Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
ok so God is now interfering with human biology to give them the ability to be omnivorous, why doesn't he just go ahead and create some more clean creatures while he's at it?
Where does it say that in Romans 5?
This is what my ESV says:
Romans 5:12-13
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned. For sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.
Correct, but I do not see how this refutes my position. We were not meant to originally eat animal meat - Adam and all the antediluvian people were vegetarian.
Either the Bible is telling us the truth or it is not.
It is lawful for us to be omnivorous but it's not as beneficial to us as vegetarianism, after all look at the story of Daniel and his friends in Daniel 1:8-161 Cor 6:12 said:"All things are lawful for me," but not all things are helpful. "All things are lawful for me," but I will not be enslaved by anything.
ok so God is now interfering with human biology to give them the ability to be omnivorous, why doesn't he just go ahead and create some more clean creatures while he's at it?
You've never learned the problem with making assumptions?
Egads! That was an awful mistyping. I agree that Romans 5 says that death spread to all men after Adam's sin. I probably meant to say because.
But notice, and this was my original point, that it says that death spread to all men, and not to all life.
Because of sin our original purpose has been lost. Adam was meant to live in the Garden, but after sin God told him to live outside the Garden. Your asking why God would tell us to do something we weren't originally meant to do. The answer is obviously because sin has changed the original intention of creation.So why would God tell us to do something we were not meant to do?
When did I invoke magic? What God does is not magic. What sin produces is not magic.And why does animal death magically become okay, not even right after the Fall, but right after the Flood?
Where in the Bible is "death" ever something other than bad?And just where in the Bible anyway does it say that animal death is bad?
Do you believe Adam would have lived forever if he had not sinned?
And yet creationists themselves claim that it is the original intention of creation that mandates the marriage covenant in Mark 10:4. Why didn't Jesus say "oh well, since it's after the Fall, your original purpose has been lost, I guess it's okay for you guys to divorce your wives and sleep around with whomever you choose"?Because of sin our original purpose has been lost. Adam was meant to live in the Garden, but after sin God told him to live outside the Garden. You're asking why God would tell us to do something we weren't originally meant to do. The answer is obviously because sin has changed the original intention of creation.
Because of sin all of creation, along with our biological bodies, have been corrupted. The reason God allows Noah and his descendants to eat meat is not obvious. But perhaps the more rigorous environment in the new world required the animal protein in meats for mans sustenance to a degree not normally available in other foods. While that is speculation, the fact God made this command is not.
When did I invoke magic? What God does is not magic. What sin produces is not magic.
Animal death is not "okay" in the sense of their original purpose. However, after sin entered creation, this "original purpose" was corrupted. Right after Adam and Eve sinned God killed an animal for its skin so that He could cloth the shamefully naked couple. That animals death was directly related to man's sin.
Where in the Bible is "death" ever something other than bad?
Adam was born a human but didn't have human parents.
You may personally not ascribe to the theological view, of Adam as a transitional form, the first human, but to imply that it is nonsensical is not good for Christian unity, and the Pope and millions of Catholics, among others, support it. Papias
Ok you have many situations:
The first one leads us to the conclusion that God interferes with human biology in Genesis 9 in order that they can now take advantage of the new blessing God has given us.
- Humans are originally vegetarian
- Humans are originally omnivorous
The second leads us to question why didn't God give us the animals to eat outside of the garden, or indeed if we are supposed to be vegetarian why are we able to digest meat?
I don't know when he was given a soul and became the first human, so we don't know. Or are you referring to some other criteria for what you call human? Either way, I'm sure you agree that we aren't exactly like our parents, and the first German didn't have German parents, right?
You may personally not ascribe to the theological view, of Adam as a transitional form, the first human, but to imply that it is nonsensical is not good for Christian unity, and the Pope and millions of Catholics, among others, support it.
Papias
Quite frankly, I am not wise enough to speculate. But here's what John Stott says in his commentary on Romans 5, and I tend to agree with his view:
What was the origin of death? Was it there from the beginning? Certainly vegetable death was. God created ‘seed-bearing plants … that bear fruit with seed in it.’ That is, the cycle of blossom, fruit, seed, death and new life was established in the created order. Animal death existed too, for many fossils of predators have been found with their prey in their stomach. But what about human beings? Paul wrote that death entered the world through sin (5:12). Does that mean that, if he had not sinned, he would not have died? Many ridicule this notion.
... [but] for his unique image-bearers God originally had something better in mind, something less degrading and squalid than death, decay and decomposition, something which acknowledged that human beings are not animals. Perhaps he would have ‘translated’ them like Enoch and Elijah, without the necessity of death. Perhaps he would have ‘changed’ them ‘in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye’, like those believers who will be alive when Jesus comes. Perhaps too we should think of the transfiguration of Jesus in this light. His face shone, his clothing became dazzling white, and his body translucent like the resurrection body he would later have. Because he had no sin, he did not need to die. He could have stepped straight into heaven without dying. But he deliberately came back in order of his own free and loving will to die for us.
