Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The flood, and meat eating.
SantaClaus
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 183 (221989)
07-05-2005 7:21 PM


Hi all! I'm new here to the board.
I grew up in a christian home. My father was a baptist minister with a masters degree in biblical studies. Everything in my life was about my faith, worship and creationism. But since childhood, many questions popped up in my mind that challenged what I had been taught.
The animal kingdom and man were all herbivores before the flood, according to the belief of some Christians. This stems from the passage where God tells Noah that man can now eat the flesh of animals. This implies that before the flood, Man was not allowed to eat meat. Some Christians have taken this a step further, and have made the assumption that all living creatures did not eat flesh.
This brings up the topic of flesh eating plants. Were Venus Flytraps vegetarians? I think not.
Let me hear your thoughts on this.
This message has been edited by SantaClaus, 07-07-2005 03:45 PM
This message has been edited by SantaClaus, 07-07-2005 03:47 PM

"you have to remember that when Moses wrote Exodus "writing" was a new form of communication"
-JimSDA

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminJar, posted 07-06-2005 12:13 PM SantaClaus has replied
 Message 5 by Chiroptera, posted 07-07-2005 8:26 PM SantaClaus has not replied
 Message 43 by darth vader, posted 07-15-2005 10:57 AM SantaClaus has not replied

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 183 (222149)
07-06-2005 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by SantaClaus
07-05-2005 7:21 PM


Welcome to EvC
I don't remember the question of meat eating plants coming up before so I'll give you some points for originality. Your last statement though ...
I'd like to know what you all think about this belief that goes unchallenged in the Christian world.
seems to imply that all Christians believe that there was a pre-meat eating time. You might want to drop that since many Christians do challenge that belief.
You also metion 'First Question' which implies that you are going to ask a series of them, but there is no 2nd. question.
Edit the OP and add a space between questions and paragraphs and then post a reply to me here and we'lll take another look at the topic.

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
Message 1
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by SantaClaus, posted 07-05-2005 7:21 PM SantaClaus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by SantaClaus, posted 07-07-2005 3:46 PM AdminJar has not replied

  
SantaClaus
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 183 (222385)
07-07-2005 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminJar
07-06-2005 12:13 PM


Re: Welcome to EvC
Is the modification acceptable?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminJar, posted 07-06-2005 12:13 PM AdminJar has not replied

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 183 (222422)
07-07-2005 6:41 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 183 (222458)
07-07-2005 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by SantaClaus
07-05-2005 7:21 PM


I believe that the most common creationist belief is that meat-eating started right after the Fall, not after the Flood. There was no death and suffering before the Fall, but eating that darned apple brought death and disease, suffering and a taste for meat.
That said, it is one of the silliest parts of the creationist dogma. I mean, why wouldn't there be carnivorous animals (and plants!) before the fall? The fact that the Bible allows people to eat meat of animals but not to eat other people, and the death of humans is treat as more serious than the death of animals, so it would be perfectly consistent to allow animals to kill and eat other animals before the Fall while humans remain a special creature, protected from the death that other life must suffer. And since, supposedly, animals don't have souls, one wonders whether a creature without a soul (the repository of consciousness in many Christians' beliefs) could even "suffer".
On the other hand consider the lion. It is built to eat meat. Its claws and teeth make it very difficult to obtain plant food in enough quantity to feed itself, and its digestive tract is too short to efficiently digest plant matter. The panda is a case in point -- it is descended from carnivores and has the carnivore digestive system, but since it mainly eats plants now it must eat constantly. It also has certain adaptations that allow it obtain its food more efficiently.
So either the loving god who doesn't want his creation to suffer made lions that would be hungry all the time, or right at the fall every lion suddenly grew teeth and claws and lost a lot of intestine -- the changes would be far more "micro-evolution" than required to produce a human from a chimpanzee-like ape.
But maybe god, knowing that it would only take a couple of hours before Adam and Eve would fall, made lions as carnivores, knowing that they would only be hungry for a couple of hours. But by designing a world prepared to fall, one wonders how one can say that god ever really intended for humanity to life in a peaceful, perfect world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by SantaClaus, posted 07-05-2005 7:21 PM SantaClaus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by coffee_addict, posted 09-19-2005 12:07 AM Chiroptera has not replied

  
SantaClaus
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 183 (222468)
07-07-2005 8:58 PM


