PDA

View Full Version : A tough one from my 7 y.o niece...



JaybeeinBibleForum
Mar 14th 2009, 08:06 AM
She said, "It isn't fair of God to make animals that can kill people".

I've prided myself thus far in giving her excellent, descriptive, and readily digestible answers to her questions about the world, far superior to those my own parents gave me, but this one threw me.

She is being raised, somewhat liberally, in the hindu faith. As such she has something of a mild aversion to people eating meat, and I don't think it'll be much comfort to her that, in the food chain, we humans are pretty much at the happy end. Outside of food, of course, we humans have killed far more sharks/bears/lions etc than they us, but again, this is not something about which I hope to instil any pride in her.

Your considered thoughts would be welcomed, good people.

Itinerant Lurker
Mar 14th 2009, 11:42 AM
Everybody's gotta eat.

TexasBeliever
Mar 14th 2009, 12:41 PM
After sin entered the world due to man's disobedience, all creation suffered the consequences.
In the scriptures it says that "ALL OF CREATION groans waiting for the restoration of the world."

Remember these lines in scripture, where the Lord says, "Behold, I make all things new."; and "the lion shall lay down with the lamb" and "eat hay like the ox,"; "and a little child shall lead them."

Before the fall, when all was perfect, the lion DID lay down with the lamb.

So shall it be again.

Romber
Mar 16th 2009, 01:04 AM
TexasBeliever says it well. God didn't create animals that are capable of eating us. Remember, EVERYTHING use to be vegetarian. In a sense sin created animals that could eat humans as sin is what corrupted the perfect creation to a point of "not-so-perfect" creation.

Itinerant Lurker
Mar 16th 2009, 02:32 AM
TexasBeliever says it well. God didn't create animals that are capable of eating us. Remember, EVERYTHING use to be vegetarian. In a sense sin created animals that could eat humans as sin is what corrupted the perfect creation to a point of "not-so-perfect" creation.

What. . .? Just. . .what? Everything used to be a vegetarian? Is this some kind of way to keep anything from dying before the fall? Did all those vegetarians only eat half blades of grass? Everything's gotta eat, that's just the basic law of consumers vs. producers. Unless everything could synthesize their own food from sunlight something's gotta die.

moonglow
Mar 16th 2009, 03:11 AM
She said, "It isn't fair of God to make animals that can kill people".

I've prided myself thus far in giving her excellent, descriptive, and readily digestible answers to her questions about the world, far superior to those my own parents gave me, but this one threw me.

She is being raised, somewhat liberally, in the hindu faith. As such she has something of a mild aversion to people eating meat, and I don't think it'll be much comfort to her that, in the food chain, we humans are pretty much at the happy end. Outside of food, of course, we humans have killed far more sharks/bears/lions etc than they us, but again, this is not something about which I hope to instil any pride in her.

Your considered thoughts would be welcomed, good people.

I don't even understand her statement. She thinks God should have made animals to kill people? (sadly people are killed by animals all the time) or is her question, its not fair that animals kill people?

This makes no sense to me because the rest of your post is about her not liking to eat meat...so it sounds like she wants animals to kill people?? :confused

As others have said God didn't make animals to kill people to start with...but due to sin corrupting everything, they do. :( This shows how wide spread sin has gone.


Itinerant Lurker
Quote:

Originally Posted by Romber View Post
TexasBeliever says it well. God didn't create animals that are capable of eating us. Remember, EVERYTHING use to be vegetarian. In a sense sin created animals that could eat humans as sin is what corrupted the perfect creation to a point of "not-so-perfect" creation.
What. . .? Just. . .what? Everything used to be a vegetarian? Is this some kind of way to keep anything from dying before the fall? Did all those vegetarians only eat half blades of grass? Everything's gotta eat, that's just the basic law of consumers vs. producers. Unless everything could synthesize their own food from sunlight something's gotta die

He is talking about living breathing things, not grass. Big difference. As far as anyone knows grass doesn't feel pain when being eaten. In Genesis it clearly says God gave them the fruits of the trees to eat and grains and other things. I don't know that eating a pear is considered the pear 'dying'...I certainly wouldn't think so though.

Here look at these verses and see what you think:
Isaiah 11
6 In that day the wolf and the lamb will live together;
the leopard will lie down with the baby goat.
The calf and the yearling will be safe with the lion,
and a little child will lead them all.
7 The cow will graze near the bear.
The cub and the calf will lie down together.
The lion will eat hay like a cow.
8 The baby will play safely near the hole of a cobra.
Yes, a little child will put its hand in a nest of deadly snakes without harm.
9 Nothing will hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain,
for as the waters fill the sea,
so the earth will be filled with people who know the Lord.

