Survival of the Fittest

[RickD]

Bav, I think you hyper-focused upon the last thing that my intended humorous response was meant to convey - and that was, God ordained the eating of meat, the use of it in sacrifices, and as a necessary element in carnivores' diets and the food chain. And herbivores eat plants (living biological entities). And that the supposed association by some that the killing of animals is a result or design of evil is absurd. BTW, I think God has a good sense of humor - what would be wrong is to mock God's specific instructions about meat by saying it is by design of the devil or a result of sin. Hyperbole and APPROPRIATE sarcasm of exaggeration is sometimes used in Scripture to illustrate a bigger point - which is what I was doing.

Cool...I’m just not in the * state of mind when discussing what to me is serious...and granted maybe it’s only me that takes this serious.

You’re not the one’s being deemed whatever for certain beliefs, are you? You’re in the “club” and I’m not, so to speak.
.
.

Bav,

Philip is a heretic, but he has learned to live with that. He's really not too bright either*.

This reminds me of something I said about you Rick, and shared with you. That is, sarcasm being a tool to cover up not being too bright. If I recall, you temporarily missed my sarcasm and seemed a little hurt even.

I probably missed your sarcasm, because I'm not too bright.

The gig is up. I must confess. I've developed sarcasm as a coping mechanism, to cover up my idiot IQ level. I'm physically incapable of any kind of rational conversation, so I mask my stupidity with sarcasm. I say that I use sarcasm for a humorous effect, to get people to think about something differently, and just to get people to take life a little less seriously because people seem stressed out sometimes, and need a little levity to lighten things up. But I really only use sarcasm because I don't have the ability to think like a normal human being.

Oh woe is me!

[Kurieuo]

I'm obviously just not very good at using sarcasm. If the only person who understands it is me, then something went wrong. Sorry Rick, didn't mean to offend.*

*I might be using sarcasm. Not even I'm sure now...

[Nicki]

I'm obviously just not very good at using sarcasm. If the only person who understands it is me, then something went wrong. Sorry Rick, didn't mean to offend.*

*I might be using sarcasm. Not even I'm sure now...

Actually K,

You know you are getting good at the art of sarcasm, when you yourself aren't even sure that what you said was sarcasm.

[Blessed]

I'll repeat: I'm hoping this is sarcasm because to promote that God ACTUALLY and LITERALLY delights in flesh burning is quite a statement and one I do not agree with at all.
.
.

I think God delighted in what the sacrifices represented. Like tithing. These were ancient times. Ancient economics. Different norms. Different rules.


Anyways. What's up with your photo dude?

[BavarianWheels]

I think God delighted in what the sacrifices represented. Like tithing. These were ancient times. Ancient economics. Different norms. Different rules.

Do you really? You think God is happy that sin entered and blood had to be shed? I'll admit I think God is happy that sinners are reconciled, but I'm quite certain God isn't happy in the manner it had to happen.

Ancient times economics, norms and rules...all of that is irrelevant!

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

Anyways. What's up with your photo dude?

I don't know...what's up with it? It's a photo. It has no specific meaning.
.
.

[Philip]

I think God delighted in what the sacrifices represented. Like tithing. These were ancient times. Ancient economics. Different norms. Different rules.

Do you really? You think God is happy that sin entered and blood had to be shed? I'll admit I think God is happy that sinners are reconciled, but I'm quite certain God isn't happy in the manner it had to happen.

.

[/quote]

God could have done anything he desired. To equate animal bloodshed with God not being happy about it - to say sin caused the necessity for animal sacrifice - silly. Not to mention, animal sacrifices never saved ANYONE! God implemented the predator prey system, well before Adam and Eve sinned. He designed the sacrificial system using animals' shed blood - and it pleased him. BTW, God COULD have designed things anyway He so desired. God clearly ordained the killing of animals for food - is that also sinful? Ah, but killing a human being unnecessarily, God calls murder - a terrible crime. So, there is clearly a difference in what is killed, as to whether God considers it sinful or not.

[BavarianWheels]

God could have done anything he desired. To equate animal bloodshed with God not being happy about it - to say sin caused the necessity for animal sacrifice - silly. Not to mention, animal sacrifices never saved ANYONE! God implemented the predator prey system, well before Adam and Eve sinned. He designed the sacrificial system using animals' shed blood - and it pleased him. BTW, God COULD have designed things anyway He so desired. God clearly ordained the killing of animals for food - is that also sinful? Ah, but killing a human being unnecessarily, God calls murder - a terrible crime. So, there is clearly a difference in what is killed, as to whether God considers it sinful or not.

You're saying much about my take on what you're saying.

I'm simply saying that God does not delight from bloodshed, though I'm sure He delights that there exists a manner in which He is lawfully able to reconcile with His created beings otherwise lost.

I'm sure He doesn't delight in the animal bloodshed that never saved anyone. ( Don't know why you'd think I believe anything different. )

I'm sure He didn't delight in His Son dying and shedding His blood in the manner that He did, but delighted that His Son gave His life for Humanity.

