The Dangers of Creationism

[FA_Q2]

I would actually like to know where this idiot gets the assertion that God created everything to eat plant by the way. That does not sound like it has any basis in anything including the Christian faith. The bible certainly does not support the position that God does not want man to eat meat so then it is obvious that he did not create all things to eat plants.

I have a feeling this idiot is just trying to justify what he lives by.

Keeping it in a biblical tense what do you think the meat eaters ate on Noah's ark?
oh and one more thing.
“The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. 7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. 8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den. 9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.”
Isaiah 11:6-9 (King James Version)

That is rather interesting considering all the versus that deal with allowing man to eat meat. There is no context to that verse though and not being a theologian, I likely would not take that context properly anyway. Do you take this to mean that all animals were meant to eat plants?

 

[Smilebong]

Creation Bytes!: Did the T-Rex eat meat? - YouTube

Creationist: Tyrannosaurus rex was created to eat plants

And this is dangerous why?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I would actually like to know where this idiot gets the assertion that God created everything to eat plant by the way. That does not sound like it has any basis in anything including the Christian faith. The bible certainly does not support the position that God does not want man to eat meat so then it is obvious that he did not create all things to eat plants.

I have a feeling this idiot is just trying to justify what he lives by.

Keeping it in a biblical tense what do you think the meat eaters ate on Noah's ark?
oh and one more thing.
“The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. 7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. 8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den. 9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.”
Isaiah 11:6-9 (King James Version)

That is rather interesting considering all the versus that deal with allowing man to eat meat. There is no context to that verse though and not being a theologian, I likely would not take that context properly anyway. Do you take this to mean that all animals were meant to eat plants?

From John Wesley’s Explanatory Notes
Verse 6

[6] The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.

The wolf — The creatures shall be restored to that state of innocency in which they were before the fall of man. Men of fierce, and cruel dispositions, shall be so transformed by the grace of Christ, that they shall become gentle, and tractable.

A child — They will submit their rebellious wills to the conduct of the meanest persons that speak to them in Christ's name.

Verse 7

[7] And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

Feed — Together, without any danger or fear.

Straw — The grass of the earth, as they did at first, and shall not devour other living creatures.

Isaiah 11 - Wesley?s Explanatory Notes - Bible Commentary

To answer your question yes I think it was never intended for animals to eat meat.

Now how about Noah's ark, what did the meat eater eat while they were inside.

 

[Foxfyre]

I teach my Bible students that the Bible is just as true and every bit as meaningful when we understand that many passages are symbolic, metaphorical, or allegorical. So, artistic license could allow no need of food and potable water on board the Ark any more than many actors in the movies or on televsion used to have need of bathrooms. For aesthetic convenience, many bodily functions just seem to cease to exist in certain scenarios.

So was there an actual Noah's Ark or is it an allegorical explanation of a larger principle? Who knows for sure? Here is one scholarly explanation for how Noah's Ark could have been an actual event in history:
Could Noah's Ark really hold all the animals that were supposed to be preserved from Flood? ? ChristianAnswers.Net

Still others point to an omnipotent God who created the universe as certainly being able to bring the animals to Noah and render them into a hibernation state or whatever for the duration of the flood.

For myself, I lean to the allegory theory but have absolutely no problem with anybody who believes it was an actual event.

To return to the OP, what we believe is a danger to nobody. Forcing others to act on what we believe can be a dangerous thing to our liberty and sometimes our well being.

 

[FA_Q2]

Keeping it in a biblical tense what do you think the meat eaters ate on Noah's ark?
oh and one more thing.
“The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. 7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. 8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den. 9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.”
Isaiah 11:6-9 (King James Version)

That is rather interesting considering all the versus that deal with allowing man to eat meat. There is no context to that verse though and not being a theologian, I likely would not take that context properly anyway. Do you take this to mean that all animals were meant to eat plants?

From John Wesley’s Explanatory Notes
Verse 6

[6] The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.

The wolf — The creatures shall be restored to that state of innocency in which they were before the fall of man. Men of fierce, and cruel dispositions, shall be so transformed by the grace of Christ, that they shall become gentle, and tractable.

A child — They will submit their rebellious wills to the conduct of the meanest persons that speak to them in Christ's name.

Verse 7

[7] And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

Feed — Together, without any danger or fear.

Straw — The grass of the earth, as they did at first, and shall not devour other living creatures.

Isaiah 11 - Wesley?s Explanatory Notes - Bible Commentary

To answer your question yes I think it was never intended for animals to eat meat.

Now how about Noah's ark, what did the meat eater eat while they were inside.

