anything else, it has become the name which we use for him. It might not be his actual name, but our inheritance of the story has fused the two into the same thing. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
portmaster1000 responds to me:
quote: You're asking for a rational description of what is, essentially, a piece of magic. Eating a piece of fruit suddenly gives you psychological comprehension of the moral foundation? The ability to grasp post-operative logic comes at about seven years of age. You can't really stop it unless you subject the child to severe abuse and neglect with absolutely no interaction with the world. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
almeyda writes:
quote: Um, without the second law of thermodynamics, life is not possible. So if you're going to trigger the invention of physics with the fall, how on earth was there any existence of anything before? There couldn't be an Adam or an Eve to fall if there were no second law. Question: What is the definition of the Second Law of Thermodynamics? Hint: If your answer contains the words "order," "disorder," or "information," then you've failed. Hint: Try to remember what the word "thermodynamics" literally means.
quote: What on earth does a Christian text have to do with a Jewish story? Genesis was written by Jews for Jews. Who are Christians to tell Jews what their stories mean?
quote: Putting the tree of knowledge where Adam and Eve could get at it. If you have a priceless Mhing vase that you do not want broken, do you put it on a rickety pedestal with a toddler and then turn your back? And then get upset when you hear the inevitable crash? Of course not. You're the adult, the toddler doesn't know any better (no matter how clearly you say, "Don't touch"), and it is your fault that it got broken. If you don't want the toddler to break the vase, it is your responsibility to put it where the toddler can't get at it. If god didn't want Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge (or even touch it, if we are to believe Eve), then he shouldn't have put them in the same spot.
quote: Why? Where on earth do we find anywhere in the Bible the claim that god must tempt humans to sin?
quote: Only because he wasn't given the requisite tools not to. Adam and Eve were doomed to disobey precisely because they were innocent. Obedience requires knowledge of good and evil. Since they didn't have that knowledge, they had no reason to follow god and would eventually eat from the tree.
quote: Um, I'll stand up for myself, thank you very much. Didn't you just say that "we shouldn't suffer from our parents for their sins"? If Adam and Eve screwed up, they can suffer the consequences. I haven't eaten from the tree of knowledge, so why should I be punished for it?
quote: Didn't you just say "we shouldn't suffer from our parents for their sins"?
quote: Only because he kicked Adam and Eve out of Eden before they had a chance to eat from the tree of life and become exactly as god and live forever. How very lucky god was that Adam and Eve decided to eat from the trees in the order they did.
quote: What on earth does this have to do with a Jewish story? We're talking about Genesis: A story written by Jews for Jews. What on earth makes you think a Christian has any authority here?
quote: First, a spelling flame. It'a "a lot." Two words. "Alot" would be pronounced "al'-uht." If you were going to intensify the expression, you'd say, "a whole lot," and you need a hole for the "whole." Second, a grammar flame. It's "have," not "of." He should have done. Do not confuse the contraction "should've" with the phantom expression, "should of." Second, of course a lot of people try to tell god what to do or he should have done this. As god directly states, we are as gods, knowing good and evil (Genesis 3:22). So since we know the difference between good and evil, why shouldn't we be capable of evaluating the actions of god and concluding they are good or evil? After all, god is the source of all evil as he directly states. What's the big deal in noticing that?
quote: BZZZZT! Pascal's Wager. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Phatboy writes:
quote: From your statement, it appears that you follow the god as described in the Bible. Since the Bible states that god is the source of all evil, then your statement that "God never created evil" is directly contradicted. If you can't believe god, who are you going to believe? Isaiah 45:7: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. God even boasts about it: Ezekiel 20:25: Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live; 20:26: And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the LORD. And let's not forget god's biggest boo-boo of all: Genesis 9:15: And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. Seems that god can even regret having caused evil. Again, if you aren't going to believe the word of god, who are you going to believe? Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
almeyda responds to me:
quote:quote: Again, without a temporal and material world, there can be no existence. If you're going to trigger the invention of reality with the fall, how on earth was there any existence of anything before? There couldn't be an Adam or an Eve to fall if there were no temporal and material world.