Isaiah 65
25 The wolf and the lamb will feed together.
The lion will eat hay like a cow.
But the snakes will eat dust.
In those days no one will be hurt or destroyed on my holy mountain.
I, the Lord, have spoken!”

Many of us believe this is how it was in the garden. Since death had not entered the world due to sin...and animals weren't corrupted too by sin, they ate hay. Not each other. And the people didn't eat meat either...in order to do that, death would have had to come...

We don't know how long the garden was in this perfect state before Adam and Eve sinned. It could have been years, or only days. Don't know. We do know death only came to every living things once they sinned.

God bless

Itinerant Lurker
Mar 16th 2009, 04:33 AM
He is talking about living breathing things, not grass. Big difference.


Well grass is alive and, just like other plants, grass does "breathe" just not the same way we do. So if a plant stops living it still "dies" just like an animal does.



As far as anyone knows grass doesn't feel pain when being eaten. In Genesis it clearly says God gave them the fruits of the trees to eat and grains and other things. I don't know that eating a pear is considered the pear 'dying'...I certainly wouldn't think so though.


Well sure but then you've got to consider a planet full of magically vegetarian animals and not one of them accidentally pulls a whole plant out of the ground and chews it up? Come on.



Here look at these verses and see what you think:
Isaiah 11
6 In that day the wolf and the lamb will live together;
the leopard will lie down with the baby goat.
The calf and the yearling will be safe with the lion,
and a little child will lead them all.
7 The cow will graze near the bear.
The cub and the calf will lie down together.
The lion will eat hay like a cow.
8 The baby will play safely near the hole of a cobra.
Yes, a little child will put its hand in a nest of deadly snakes without harm.
9 Nothing will hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain,
for as the waters fill the sea,
so the earth will be filled with people who know the Lord.

Isaiah 65
25 The wolf and the lamb will feed together.
The lion will eat hay like a cow.
But the snakes will eat dust.
In those days no one will be hurt or destroyed on my holy mountain.
I, the Lord, have spoken!”


Isn't it odd that all those descriptions are predicated with the term "will" instead of "did"? What about this:

Psalm 104:19-28


19 He made the moon for the seasons; the sun knows the place of its setting. 20 You appoint darkness and it becomes night, in which all the beasts of the forest prowl about. 21 The young lions roar after their prey and seek their food from God. 22 When the sun rises they withdraw and lie down in their dens. 23 Man goes forth to his work and to his labor until evening. 24 O LORD, how many are Your works! In wisdom You have made them all; the earth is full of Your possessions … 27 They all wait for You to give them their food in due season. 28 You give to them, they gather it up; You open Your hand, they are satisfied with good.


Many of us believe this is how it was in the garden. Since death had not entered the world due to sin...and animals weren't corrupted too by sin, they ate hay.


That's. . .that's just surreal. . ."they ate hay"? Hay being dead grass this kind of shoots your no death before the fall argument in the foot, but a bigger issue than that is the sheer bombastic preposterousness of this claim. What about the 2nd level and higher consumers? The carnivores? The felines whose bodies depend on ingesting red meat and who physically cannot survive on a non-carnivorous diet? You're telling me that sharks originally ate what, kelp?

http://www.popularwealth.com/images/shark05.jpg

http://www.popularwealth.com/images/shark02.jpg
(mmmmmm. . .seaweed)

That spiders originally spun webs to catch leaves which they then paralyzed with their venom? That jellyfish originally used their stinging tentacles to catch plankton? And what about all the decomposers who basically depend on death to supply them with the material they need to survive. . .what did they do before the fall?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3189/2289347309_daef90426e.jpg?v=0

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Mallorca_Mushroom.jpg/800px-Mallorca_Mushroom.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/35/Single_lycoperdon_perlatum.jpg/462px-Single_lycoperdon_perlatum.jpg

Romber
Mar 16th 2009, 10:26 AM
What. . .? Just. . .what? Everything used to be a vegetarian? Is this some kind of way to keep anything from dying before the fall? Did all those vegetarians only eat half blades of grass? Everything's gotta eat, that's just the basic law of consumers vs. producers. Unless everything could synthesize their own food from sunlight something's gotta die.


No. They ate entire blades of grass, and if you were lucky you may of even seen them eat entire plants! The point is grass and plants had a different sort of life to them-they didn't have blood running through them. That was the distinction between herbivore, (omnivore) ,and carnivore. The Bible did not err-animals could eat plants because plants were not considered the same sort of living creature.

moonglow
Mar 16th 2009, 03:07 PM
Well grass is alive and, just like other plants, grass does "breathe" just not the same way we do. So if a plant stops living it still "dies" just like an animal does.



Well sure but then you've got to consider a planet full of magically vegetarian animals and not one of them accidentally pulls a whole plant out of the ground and chews it up? Come on.