Good points. I'd like to know why the T-Rex needed those huge teeth, if all it was designed to eat were bananas and cauliflower. Or why the sabre toothed tiger has those long fangs, whose only purpose seemed to be to puncture the arteries on the neck of its prey. They served no other purpose because those fangs simply could not have chewed food. Maybe they were used to grab onto a tree and shake it so some peaches would fall off.
Why was the flytrap designed with teeth, if it wasnt allowed to eat meat? What did bacteria eat? Was there no bacteria before the fall?
I think the bottom line is, that this idea that nothing was allowed to eat flesh before the fall, is unfounded. It seems to be wishful thinking at its best. We were either designed, or adapted to eat flesh. It should be obvious from both of the evo/creation camps. The evidence is simply too overwhelming to bury our heads in the sand and think otherwise.
This message has been edited by SantaClaus, 07-07-2005 09:12 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Chiroptera, posted 07-07-2005 9:29 PM SantaClaus has not replied
 Message 8 by clpMINI, posted 07-08-2005 9:21 AM SantaClaus has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 183 (222472)
07-07-2005 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by SantaClaus
07-07-2005 8:58 PM


There's also the question why did god even make animals? Feral animals are fairly useless, and domesticated animals mainly serve as helpful servants in a fallen world where people have to "work by the sweat of their brow". Pre-Fall, there was no tilling requiring oxen or horses, and no crime requiring watch dogs -- and the Bible specifically says that god created Woman because the animals weren't good companions to Man. And in a pre-Fallen world, there would be plenty of nice, pleasant people for company.
Omnipotent God could easily have made an ecosystem that could produced fruits and vegetables for human consumption without needing animals to be a part of it.
So, God created oxen and horses ready to be used by humans to till the ground, dogs to serve as guardians against crime, deer to be prey, lions to be predators; God clearly never intended humans to live in an eden. God had the Fall and everything planned from the start. The Fall was basically people falling into the trap that God had deliberately set for them.
How's that for a conspiracy theory?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by SantaClaus, posted 07-07-2005 8:58 PM SantaClaus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by arachnophilia, posted 07-10-2005 4:22 AM Chiroptera has not replied

  
clpMINI
Member (Idle past 5164 days)
Posts: 116
From: Richmond, VA, USA
Joined: 03-22-2005


Message 8 of 183 (222548)
07-08-2005 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by SantaClaus
07-07-2005 8:58 PM


Vegetarians?
I remember seeing a TV show on TBN or some other nothing-but-christian network, where Ken Ham had a model of a T-Rex with a cantelope or watermelon in its mouth. I got a good laugh out of that one.
And what about all those vegetarian sharks, especially somethnig like megalodon?

Why do men have nipples?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by SantaClaus, posted 07-07-2005 8:58 PM SantaClaus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Brad McFall, posted 07-08-2005 9:41 AM clpMINI has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 9 of 183 (222551)
07-08-2005 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by clpMINI
07-08-2005 9:21 AM


Re: Vegetarians?
I guess you would say then if I had grown up in India, I would not have had an actual past dream where a T-rex looking (in the dream) dino, ATE pine trees by stripping the cones off with its teeth, that my dreams are overlyinfluenced by Christianity?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by clpMINI, posted 07-08-2005 9:21 AM clpMINI has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by clpMINI, posted 07-08-2005 11:36 AM Brad McFall has replied

  
clpMINI
Member (Idle past 5164 days)
Posts: 116
From: Richmond, VA, USA
Joined: 03-22-2005


Message 10 of 183 (222570)
07-08-2005 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Brad McFall
07-08-2005 9:41 AM


Re: Vegetarians?
Yes, thats exactly what I would say.

Why do men have nipples?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Brad McFall, posted 07-08-2005 9:41 AM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Brad McFall, posted 07-08-2005 3:57 PM clpMINI has not replied

  
SantaClaus
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 183 (222608)
07-08-2005 2:25 PM


Thats a bit out there. Thats why it's called a dream. I would think a pine tree would be a little more on the poisonous side. Didnt the T-Rex in Jurassic park use it's big teeth to smash cars? I guess they are good for more than just fleash eating.
Seems people dont have a whole lot to say about this. As simple of a question as it is, it is a powerful one. Common sense, people.

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by ringo, posted 07-08-2005 2:39 PM SantaClaus has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 12 of 183 (222613)
07-08-2005 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by SantaClaus
07-08-2005 2:25 PM


SantaClaus writes:
Seems people dont have a whole lot to say about this.
Well, the whole no-meat-eating thing is pretty far "out there".
I spent decades in evangelical churches and I never heard of such an outlandish idea except on the Internet.
I think it's an example of how the creos want to change everything, whether it's necessary to their scenario or not. Apparently, nobody but them can ever be right about anything.