quote: delta-S = delta-Q/T That's the second law. Where do you find anything about "running down hill" in there? You seem to think that the second law has something to do with order. It does not. It has to do with energy transfer. In any reaction, energy is transferred, but not all of it. Some energy is always lost. The three laws of thermo really do correspond to the common concept of "You can't win, you can't break even, you can't even quit the game." You cannot get more energy out than you put in (first law), you can't get out all of the energy you put in (second law), nor can you ever reach purely zero energy (third law). These laws are interdependent, too. Part of the reason the second law exists is because of the first law. Suppose you had a high temperature boiler and low temperature condenser. Suppose you have an engine that is perfectly efficient, capable of converting all energy input into work. You could then use this engine to run a refrigerator. But this would violate the other laws: You'd end up getting more energy out than you put in as you pulled energy from the low temperature reservoir as well as getting the energy from the engine (violation of the first law) and you'd eventually pull all the energy from the low temperature reservoir, sending it to absolute zero (violation of the third law).
quote:quote: (*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? It's their holy scripture. How on earth could it not be written for them?
quote: And who do you think they were writing for? Christians who wouldn't exist for another thousand years?
quote: You misunderstand. Genesis cannot be understood except from a Jewish perspective. The metaphors it uses, the way it presents things, the phrasing and imagery, they are all part of the Jewish experience. That doesn't mean that non-Jews can't get anything out of it, but it means that the point of the story is dependent upon that Jewish conceptualization of the world. Thus, for example, the serpent in Eden was not the devil. It cannot be because in Jewish theology of the time that Genesis was written, there was no such thing as the devil. Even in current Jewish theology, the concept of the devil isn't like the Christian vision of a fallen angel. For someone to then claim that the "old serpent" mentioned in Revelation is the same serpent from Eden is simply ludicrous. Since the serpent in Eden wasn't the devil, how could the devil in Revelation be the serpent in Eden?
quote: You ignore the history of Christianity. The Christian Bible wasn't completed until the fifth century CE with many of the books written long after the supposed time of Jesus. Judaism had split into many sects at the supposed time of Jesus already, so it is not surprising that as Judaism morphed into Christianity, that it would pull some of the texts from its past into the new paradigm, abandoning the old interpretations in favor of the new. After all, what is the point of being a new religion if you're just like the old one? Christianity is not simply Judaism + Jesus.
quote: Euclid's Elements. And people don't have ulterior motives for putting Elements into other languages. The proselytising of theology is the height of arrogance, claiming that the poor victims are morons who need to be saved when they never asked for assistance in the first place. In other words, was the Bible translated into, say, Maori because the Maori asked for it or because the English imposed it upon them?
quote: Impossible. The OT cannot reference the NT because the NT hadn't been written at the time. Remember, the OT was written by Jews for Jews. And as for the NT referencing the OT, do not forget that the NT often gets the OT wrong.
quote: Christian arrogance. The god of the Jews is not the same god as the god of the Christians. If it were, then Jews would accept Jesus as the Messiah.
quote:quote: Non sequitur. Let's try again. If god didn't want Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge (or even touch it, if we are to believe Eve), then he shouldn't have put them in the same spot.
quote: Says who? You? Where on earth do we find anywhere in the Bible the claim that god must tempt humans to sin? Chapter and verse, please.
quote:quote: So the tempter of Adam and Eve was actually god? It certainly wasn't the serpent since he didn't tell them to eat from the tree. The actual temptation was the tree, itself? Then why blame the serpent? But you still haven't answered the question. Where on earth do we find anywhere in the Bible the claim that god must tempt humans to sin? Chapter and verse, please.
quote: This doesn't make the serpent evil. As I pointed out in Message 51:
The root is "'aruwm" which means "prudent," "shrewd," "sensible." Where on earth does this imply the serpent was evil? Remember, the serpent never tells Eve to eat from the tree. She came to that decision on her own.
