Sorry for the delay. I was up in a tree deer hunting (bow and arrow) and there aren't electrical sockets in most oak trees. If trees were directly designed, I've had included internet connections on them.
I've Been wrote:
I think that's a problematic way to approach thinking about things. You are saying that anything that God does is good because God did it. The problem is that by doing that, you eviscerate any meaning from the concept "good", because it then has no inherent meaning. Another way to think about this is it imagine, hypothetically, that you were transported to a parallel universe where Satan was in charge. Would then all of Satan's actions be considered "good"? What meaning would "good" have then? Basically, calling all of any entity's actions inherently good by definition makes good a meaningless term, and as a result means that you end up being unable to any longer maintain that God is good in any real sense.
That's why I maintain that saying God would intentionally design a non-functional or obviously stupid design is insulting God.
As has been pointed out, this is part of an extended metaphor. It means things will be peaceful, not that carnivores will literally eat things that they can't digest.
The problem is that you cited the fact that man teaches something as a reason to reject that thing. If you are going to reject some things for a given reason, yet when that same reason applies, not reject other things, than you aren't really using that reason. So be honest, the fact that man teaches it is not the reason you are rejecting it, but you are rejecting it for other (actually better) reasons.
What you are actually doing in rejecting some of what man teaches and accepting other things man teaches is using your own reason and evidence to sort them out, which is in general a good approach. I'm just suggesting that you be honest about it - that helps everyone, including yourself.
Many of the things you list I too disagree with. Again, just as with you, not because man teaches them, but because they are obviously harmful, which you figured out. There is nowhere in most Bibles that says not to watch television or not to let your kids have electronic toys, for instance.
Sounds like we agree here. So maybe it's better not to say things like "these things can't be trusted because man teaches them.".
An was it a human that told you to interpret Genesis 2 literally?
So if something is clearly true based on a lot of evidence, then it must be of God? For instance, there is a lot of evidence for heliocentrism, which contradicts a literal reading of most Bibles, so the truth (heliocentrism) is of God, right?
Papias
P.S. Yes, I saw from your other post that you recognize that there is plenty of metaphor in the Bibles, including in your .sig.
I've Been wrote:
I think that's a problematic way to approach thinking about things. You are saying that anything that God does is good because God did it. The problem is that by doing that, you eviscerate any meaning from the concept "good", because it then has no inherent meaning. Another way to think about this is it imagine, hypothetically, that you were transported to a parallel universe where Satan was in charge. Would then all of Satan's actions be considered "good"? What meaning would "good" have then? Basically, calling all of any entity's actions inherently good by definition makes good a meaningless term, and as a result means that you end up being unable to any longer maintain that God is good in any real sense.
That's why I maintain that saying God would intentionally design a non-functional or obviously stupid design is insulting God.
As has been pointed out, this is part of an extended metaphor. It means things will be peaceful, not that carnivores will literally eat things that they can't digest.
The problem is that you cited the fact that man teaches something as a reason to reject that thing. If you are going to reject some things for a given reason, yet when that same reason applies, not reject other things, than you aren't really using that reason. So be honest, the fact that man teaches it is not the reason you are rejecting it, but you are rejecting it for other (actually better) reasons.
What you are actually doing in rejecting some of what man teaches and accepting other things man teaches is using your own reason and evidence to sort them out, which is in general a good approach. I'm just suggesting that you be honest about it - that helps everyone, including yourself.
Many of the things you list I too disagree with. Again, just as with you, not because man teaches them, but because they are obviously harmful, which you figured out. There is nowhere in most Bibles that says not to watch television or not to let your kids have electronic toys, for instance.
Sounds like we agree here. So maybe it's better not to say things like "these things can't be trusted because man teaches them.".
An was it a human that told you to interpret Genesis 2 literally?
So if something is clearly true based on a lot of evidence, then it must be of God? For instance, there is a lot of evidence for heliocentrism, which contradicts a literal reading of most Bibles, so the truth (heliocentrism) is of God, right?
Papias
P.S. Yes, I saw from your other post that you recognize that there is plenty of metaphor in the Bibles, including in your .sig.
Upvote
0