Also, I don't think you have any scriptural data to prove that God designed the killing of animals for food as I don't recall the mention of eating meat in the Garden. I'm pretty certain that God's "ordainment" of eating animals came after sin entered humanity...and I'd say reluctantly did so...but that's certainly an assertion on my part.
.
.

[RickD]

BavarianWheels wrote:
Also, I don't think you have any scriptural data to prove that God designed the killing of animals for food as I don't recall the mention of eating meat in the Garden. I'm pretty certain that God's "ordainment" of eating animals came after sin entered humanity...and I'd say reluctantly did so...but that's certainly an assertion on my part.

How does this possibly fit into your Old Earth/Progressive Creation beliefs?

As an OEC, don't you believe that animals died, and killed other animals before Adam sinned?

[Philip]

Bav: I'm simply saying that God does not delight from bloodshed, though I'm sure He delights that there exists a manner in which He is lawfully able to reconcile with His created beings otherwise lost.

God "does not delight" - really, what does that mean? He certainly doesn't see it as a bad or sinful thing, this killing of animals - whether by predators for food or by man - because HE commanded the freedom to do so as one wishes!

In Acts 10, the context is Peter is hungry and he sees a vision of "all kinds of animals" along with a Voice that said, Rise, Peter; KILL and eat." But he protests that he would never eat unclean foods. Of course this had a more important message as to who God wanted to save besides Jews, but it certainly showed that the many restrictions of The Law was done away with. God was also saying it is okay to eat and "KILL" animals once forbidden. If in any way this shedding of animal blood was or is considered by God as being wrong or evil, this passage would be inconceivable. So, to associate the killing of animal with sin or the ramifications of it, is completely wrong.

[BavarianWheels]

Bav: I'm simply saying that God does not delight from bloodshed, though I'm sure He delights that there exists a manner in which He is lawfully able to reconcile with His created beings otherwise lost.

God "does not delight" - really, what does that mean? He certainly doesn't see it as a bad or sinful thing, this killing of animals - whether by predators for food or by man - because HE commanded the freedom to do so as one wishes!

In Acts 10, the context is Peter is hungry and he sees a vision of "all kinds of animals" along with a Voice that said, Rise, Peter; KILL and eat." But he protests that he would never eat unclean foods. Of course this had a more important message as to who God wanted to save besides Jews, but it certainly showed that the many restrictions of The Law was done away with. God was also saying it is okay to eat and "KILL" animals once forbidden. If in any way this shedding of animal blood was or is considered by God as being wrong or evil, this passage would be inconceivable. So, to associate the killing of animal with sin or the ramifications of it, is completely wrong.

I don't know that I ever called it sinful...I only said that I'm sure God doesn't delight in bloodshed/death. It may be the way things are, but we aren't sure how things were prior to sin, so I'm willing to allege that animals eating animals isn't necessarily his plan.
.
.

[Philip]

Bav: but we aren't sure how things were prior to sin, so I'm willing to allege that animals eating animals isn't necessarily his plan.

When people use the words "God's plan" - what do they mean? Because God doesn't plan like a MAN does - as God's plan is merely a gradual unfolding of ALL history He has always perfectly known would A) occur; B) How He would make these things possible; C) Of every real-time (this reality) response and action He would ever make and when. And so God ALWAYS knew of how we would arrive at the days that He would design carnivores to eat herbivores, and men sacrifice and also eat animals. And so these things would not be possible if God had not created things AS He did and WHEN / in what sequences. Anything that He did not want, He would not have made them possible. But as for the actions of OTHERS, He gave us free will - which allowed the potential for sin - which He will only tolerate for a season (and for His eternal purposes). But excepting the actions of men, it is He who designed how all biological life functions and interacts.

[BavarianWheels]

Bav: but we aren't sure how things were prior to sin, so I'm willing to allege that animals eating animals isn't necessarily his plan.

When people use the words "God's plan" - what do they mean? Because God doesn't plan like a MAN does - as God's plan is merely a gradual unfolding of ALL history He has always perfectly known would A) occur; B) How He would make these things possible; C) Of every real-time (this reality) response and action He would ever make and when. And so God ALWAYS knew of how we would arrive at the days that He would design carnivores to eat herbivores, and men sacrifice and also eat animals. And so these things would not be possible if God had not created things AS He did and WHEN / in what sequences. Anything that He did not want, He would not have made them possible. But as for the actions of OTHERS, He gave us free will - which allowed the potential for sin - which He will only tolerate for a season (and for His eternal purposes). But excepting the actions of men, it is He who designed how all biological life functions and interacts.

Knowing how things will occur is not that it is a specific direction of God's, but that God does direct THROUGH the known occurrences.

He designed how all biological life functions WOULD interact apart from sin. But now, His perfect design dies because of sin.
.
.