Anyone Interested in a Serious Religious Debate?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
597

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
All animals before the Fall were omnivores ACCORDING to the Bible.
[/quote]

And that’s why the Bible is full of baloney.[/quote]

If you are looking at it as a history book, it can seem that way. It’s not full of baloney though.

As an atheist or agnostic, if you have a genuine interest in the bible and why it’s a big deal, without an agenda, I would encourage looking at it as a piece of literature. As a literary piece it is indeed a fascinating book.

598

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

LIVESTOCK.[/quote]

OMG.

Yes, God created all the animals that are considered livestock.

Semantics surely do play a huge role in your self-conceived little game of “Let’s Change the Bible.” Like I said yesterday, I think you have Jehovah’s Witness blood running in your intellectual veins.[/quote]

Oh, so now when it’s inconvienant, we’re not supposed to take it literally, yet again. Gotcha. I’ve had it about up to here with being lectured about the need to read the bible, Genesis, the Creation account, as literal, word-for-word, chronological, at face value, science and history. Only to watch the lecturer resort to a clear about face when confronted with a world we clearly don’t live in. Period. The world of the Creation account does not exist! Accept it.

Or, when livestock didn’t actually mean livestock. I’m playing semantics? No, the language that is actually used clearly didn’t give them dominion over livestock, as the literal reading of the word would tell us. But instead, gave them dominion over what eventually, at some point, down the road a bit, would be livestock.

[/quote]
The Hebrew word for livestock (behema) refers to large four-footed mammals that are easy to domesticate.

They obviously weren’t used for food at that time as per the verses YOU supplied, Gen, 1:28-29.

Yes, read it literally, friend. It says what it means but it must be read in context.

[/quote]

14The LORD God said to the serpent,

"Because you have done this,
cursed are you above all livestock
and above all beasts of the field;

That doesn’t explain the distinction made from other beasts. In fact, “beasts” would have covered everything. It doesn’t work.

[/quote]
I’m not following you here. Elaborate.[/quote]

If they’re just another beast, why is God distinguishing them from beasts of the field? What exactly is this livestock for? Adam and Eve are nekkie, according to you they’re vegetarians who merely reach out a hand blindly, plucking forth food from Paradise. They’ve no want for anything. Why do they keep livestock, or domesticated animal (not sure what that changed…)?

For all this, I’ve yet to drop the obvious problem in this discussion in the first place. So, here we go. Why must pre-fall Adam and Eve eat in the first place? They’re not capable of starving to death. Not being capable of starving to death, why would they have bodily sensation to take in nutrients?

599

[quote]pushharder wrote:
It doesn’t necessarily say they, the large four-footed mammals that are easy to domesticate, WERE domesticated for a particular use before the Fall certainly not for meat consumption as per vs. 28 - 29. [/quote]

The word clearly seperates them out from other beasts as livestock or “easy to domesticate” animals. WHY?

602

[quote]pat wrote:
As an atheist or agnostic, if you have a genuine interest in the bible and why it’s a big deal, without an agenda, I would encourage looking at it as a piece of literature. As a literary piece it is indeed a fascinating book.[/quote]

Good point pat and I definitely agree. I personally see it as a piece of literature that has inspired countless people on this planet (whether for good or evil).

I just cannot understand people who take it entirely at face value without the application of logic and science. Saying that an animal who’s built as a predator would forsake these abilities to become an omnivore is illogical. What would be the purpose in creating a creature with teeth designed to slice when it is commanded to eat vegetation (which is meant to be chewed)? It seems equally illogical to me to be arguing over semantics of definitions of gods instructions when the book wasn’t truly written by a god. It was written by mankind and should be approached as any other work: with scrutiny and skepticism.

605

[quote]pushharder wrote:
For all this, I’ve yet to drop the obvious problem in this discussion in the first place. So, here we go. Why must pre-fall Adam and Eve eat in the first place? They’re not capable of starving to death. Not being capable of starving to death, why would they have bodily sensation to take in nutrients?

I don’t know.

But I don’t see that as an “obvious problem.” Why do you?
[/quote]

The act of eating is to sustain us with nutrients from what we’ve ingested. If death was non-existent why must anything need nutrition before death entered the world? There is no death, yet they must take sustenance. They must take sustenance, yet there is no death?

608

Why, oh why, did I elect to do this? I’ve said what I had to say. More than I had planned to say, in fact. Futher discussion would be a circular exercise. I’ll leave it in the hands of whoever to decide for themselves.

611

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Why, oh why, did I elect to do this? I’ve said what I had to say. More than I had planned to say, in fact. Futher discussion would be a circular exercise. I’ll leave it in the hands of whoever to decide for themselves.[/quote]

I told you you had some quicksand to deal with.

Look at my post above where I responded to BiA’s post about the credibility of the Bible.[/quote]

Saw it. Which reminds me one oddity I’ve always notice about the Sola Scriptura/Literalists types. Their need for outside web sites, books, and authoratative teaching as to what the hard to reconcile with natural science verse, or that ambiguous passage means, besides what it literally says. Sola Scriptura? Literalism? But I didn’t just say that, as I’m already off to combat hyper-individualsim and collectivism all at once!

612

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Sloth, my friend, this doesn’t mean we can’t lock shields and battle the forces of darkness on other PWI threads.[/quote]

Of course not. I acknowledge your belief in Christ and call you brother!

613

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

…Saying that an animal who’s built as a predator would forsake these abilities to become an omnivore is illogical. [/quote]

You have it backwards.

[Edit] Omnivore first. Predator after the Fall.[quote]

What would be the purpose in creating a creature with teeth designed to slice when it is commanded to eat vegetation (which is meant to be chewed)?[/quote]

That is actually a very good question. There are some plausible answers but I’m not going to do all the typing. Go to a creationist website to get the full story.[quote]

It seems equally illogical to me to be arguing over semantics of definitions of gods instructions when the book wasn’t truly written by a god. It was written by mankind and should be approached as any other work: with scrutiny and skepticism. [/quote]

I agree with you here if the word “if” is installed in a couple of places in your statement. You would then be making a very legitimate point.

[Edit] For instance if it was phrased this way: [quote]It seems equally illogical to me to be arguing over semantics of definitions of gods instructions if the book wasn’t truly written by a god. If it was written by mankind it should be approached as any other work: with scrutiny and skepticism[/quote] then you are dead-on. Bullseye.[/quote]

But the book was written by man, wasn’t it? For example, I could be inspired by famous architects, but when I write a book about architecture, it’s me writing it, not them. I could cite them as sources, but ultimately I’m the one creating the book.