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by SantaClaus, posted 07-08-2005 2:25 PM SantaClaus has not replied

  
SantaClaus
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 183 (222630)
07-08-2005 3:12 PM


Well I grew up in the church as well, (1970's)and this was considered common knowledge among all the other baptist christians I grew up around. It started out like this...Man didnt start eating flesh until after the flood, when God told them they could. Then later it somehow morphed into a post fall event.
As a child, I was born with an intense need to critically analyze everything (a traight that no one in my family had), but my parents and people in the church convinced me I was being manipulated by the devil into thinking what he wants, and not what God wants. That lasted about 5 years. My parents (although broken up 10 years ago from 20 years of cheating on each other)still think I'm a heathen for thinking for myself. I remember asking my Dad why the Jews dont believe Jesus was the messiah. His answer was, "cause they're idiots". I guess thats the powerful insight given to you when you get a masters from bible college.
Sorry to get off base here. Does the bible say anywhere, that animals were forbidden from eating one another?
This message has been edited by SantaClaus, 07-08-2005 03:13 PM

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 14 of 183 (222644)
07-08-2005 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by clpMINI
07-08-2005 11:36 AM


Re: Vegetarians?
Ok, I did second guess that.
I dont think this dream however is "way out there". I have no opinion about the venus fly trap as I was stuck with Croizat reference with them "dotting" the ground in Australia less the cell and not the organism makes the cut. That is a hard part of thinking heirarchically. It seems odd to me that I would have to attribute the fear say of a large form in a dream to God as I had this dream many years after I long ridded myself of not thinking that I was able to use science to ascend in a better way should God act in the way I was brought up or by means of a different religion I was not familiar or knowingly able to explain with.
I think the effect of dreaming was caused rather by Kant's page 121 (see below)
quote:
"With regard to what is statutory in religion, we may require biblical hermenutics (hermenutica scara) - which, since it has to do with a scientific system, cannot be left to the laity - to tell us whether the exegete's findings are to be taken as authentic or doctrinal. In the first case, exegesis must conform literally (phiologically) with the author's meaning. But in the second case the writer is free, in his exegesis, to ascribe to the text (philosophically) the meaning it admits of for morally practical purposes (the pupil's edification).
I think it was just my laity of thought that responded during sleep.
I thought that because Kant also wrote:
quote:
Here we have two mystical theories of feeling offered as keys to the problem of becoming the new man. What is at issue between them is not the object and end of all religion(which, both agree, is conduct pleasing to God), but the subjective conditions which are necessary for us to acquire the power to work out that theory in ourselves. The subjective condition in question cannot be virtue (which is an empty name to them), but only grace; for both sides agree that we cannot acquire this power naturally. But thier theories then diverge, since one side thinks we can escape from the dominion of the evil spirit only by a fearful struggle with it, whereas the other finds this quite unnecessary and even censures it as hypocritical; instead it straightaway concludes an alliacne with the good spirit, since the eariler pact with the evil spirit (as pactum turpe) can give rise to no objection to this.
p101-103
in Der Streit Der Fakultaten(The Conflict of the Faculties).
I would have had to ascribe grace to a dream state rationally while awake but this would cure rather than prevent any illness in me. It does not. I must repent only without begging. The science of this dream can ONLY be as a puzzle(reconstruction) being put together not the use of Scripture to relate dinos to creatures in the Bible for we can not claim to have had a supernatural experience but only to approach the unconditioned supersensibly BY REASON else it IS religious. So that determines the reflection on any philology possible interpretable by Freud or others the analysis of the plant eating meat seems more involved than that, to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by clpMINI, posted 07-08-2005 11:36 AM clpMINI has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by SantaClaus, posted 07-08-2005 6:42 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
SantaClaus
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 183 (222687)
07-08-2005 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Brad McFall
07-08-2005 3:57 PM


Re: Vegetarians?
The total lack of punctuation really derailed me with that last post. Are you saying that the dino was symbolic of God, or that it could be God, giving you a message through your dream?
Anyway, the question was, Does the bible say that animals could not eat each other before the fall.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Brad McFall, posted 07-08-2005 3:57 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Brad McFall, posted 07-08-2005 10:31 PM SantaClaus has not replied
 Message 18 by randman, posted 07-11-2005 4:10 AM SantaClaus has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024