Well then. I will stand corrected that there is good biblical sourcing for that belief. Oh boy, I do like shoe leather after all

As far as Noah’s Ark, again not a theologian or well versed in that specific story so I can’t say that I have scriptural backing but I do not see why Noah would not be able to keep stores of meat on the Ark itself. Obviously, they would not be eating each other BUT that does not mean that they did not have access to meat itself. Noah would have had to prepare the food stores anyway beforehand, be it meat or grain and stored properly meat can last quite a while. That is particularly true when talking about animals who have a MUCH hardier immune system than humans. That is a requirement for survival when everything that you eat is completely raw and untreated for illness. Most animals can eat a piece of meat that would kill a man without any problem.

Or they just did not eat. Quite frankly, we are talking about what God commanded after all and I don’t pretend to put god in a box. The bible says the he fed thousands with a single loaf of bread – I would not put much past a deity

That would also help with some of the refuse problems. I am sure that there would be some rather nasty side effects of having that many creatures in a single boat.

 

[FA_Q2]

Damn, banned right in the middle of that conversation, LOL.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Damn, banned right in the middle of that conversation, LOL.

Who?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

That is rather interesting considering all the versus that deal with allowing man to eat meat. There is no context to that verse though and not being a theologian, I likely would not take that context properly anyway. Do you take this to mean that all animals were meant to eat plants?

From John Wesley’s Explanatory Notes
Verse 6

[6] The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.

The wolf — The creatures shall be restored to that state of innocency in which they were before the fall of man. Men of fierce, and cruel dispositions, shall be so transformed by the grace of Christ, that they shall become gentle, and tractable.

A child — They will submit their rebellious wills to the conduct of the meanest persons that speak to them in Christ's name.

Verse 7

[7] And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

Feed — Together, without any danger or fear.

Straw — The grass of the earth, as they did at first, and shall not devour other living creatures.

Isaiah 11 - Wesley?s Explanatory Notes - Bible Commentary

To answer your question yes I think it was never intended for animals to eat meat.

Now how about Noah's ark, what did the meat eater eat while they were inside.

Well then. I will stand corrected that there is good biblical sourcing for that belief. Oh boy, I do like shoe leather after all

As far as Noah’s Ark, again not a theologian or well versed in that specific story so I can’t say that I have scriptural backing but I do not see why Noah would not be able to keep stores of meat on the Ark itself. Obviously, they would not be eating each other BUT that does not mean that they did not have access to meat itself. Noah would have had to prepare the food stores anyway beforehand, be it meat or grain and stored properly meat can last quite a while. That is particularly true when talking about animals who have a MUCH hardier immune system than humans. That is a requirement for survival when everything that you eat is completely raw and untreated for illness. Most animals can eat a piece of meat that would kill a man without any problem.

Or they just did not eat. Quite frankly, we are talking about what God commanded after all and I don’t pretend to put god in a box. The bible says the he fed thousands with a single loaf of bread – I would not put much past a deity

That would also help with some of the refuse problems. I am sure that there would be some rather nasty side effects of having that many creatures in a single boat.

I tend to go with the flood thing.

 

[Foxfyre]

There was almost certainly a great flood at some point at least in a good deal of the known world at that time because almost every single ancient culture has a comparable flood story in their mythology. Even allegory must have some element of reality in order to be allegory just as comedy must contain an element of personally identifiable truth or it isn't funny.

But to forbid the writers of the Bible some artistic license when nobody else is denied such license, is just silly.

But regardless of what I believe about the Bible or about dinosaurs or about creationism, or about anything, how is that any danger to anybody else?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

There was almost certainly a great flood at some point at least in a good deal of the known world at that time because almost every single ancient culture has a comparable flood story in their mythology. Even allegory must have some element of reality in order to be allegory just as comedy must contain an element of personally identifiable truth or it isn't funny.

But to forbid the writers of the Bible some artistic license when nobody else is denied such license, is just silly.

But regardless of what I believe about the Bible or about dinosaurs or about creationism, or about anything, how is that any danger to anybody else?

True, guess it's just the signs of the time.
Good is evil and evil is good.

 

[FA_Q2]

From John Wesley’s Explanatory Notes
Verse 6

[6] The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.

The wolf — The creatures shall be restored to that state of innocency in which they were before the fall of man. Men of fierce, and cruel dispositions, shall be so transformed by the grace of Christ, that they shall become gentle, and tractable.

A child — They will submit their rebellious wills to the conduct of the meanest persons that speak to them in Christ's name.

Verse 7

[7] And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

Feed — Together, without any danger or fear.

Straw — The grass of the earth, as they did at first, and shall not devour other living creatures.