Isn't it odd that all those descriptions are predicated with the term "will" instead of "did"? What about this:

Psalm 104:19-28


19 He made the moon for the seasons; the sun knows the place of its setting. 20 You appoint darkness and it becomes night, in which all the beasts of the forest prowl about. 21 The young lions roar after their prey and seek their food from God. 22 When the sun rises they withdraw and lie down in their dens. 23 Man goes forth to his work and to his labor until evening. 24 O LORD, how many are Your works! In wisdom You have made them all; the earth is full of Your possessions … 27 They all wait for You to give them their food in due season. 28 You give to them, they gather it up; You open Your hand, they are satisfied with good.


That's. . .that's just surreal. . ."they ate hay"? Hay being dead grass this kind of shoots your no death before the fall argument in the foot, but a bigger issue than that is the sheer bombastic preposterousness of this claim. What about the 2nd level and higher consumers? The carnivores? The felines whose bodies depend on ingesting red meat and who physically cannot survive on a non-carnivorous diet? You're telling me that sharks originally ate what, kelp?

http://www.popularwealth.com/images/shark05.jpg

http://www.popularwealth.com/images/shark02.jpg
(mmmmmm. . .seaweed)

That spiders originally spun webs to catch leaves which they then paralyzed with their venom? That jellyfish originally used their stinging tentacles to catch plankton? And what about all the decomposers who basically depend on death to supply them with the material they need to survive. . .what did they do before the fall?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3189/2289347309_daef90426e.jpg?v=0

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Mallorca_Mushroom.jpg/800px-Mallorca_Mushroom.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/35/Single_lycoperdon_perlatum.jpg/462px-Single_lycoperdon_perlatum.jpg

you would have to argue with the bible then and explain to me how death came to all before the fall...

If God can make these animals eat hay later...why couldn't He have done the same thing before the fall?

God bless

Itinerant Lurker
Mar 16th 2009, 07:46 PM
you would have to argue with the bible then and explain to me how death came to all before the fall...

If God can make these animals eat hay later...why couldn't He have done the same thing before the fall?

God bless

Or I could just say that the text is referring to spiritual death instead of physical death since Adam didn't die "the very day" he ate the fruit nor are Christians rendered physically immortal by accepting Christ. Plus I avoid stuff like this:

http://www.bogleech.com/nature/larvae-antlion2.jpg
"Time to go dig a hole and wait for some grass to fall in."

http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGS/Shared/StaticFiles/animals/images/primary/eye-level-great-white-ga.jpg
"Fruit salad. . .yummy yummy"

http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGS/Shared/StaticFiles/animals/images/primary/relentless-lion-snarl.jpg
"I don't eat meat. These huge front teeth are obviously for chewing grass."

http://www.bogleech.com/nature/spider-portia.jpg
"Mmmmmm. . .this leaf is delicious."

Finally, if plants are dying from being eaten then death had already entered the world anyway.

Itinerant Lurker
Mar 16th 2009, 07:49 PM
The point is grass and plants had a different sort of life to them-they didn't have blood running through them. That was the distinction between herbivore, (omnivore) ,and carnivore.


What? Not having blood was a distinction between carnivore and herbivore? I can't be hearing this right.



The Bible did not err-animals could eat plants because plants were not considered the same sort of living creature.

So. . .plant death is distinct biblically from animal death? I'd love to see this supported in scripture. . .or logic.

moonglow
Mar 16th 2009, 08:42 PM
Or I could just say that the text is referring to spiritual death instead of physical death since Adam didn't die "the very day" he ate the fruit nor are Christians rendered physically immortal by accepting Christ. Plus I avoid stuff like this:

http://www.bogleech.com/nature/larvae-antlion2.jpg
"Time to go dig a hole and wait for some grass to fall in."

http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGS/Shared/StaticFiles/animals/images/primary/eye-level-great-white-ga.jpg
"Fruit salad. . .yummy yummy"

http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGS/Shared/StaticFiles/animals/images/primary/relentless-lion-snarl.jpg
"I don't eat meat. These huge front teeth are obviously for chewing grass."

http://www.bogleech.com/nature/spider-portia.jpg
"Mmmmmm. . .this leaf is delicious."

Finally, if plants are dying from being eaten then death had already entered the world anyway.

Why are you being so rude and mocking like this? I mean really? Is this any way to treat your brothers and sisters in Christ? There is just no reason to talk to us like this and get your point across. If you have scriptures to back up what you are saying...then present them ok?

I never said when death came through Adam and Eve that meant they were to dropped dead that second. The bible never says that either. Obviously it was more then spiritual death or Christ wouldn't have had to overcome physical death as He did.

1 Corinthians 15
20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. 24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death

Revelation 21:4
And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.”

