If there was no death (of animals) before the Fall, then why would animals need to eat?

[AV1611VET]

Nevertheless, the moral/ethical dualism applies,

As long as we know which side the good is on, on principle.

Genesis 18:25 That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?

... and the arbitrariness of 'good' means conscience is not a reliable guide.

We don't believe in letting one's conscience be their guide.

And in fact, the Dispensation of Conscience, which was a time when they did let their consciences be their guide, ended in failure, resulting in the Flood.

 

[coffee4u]

I have heard that what God does is perfectly 'good' by definition (because He says so!), so whatever He does, even if horrific to us, is 'very good'. It makes the meaning of 'good' entirely arbitrary as far as humans are concerned; 'What God does is good' just becomes, 'What God does is what God does'.

Since what God does also (according to the bible) involves acts forbidden to humans unless explicitly instructed by God (e.g. 'Thou shalt not kill'), there is not just a dualist metaphysics in such religious belief, but dualist morals & ethics, i.e. "Do what I say, not what I do (even though what I do is, by definition, perfectly good)".

You are deviating onto another topic.

Genesis is the only time God used the words 'very good' for something outside of himself because this is the only time something measured up to his standards. He used those words so we can know that there was something special about creation that nothing else has ever come close to.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

As long as we know which side the good is on, on principle.

You missed the point, which is that the notion of good itself is lost, replaced by the arbitrary diktat of a supernatural entity, and bearing no relation to our humanunderstanding of what is good. This is the second horn of the Euthyphro dilemma ("Does God command what is good, or is it good because God commands it?")

We don't believe in letting one's conscience be their guide.

And in fact, the Dispensation of Conscience, which was a time when they did let their consciences be their guide, ended in failure, resulting in the Flood.

So let dogma and diktat reign, eh? Supernatural might is right?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You are deviating onto another topic.

I think the meaning of 'good' in respect of God's supposed activity is relevant to what 'very good' means in respect of God's supposed creation.

Genesis is the only time God used the words 'very good' for something outside of himself because this is the only time something measured up to his standards. He used those words so we can know that there was something special about creation that nothing else has ever come close to.

That's one possible interpretation of many. The fact that what God does is perfectly good by definition makes it redundant. It would only add something if God's supposed works are often less than 'very good'.

I would suggest it's just a rhetorical flourish by the writer(s) to use an idea familiar to their audience - that of a workman pleased with his work. It's easy to read too much into these stories - that seems to be at the root of many disputes and schisms.

 

[AV1611VET]

You missed the point, which is that the notion of good itself is lost, replaced by the arbitrary diktat of a supernatural entity,

So if we say that God killing the firstborn of Egypt who didn't have the blood of a lamb on their doorposts is good, are we obligated to say that the notion of what William Calley Jr. did can't be ascertained as good or bad?

("Does God command what is good, or is it good because God commands it?")

In the example I just gave, God didn't "command" Himself to kill the firstborn of Egypt. In fact, He commanded everyone to ... so to speak ... "abandon ship" beforehand, by telling them to put the blood of a lamb on their doorposts.

 

[AV1611VET]

It would only add something if God's supposed works are often less than 'very good'.

I would suggest it's just a rhetorical flourish by the writer(s) to use an idea familiar to their audience - that of a workman pleased with his work.

Then what's this?

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

It's easy to read too much into these stories - that seems to be at the root of many disputes and schisms.

And who's driving the wedge?

 

[Mr Laurier]

As long as we know which side the good is on, on principle.

Genesis 18:25 That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?We don't believe in letting one's conscience be their guide.

And in fact, the Dispensation of Conscience, which was a time when they did let their consciences be their guide, ended in failure, resulting in the Flood.

I'm with Jiminy Cricket on this one.
Always let your conscience be your guide.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm with Jiminy Cricket on this one.
Always let your conscience be your guide.

You do know his name is a minced oath for "Jesus Christ," do you not?

 

[Mr Laurier]

You do know his name is a minced oath for "Jesus Christ," do you not?

Not only that, but I know its a negro term used to talk past white masters.
And a wonderful Disney character

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So if we say that God killing the firstborn of Egypt who didn't have the blood of a lamb on their doorposts is good, are we obligated to say that the notion of what William Calley Jr. did can't be ascertained as good or bad?

God only knows... It's another dilemma - if it's bad, moral dualism applies (what is good for God is not good for man); if not, there's a contradiction ('Thou shalt not kill').

In the example I just gave, God didn't "command" Himself to kill the firstborn of Egypt. In fact, He commanded everyone to ... so to speak ... "abandon ship" beforehand, by telling them to put the blood of a lamb on their doorposts.

The Euthyphro dilemma highlights the general problem of God supposedly being good by definition.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Then what's this?

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Another contradiction - is it good to create evil?

And who's driving the wedge?

It's your religion, you tell me.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Euthyphro dilemma highlights the general problem of God supposedly being good by definition.

To do that, it must assume that God can be bad in the first place.

Then, after first concluding that God should be able to be bad, they look up examples in the Bible that appear bad.

Didn't someone just post a cartoon about that?

 

[AV1611VET]

Another contradiction - is it good to create evil?

It depends on what the evil is.

I believe the technical term for it would be "necessary evils."

God performs acts of "necessary evils," in order to get the job done.

You know? sometimes you have to cut off a finger to save a hand.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It depends on what the evil is.

I believe the technical term for it would be "necessary evils."

God performs acts of "necessary evils," in order to get the job done.

You know? sometimes you have to cut off a finger to save a hand.

Ah, yet another feeble defence of the problem of evil.

So let me guess, when it applies to children getting bone cancer, the answer is GWIMW (God Works In Mysterious Ways) - amiright?

 

[AV1611VET]

So let me guess, when it applies to children getting bone cancer, the answer is GWIMW (God Works In Mysterious Ways) - amiright?

Yes, you are right.

God works in mysterious ways.

But He works in mysterious ways, whether that child gets bone cancer or not.

 

[renniks]

According to some creationists on this forum, it applies to animals too. There are creationists insisting there were no carnivores because there was no animals death.

Well as far as we know Eden would have been basically heaven. So, no death, but your question supposes that the world somehow functioned by at least as some of the same scientific laws. Why would you suppose that? The science laws we have now are the result at least in part of an imperfect world.

 

[Bradskii]

It depends on what the evil is.

I believe the technical term for it would be "necessary evils."

God performs acts of "necessary evils," in order to get the job done.

You know? sometimes you have to cut off a finger to save a hand.

Unless you're omnipotent.

 

[Astroqualia]

There are many logical fallacies in literal creationism.

For example, consider common accidents. If some man or animal would have body and head separated, it would have to stay alive, somehow. Even without hearts, brains, without breath. Bodies and all organs as such would be redundant completely.

There are no logical fallacies in creationism, simply not knowing how things actually were. We don't have the full idea fleshed out correctly. Satan hides the truth about these things in the world.

In a pre fallen world, it's likely that man had a godly grace about them that prevented them from ever being in a position to have their head severed from their body in the first place. If animals were part of what was cursed in the fall when God cursed the earth, then perhaps the same was true about animals.

 

[driewerf]

First God declared the creation very good. Not good by human standards but tôb meōd
Exceedingly good by Gods standards.

I wonder: how long before the end of the creation process and the Fall? Do you have any idea?

 

[Estrid]

Curious how all the animals are designed as
predators or prey.
The eagle is really not made to be
pulling carrots or grazing in the meadow,
no whale could possibly live on seaweed.

A gazelle doesn't need great speed to
get to the next bush.