Isaiah 11 - Wesley?s Explanatory Notes - Bible Commentary

To answer your question yes I think it was never intended for animals to eat meat.

Now how about Noah's ark, what did the meat eater eat while they were inside.

Well then. I will stand corrected that there is good biblical sourcing for that belief. Oh boy, I do like shoe leather after all

As far as Noah’s Ark, again not a theologian or well versed in that specific story so I can’t say that I have scriptural backing but I do not see why Noah would not be able to keep stores of meat on the Ark itself. Obviously, they would not be eating each other BUT that does not mean that they did not have access to meat itself. Noah would have had to prepare the food stores anyway beforehand, be it meat or grain and stored properly meat can last quite a while. That is particularly true when talking about animals who have a MUCH hardier immune system than humans. That is a requirement for survival when everything that you eat is completely raw and untreated for illness. Most animals can eat a piece of meat that would kill a man without any problem.

Or they just did not eat. Quite frankly, we are talking about what God commanded after all and I don’t pretend to put god in a box. The bible says the he fed thousands with a single loaf of bread – I would not put much past a deity

That would also help with some of the refuse problems. I am sure that there would be some rather nasty side effects of having that many creatures in a single boat.

I tend to go with the flood thing.

Holy crap – you were pink there for a few. I think that there was a hiccup

 

[FA_Q2]

I tend to go with the flood thing.

What do you mean?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Well then. I will stand corrected that there is good biblical sourcing for that belief. Oh boy, I do like shoe leather after all

As far as Noah’s Ark, again not a theologian or well versed in that specific story so I can’t say that I have scriptural backing but I do not see why Noah would not be able to keep stores of meat on the Ark itself. Obviously, they would not be eating each other BUT that does not mean that they did not have access to meat itself. Noah would have had to prepare the food stores anyway beforehand, be it meat or grain and stored properly meat can last quite a while. That is particularly true when talking about animals who have a MUCH hardier immune system than humans. That is a requirement for survival when everything that you eat is completely raw and untreated for illness. Most animals can eat a piece of meat that would kill a man without any problem.

Or they just did not eat. Quite frankly, we are talking about what God commanded after all and I don’t pretend to put god in a box. The bible says the he fed thousands with a single loaf of bread – I would not put much past a deity

That would also help with some of the refuse problems. I am sure that there would be some rather nasty side effects of having that many creatures in a single boat.

I tend to go with the flood thing.

Holy crap – you were pink there for a few. I think that there was a hiccup

Or a miracle from God

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I tend to go with the flood thing.

What do you mean?

Gathering of the animals before the flood.

 

[Tuatara]

I teach my Bible students that the Bible is just as true and every bit as meaningful when we understand that many passages are symbolic, metaphorical, or allegorical.

So it could also be true that all of the Bible including the existence of God could be symbolic, metaphorical, or allegorical?

So, artistic license could allow no need of food and potable water on board the Ark any more than many actors in the movies or on televsion used to have need of bathrooms.

Yes, and movies with actors are not real.

So was there an actual Noah's Ark or is it an allegorical explanation of a larger principle? Who knows for sure?

Anyone with logic and reason knows for sure. It's like trying to say immaculate conception or talking snakes are real... oh wait.

Here is one scholarly explanation for how Noah's Ark could have been an actual event in history:
Could Noah's Ark really hold all the animals that were supposed to be preserved from Flood? ? ChristianAnswers.Net

That is not scholary. So many things that are wrong in that link that I could not list them all in a week.

Still others point to an omnipotent God who created the universe as certainly being able to bring the animals to Noah and render them into a hibernation state or whatever for the duration of the flood.

Really? A God who is so powerful he can create a universe and make animals hibernate for a period of time. Could he just not eliminate all the people he killed off without going through all the trouble of an ark and a ridiculous amount of rainfall.

For myself, I lean to the allegory theory but have absolutely no problem with anybody who believes it was an actual event.

I feel people who believe it to be true ore either delusional or stupid.

 

[Tuatara]

There was almost certainly a great flood at some point at least in a good deal of the known world at that time because almost every single ancient culture has a comparable flood story in their mythology.

First of all, not every culture has a story about a great flood. Not even close. Second, in the Bible the flood covers all the earth and kills everyone except those on board the ark which means there would be no written history about any great floods anywhere in the world except from the few who survived it.

Even allegory must have some element of reality in order to be allegory just as comedy must contain an element of personally identifiable truth or it isn't funny.

Floods are happening around the world all the time througout history. Floods that cover up the world in 40 days is actually impossible.

But to forbid the writers of the Bible some artistic license when nobody else is denied such license, is just silly.