quote: Says who? You? The Bible never says that. Remember, Genesis was written by Jews who had no concept of the devil. How on earth could they write a story about an animal "used by" the devil when in their minds, there is no such thing?
quote: But god was lying. The serpent, being prudent and sensible, told Eve the truth.
quote:quote: Where did I say that Adam was stupid? I have repeated this statement over and over and over again. How many times must I say it before you remember it? Adam was not stupid. He was INNOCENT. Beetaratagang or clerendipity? Which one do you choose? One will send you to heaven and one will send you to hell. Which one do you choose? Come on, now. Why do you hesitate? You are a mature, intelligent adult. Surely you are capable of deciding whether you wish to follow the path of beetaratagang or the way of clerendipity. Do you not understand the point? It isn't that you are stupid...it's that you don't know what those things are. You are innocent. How do you describe color to a blind person? Sound to a deaf person? It isn't a question of mental capacity. It's that they simply don't experience the world that way.
quote: That's not a reason. Why should they care that god made them? That's a question of "honor" and "respect" which is part of "good" and "evil," which they don't understand because they hadn't eaten from the tree yet.
quote: By lying about it. The serpent, being prudent and sensible, told them the truth. He didn't tell them to eat from the tree, however. Eve came to that decision all on her own.
quote: Authority is part of "good" and "evil" which Adam and Eve didn't undestand because they hadn't eaten from the tree yet. And again, they obviously did act contrary to god's will, but that doesn't make what they did sin. Sin requires deliberate intent to do evil. Since they did not know what evil was, they were incapable of having deliberate intent to do it.
quote:quote: Since when was it decided that I was an atheist? I've been very careful to leave my opinions about the existence of supernatural beings out of it. Just because I don't believe in your god doesn't mean I don't believe in any god. And you haven't answered my question. If the biblical system of justice is that the sins of the parents should not be visited upon the children, why on earth are we being punished? God could easily have let the sin die with them.
quote: No. I refuse to have you judge my posts based upon your perception of how a person of religious persuasion X should behave. Learn to live with disappointment.
quote: Says who? You? Doesn't your saviour tell you not to judge?
quote: BZZZZT! Pascal's Wager. I'm so sorry, almeyda. Johnny, tell him what parting gifts he has! Well, Bob, almeyda has won himself a lifetime of anguish in someone else's hell! Yes, that's right. After spending all of his life fighting against Satan and worshipping the Christian god, almeyda gets a reward of going straight to Hades for his hubris. He'll be sentenced to solve a series of puzzles for which the instructions can be read in many ways. Every attempt to glean more information will be met with "Since it would just be a waste of my time to tell you, I won't." Of course, every proposed solution will conflict with something in the contradictory instructions. This being for his continued insistence that those around him are unworthy of explanations. But, he won't get hungry because he'll have an afterlife-time supply of Rice-a-Roni, the San Francisco Treat. You didn't really think that the god that truly exists was the Christian one, did you?
quote:quote: Non sequitur. If we shouldn't suffer from our parents for their sins, why does the rest of humanity have to suffer from the sins of Adam and Eve? Why does it matter that humanity is descended from them?
quote: Why? if we shouldn't suffer from our parents for their sins, why are we suffering from the sins of Adam and Eve?
quote: God could do it if he wanted. He put the curse down. He could take it away. After all, isn't that the promise from your saviour? And if we aren't supposed to suffer the sins of our parents, why did god curse the entire world for the sins of Adam and Eve?
quote: They always had that choice and it was set up by god. By putting the tree where Adam and Eve could get to it, god allowed the choice of disobedience to god's will into the world. Original sin, therefore, was deliberately thrust upon the world by god. Adam and Eve were simply patsies set up to take the rap for god.
quote: It doesn't have to be.