Stott, J. R. W. (2001], c1994). The message of Romans : God's good news for the world. The Bible speaks today (165-6). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.
This is a false dilemma.And if you say that there is something moral in marriage or sexuality or resting, but not in killing animals, then you are proving exactly my point: since animal death has no moral weight, there is nothing morally wrong with a world in which animals die.
This does not prove death was good.Arise therefore, go to your house. When your feet enter the city, the child shall die. And all Israel shall mourn for him and bury him, for he only of Jeroboam shall come to the grave, because in him there is found something pleasing to the Lord, the God of Israel, in the house of Jeroboam. (1Kgs 14:12-13, ESV)
Yes which is why God had to interfere and change our biology in order for us to now eat meat, miraculous intervention I'm fine with, are you?Or you could merely deal with what the story presents, that our species went from originally vegetarian to omnivorous in 10 generations,which is far too quickly for evolution to take place.
This is theologically problematic though, people were created "perfect" right? They were also created vegetarian, I see no mention of Noah going, oh I'd like to eat meat, if you've spent your entire life eating only vegetables and knowing that the people around you eat vegetables, what is going to make you think, oh it'd be nice to eat that cow over there?The only possible conclusion to that is God knew the end from the beginning, and has everything in control. Why is that so difficult?
Yes which is why God had to interfere and change our biology in order for us to now eat meat, miraculous intervention I'm fine with, are you?
Is eating meat for our own benefit, or out of his justice?I certainly believe God miraculously has intervened in history, sometimes for our benefit and sometimes out of His divine justice. Trying to understand all the intricacies is utterly impossible - just ask Job. All we can know is that it happened - God's Word is true and accurate.
As soon as you decided that the antedilugian people were vegetarian, the mechanics of the omnivorous nature of the postdilugian people became pertinent.Whether the command to eat meat was also followed with a miracle in which our biological bodies changed to better accommodate digestion of meat may be an interesting thought, but it is not a pertinent one.
Is eating meat for our own benefit, or out of his justice?
If for our benefit then, how is it beneficial, I've shown in a previous post that God blessed Daniel and his friends even though they ate only vegetables.
As soon as you decided that the antedilugian people were vegetarian, the mechanics of the omnivorous nature of the postdilugian people became pertinent.
I would like to read discussions of how other Christians have thought about this debate. Serious and theological discussions only, please.
Notice how he already subscribes to evolutionary theory. "Animal death existed too, for many fossils of predators have been found with their prey in their stomach." He obviously believe these animals lived well before Adam and is interpreting Scripture based on this assumption.
Also, Stott fails to notice the different Hebrew words that describe plants and animal life. Plants are not "alive" in a biblical sense of nephesh chayyah (the living creature) as the animals and man are. My car can die on me, but it was never alive like me.
From the Bible we learn that there was no death of any nephesh chayyah before sin—both humans and animals ate plants, which do not die in the biblical sense. Therefore any animal or human fossils must have come after sin. And the Bible spends three whole chapters explaining a watery cataclysm that would explain this—the globe-covering Flood of Noah’s day.
This is a false dilemma.
This does not prove death was good.
The Pope does not endorse evolution and you know it, your just counting on others not knowing the truth:
Some however, .......question. (Humani Generis 36)
The Pope and Church tradition has always affirmed that Adam was the first man, the biological parent of us all:
Rome allows for conjecture and speculation along these lines, it is permissible for Catholics to hold these views.
Rome neither condemns nor does it endorse evolution and you know it.
This blatantly false statements are typical of evolutionist rhetoric that is designed to one thing only.
Undermine this pointed statement:
"To omit the creation would be to misunderstand the very history of God with men, to diminish it, to lose sight of its true order of greatness..."The sweep of history established by God reaches back to the origins, back to creation...If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or might even be a chance of nature," he said. "But no, Reason is there at the beginning: creative, divine Reason." (VATICAN CITY, APRIL 23, 2011, Zenit.org)Pope Benedict XVI is directly connecting the creation with the resurrection, there is a very good reason for that.
Faith in God and in the events of salvation history must necessarily begin with a belief in God's role as Creator, says Benedict XVIMust, not may! Rome makes it clear that God's role as Creator is directly linked to God's role in salvation.
What you attack with reckless abandon is foundational to Christian theism and Pope Benedict is explicit on this point.
It's either special creation or it's the a priori assumption of evolution by exclusively naturalistic causes. I didn't start this debate but one thing is sure, you don't get to pretend the matter was settled by Rome in favor of Darwinian evolution when the RCC clearly condemns it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?