The story of the ark is great as long as you know it is a story but there are many many people who belive every word of it to be real. Who is forbidding any kind of artistic licence on the bible? I didn't get that memo.

But regardless of what I believe about the Bible or about dinosaurs or about creationism, or about anything, how is that any danger to anybody else?

Suppressing knowledge can be very dangerous. When Pope Benedict XV claimed that condoms would make the Aids crisis worse we saw the the opposite was true. These "beliefs" killed off thousands. We've also seen in the news where parents do not get medical attention for their children because they would rather pray for them and their children die because of this neglect. Having a belief in the supernatural can be very potentially dangerous if it is abused, especially by those with power.

 

[Foxfyre]

I teach my Bible students that the Bible is just as true and every bit as meaningful when we understand that many passages are symbolic, metaphorical, or allegorical.

So it could also be true that all of the Bible including the existence of God could be symbolic, metaphorical, or allegorical?

So, artistic license could allow no need of food and potable water on board the Ark any more than many actors in the movies or on televsion used to have need of bathrooms.

Yes, and movies with actors are not real.

Anyone with logic and reason knows for sure. It's like trying to say immaculate conception or talking snakes are real... oh wait.
That is not scholary. So many things that are wrong in that link that I could not list them all in a week.

Still others point to an omnipotent God who created the universe as certainly being able to bring the animals to Noah and render them into a hibernation state or whatever for the duration of the flood.

Really? A God who is so powerful he can create a universe and make animals hibernate for a period of time. Could he just not eliminate all the people he killed off without going through all the trouble of an ark and a ridiculous amount of rainfall.

For myself, I lean to the allegory theory but have absolutely no problem with anybody who believes it was an actual event.

I feel people who believe it to be true ore either delusional or stupid.

The thread isn't about theology. The thread is why anybody's theology, unless it is acted out in a way that violates the rights of others, should be considered dangerous.

And isn't it a good thing that what you believe to be delusional or stupid could in itself make you delusional or stupid? Or just wrong?

You see, I allow for the possibility that what I believe might not be as it seems to me. But, I have had enough Bible study and immersion in theology to arrive at a reasoned conclusion that all of the Bible is not symbolic, allegorical, or metaphorical. The fact that I believe some passages are does not in any way detract from the power or truth or importance of the Bible.

And if we allow everybody the liberty of their beliefs, neither of us is dangerous. Nor are those who take all of the Bible literally. Though I think there is an element of evil, however unintended, in those who would go out of their way to try to destroy or ridicule the faith of those who believe something that involves them in no way.

Those who do not wish to include Creationism in the school curriculum should not include Creationism in the school curriculum. But if we believe in a concept of unalienable rights, they exist only if those who do wish to include Creationism in the curriculum can do so. And when there are opposing points of view about that, in a system that respects and protects liberty, a social contract goes with the majority.

 

[Meister]

I don't understand why the atheists ....not all atheists, but a chunk of them on this board are up in arms about the belief in God. I know a couple of atheists in my personal life, and they have no problem with people and their beliefs, but the ones in this thread have a real issue if another believes in the Lord.
Not one of them will change anyone's belief, but they act like they certainly can with the attempted brow beating. Grow up and move along with whatever floats your boat.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't understand why the atheists ....not all atheists, but a chunk of them on this board are up in arms about the belief in God. I know a couple of atheists in my personal life, and they have no problem with people and their beliefs, but the ones in this thread have a real issue if another believes in the Lord.
Not one of them will change anyone's belief, but they act like they certainly can with the attempted brow beating. Grow up and move along with whatever floats your boat.

I think it is sort of the difference between Libertarians and libertarians. The "big L" Libertarians can be as demanding and coercive to have everybody follow their world view as can be hardcore liberals or far rightwing extremists. Most Atheists (big A) would erase religious faith, most especially Christianity, from the face of the Earth if given power to do so. At the very least, they would keep it closeted and out of public view.

But atheists and agnostics "little a" are generally simply live and let live non religious types who don't give a rat's ass about what anybody else believes so long as they don't require the atheist or agnostic to participate. In fact many of these do participate and enjoy the great religious music, theater, literature as much as people of faith do. They just appreciate the imagery and artistry or interesting concepts without incorporating these into a faith system.

Such are usually good people who do object to those who would willfully and intentionally denigrate people for what they believe and/or attempt to destroy their faith.

 

[daws101]

another series false assumptions ... there is no quantifiable, empirical evidence that god did or said anything ..all you have is anecdotal stories that cannot be verified.
they themselves are not evidence.

Satan has you on his side speaking his words for him. Well done, son.

You seriously said this....

he/she did!