quote:quote: They're not. If they were, Jews would be Christians. Since they're obviously not, then it must necessarily be the case that the Old Testament doesn't really connect with the New Testament. Instead, Christians have taken the Old Testament, mangled its intent and stories to mean things it was never supposed to. A Christian reading of the Old Testament is quite different from a Jewish reading. As a f'rinstance, what was the sin of Sodom? Christians seem to think it was homosexuality. Jews, on the other hand, seem to think it was inhospitality.
quote: But that's just it: It doesn't. Jesus does not fulfill the prophecies of the Messiah as put forward by the Old Testament. That's why Jews don't accept him as the Messiah. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Phatboy writes:
quote: True, but just because it doesn't need it doesn't mean it doesn't have it. Where was it agreed that the only way the god and the universe can exist is as a creator-created relationship? Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Phatboy:
quote: Logical error: Equivocation. You have gone from "knowledge" meaning "understanding" to "knowledge" meaning "intellect." Adam and Eve weren't stupid. They were innocent. Innocence does imply lack of knowledge in Genesis because it directly says so. They're running around naked and are not ashamed. It isn't that they don't understand what "being naked" means. It's that they do not have any emotional sense of shame attached to that concept. Adam and Eve, being innocent, were incapable of sinning due to their inability to comprehend good and evil. Sin requires deliberate intent to do evil. That doesn't mean an innocent person cannot engage in an act that is evil. It means that an innocent person cannot engage in an act with the specific intent to do evil. If being naked is a sin (which the Bible clearly seems to think it is), then Adam and Eve running around naked is not a sin because they do not know what evil is. They aren't naked because they are being willful, deliberately flaunting the rules. It's that they do not understand why anybody would wear clothes. They didn't have them to begin with, god didn't give them any, so why would they bother to make them when they seemingly did not need them? They didn't need protection from the elements, so what would spur them to put on clothes? It isn't "modesty" because that requires knowledge of good and evil with modesty being "good."
quote: And the snake was right. They became as gods precisely as the snake said they would. What the snake didn't do was tell them to eat from the tree. Just because they would become as gods does not mean they had a desire to do so.
quote: But if they were perfect, how could they possibly have sinned? Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Phatboy responds to me:
quote:quote: But they would be mistaken. The original Hebrew is quite clear that when god says, "Behold, the man has become as one of us," he really means "as us." God is talking about gods.
quote: Not and remain intellectually honest. You must take the statement as it comes and in the context in which it is presented.
quote:quote: I thought they already had free will. After all, that's what sin is: Choosing freely to do what you know to be wrong.
quote: No. Obedience, however, is contrary to innocence. In order to obey, one must know good and evil. This is different from compliance. If you want me to go down a certain path, I can do it because you want me to do it or because I want to do it. Those are not the same thing.
quote: But then he wasn't perfect as you claimed. And I claim that not only did he not have this desire, he didn't even know what that desire was because he didn't have that knowledge.
quote: No, we merely have to look at children, observe their behaviour, and ask them why they did what they did. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Phatboy responds to me:
quote:quote: But that's my point! I'm not saying that they didn't do something "wrong." After all, they ate from the tree which apparently they were not supposed to do. They even did so willingly and deliberately. It isn't like somebody sneaked some of the fruit into their dinner or they were knocked unconscious and force-fed it. What I am saying is that they didn't sin by eating from the tree. They weren't disobeying when they ate. Those things require comprehension of good and evil and they didn't have that yet because they had not eaten from the tree.
quote: Precisely. And since they were doing wrong things all over the place (they were running around naked), why is god so upset over this wrong thing compared to the others?
quote: I thought they already had free will. Nobody forced them to eat from the tree. Nobody told them to eat from the tree.
quote: Why would they be unsure of god? Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Phatboy responds to me:
quote:quote: But doubt requires knowledge of good and evil...especially when it comes to things like obedience. But Adam and Eve don't understand good and evil because they haven't eaten from the tree. So why would they be unsure of god? You seem to think that Adam and Eve should have known that they were supposed to follow god's word. Why? Why would they hold god's comments as any more worthy than anybody else's? What makes god such an authority to one who doesn't know what good and evil are?
quote: But Adam and Eve don't have that burden. They were innocent. Why on earth would they be unsure? That requires comprehension of good and evil which they didn't have because they hadn't eaten from the tree yet.
quote: Precisely. That's my point. There was no doubt about who god was because there was no comprehension of what god was.
quote: Precisely. That's my point. So how on earth could they sin? Sin requires knowledge of good and evil. That doesn't mean an innocent can't perform an act that would be considered evil. It means that they are not sinning when they do it because they don't understand what evil is. To sin, you have to do something which you know to be evil. If you don't know what evil is, how can you sin? Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Phatboy responds to me:
quote:quote: Incorrect. We merely have to look at children and see how their behaviour changes as they progress from having no concept of right and wrong to developing post-operative logic and a moral framework through which they view the world. I should also point out, however, that you're ducking. You're saying that the Bible doesn't say something, so therefore it must mean what it doesn't say.
quote:quote: But with no way to connect to the goodness of god, that must mean that Adam and Eve were constantly sinning as they were constantly separated from god. So if Adam and Eve were doing nothing but sin, why is god so upset over this particular one?
quote: Incorrect. I am not saying they know nothing. They are not stupid. They are innocent. Those are not the same thing. If I were to ask, say, Stephen King to tell me his opinion about Analytic and Algebraic Topology of Locally Euclidean Metricization of Infinitely Differentiable Reimannian Manifold, I doubt I'd get a coherent reply. It isn't that Mr. King is stupid. It's that he doesn't know what that is. It is unfair and inappropriate to demand someone take responsibility for something they do not know anything about.
quote: Even pre-KGE, it is still logic. Logical things remain logical no matter that comprehension level of those around you.
quote: Again, incorrect. Just watch a child and you'll see what it's like to have a pre-KGE thought process. Every human being goes through this. Morality is something that needs to be taught.
quote: What makes you think I'm not? Just because I don't believe in your god doesn't mean I don't believe in any god. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Phatboy responds to me:
quote: And thus showing the reason why you don't go to the dictionary for proscriptive declarations of definitions. This is the same problem that creationists have when trying to claim that evolution is "only a theory." They insist on using the definition of "theory" meaning "educated guess" rather than the definition of theory of "analysis of a set of facts." The definition of "innocent" you provided contains the one we need: Ingenuous, unaware, harmless in effect or intention. It is clear that this is what the Bible means since Genesis 2 pretty much says it flat out: Genesis 2:25: And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. They were doing something wrong, but they had no maliciousness in them. They were running around naked not to flaunt their willfulness or to spite god but because they didn't know any better.
quote: But the action for which they are being judged was carried out pre-KGE. It is inappropriate, even evil, to judge somebody's actions ex post facto. We even have that generally codified into US law. Adam and Eve committed evil acts before. Why are they being made examples of now? There was no way they weren't going to eat from the tree of knowledge. You don't put a Mhing vase on a rickety pedestal in the same room as a toddler...no matter how much you tell the toddler not to touch.
quote: Since we are as gods, knowing good and evil, yes. Why on earth would we not dare to use the faculties which we have? If you refuse to use your abilities to distinguish between good and evil, how do you ever hope to make sure you refrain from doing evil?
quote: Doesn't that include knowing when the creator screws up royally and showing him the same mercy and forgiveness he's supposed to be showing us? Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Phatboy writes:
quote: Incorrect. Animals are not mean now and the only ones who are predatory are the ones who need to eat other animals to survive. Which brings up the question: Are you seriously saying there were no carnivores before the fall? How on earth did lions manage to survive without eating meat?
quote: Says who? Remember, the serpent in the garden was not Satan.
quote: Yep. And it resides in god, not humans. It starts with an apology. God has done it before (qv. Noah) Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024