HisLeast
Mar 16th 2009, 08:56 PM
Well grass is alive and, just like other plants, grass does "breathe" just not the same way we do. So if a plant stops living it still "dies" just like an animal does.

Don't forget the bacteria and protozoa. Essential for grass and plant digestion, but dying by the millions every day.

Athanasius
Mar 16th 2009, 09:25 PM
Or I could just say that the text is referring to spiritual death instead of physical death since Adam didn't die "the very day" he ate the fruit nor are Christians rendered physically immortal by accepting Christ.

Physical death as well, actually. To make it a dichotomy between one or the other is incorrect. Also with that said if you wish to argue that grass is alive, be my guest - are you going to show it from scripture, which doesn't consider grass to be alive in the same way humans or animals are alive, or are you merely going to be condescending, post a bunch of pictures with catch phrases and maybe, if we're lucky, create another button design in the hopes of being pretentious and insulting?

Heaven forbid the lion ever lay beside the lamb:rolleyes:

Romber
Mar 16th 2009, 09:37 PM
What? Not having blood was a distinction between carnivore and herbivore? I can't be hearing this right.

You didn't. Blood was the difference between plants and animals




So. . .plant death is distinct biblically from animal death? I'd love to see this supported in scripture. . .or logic.

No, plant life is different.

Itinerant Lurker
Mar 17th 2009, 12:22 AM
You didn't. Blood was the difference between plants and animals


I see now, for the record: in order to avoid future confusion herbivore and carnivores do not refer to "plants" and "animals" but to different types of consumers which are overwhelmingly animals. A herbivore is a consumer that eats plants, a carnivore is a consumer that eats meat, an omnivore is a consumer that eats both. You're going for producer (make their own food = plants) and consumer (gets their energy from consuming other organisms = animals). Though there are some weird overlaps this is pretty much a general rule.

Additionally, there are carnivores that cannot survive without meat and another group, the decomposers, that rely on things dying in order to survive.



No, plant life is different.

I understand plant life is different, but I've never seen any biblical support for separating plant death from animal death as existing before the fall.

Itinerant Lurker
Mar 17th 2009, 12:38 AM
Why are you being so rude and mocking like this? I mean really? Is this any way to treat your brothers and sisters in Christ? There is just no reason to talk to us like this and get your point across. If you have scriptures to back up what you are saying...then present them ok?


I'm not attempting to be rude, but the claim that everything was a vegetarian at one point just comes across as so absurd that I can't honestly think anyone ascribing to it has actually thought through all it's implications. I could go into detail about how animals are adapted specifically towards killing other things to live or that this is the basic tenant of biology but showing pictures of predators that are, in essence, perfectly adapted killing machines and then claiming they ate plants just seems like it makes my point a little better.

All sarcasm aside, those pictures are basically what you are claiming - that all those creatures and millions more were originally created to eat fruits and vegetables. The commentary might be a little biting (waaahhahaha - that's supposed to be my evil pun laugh) but the conclusion matches your claim that every animal on earth used to eat plants.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2b/Tigergebiss.jpg/399px-Tigergebiss.jpg

You can see the source of my skepticism here. . .the two largest of which are very sharp, a few inches long, and don't look like they're for chewing grass.



I never said when death came through Adam and Eve that meant they were to dropped dead that second. The bible never says that either. Obviously it was more then spiritual death or Christ wouldn't have had to overcome physical death as He did.
But we are all going to die a physical death whether or not we are Christians. The difference wrought by Christ is a spiritual life, not a physical life.

moonglow
Mar 17th 2009, 02:52 AM
I'm not attempting to be rude, but the claim that everything was a vegetarian at one point just comes across as so absurd that I can't honestly think anyone ascribing to it has actually thought through all it's implications. I could go into detail about how animals are adapted specifically towards killing other things to live or that this is the basic tenant of biology but showing pictures of predators that are, in essence, perfectly adapted killing machines and then claiming they ate plants just seems like it makes my point a little better.

All sarcasm aside, those pictures are basically what you are claiming - that all those creatures and millions more were originally created to eat fruits and vegetables. The commentary might be a little biting (waaahhahaha - that's supposed to be my evil pun laugh) but the conclusion matches your claim that every animal on earth used to eat plants.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2b/Tigergebiss.jpg/399px-Tigergebiss.jpg

You can see the source of my skepticism here. . .the two largest of which are very sharp, a few inches long, and don't look like they're for chewing grass.

But we are all going to die a physical death whether or not we are Christians. The difference wrought by Christ is a spiritual life, not a physical life.

I think you can talk to us without being demeaning or rude and still get your thoughts across. I am trying to show you mine here.

Ok look when God created everything He declared it good. There was no disease, no earthquakes killing people, no tornado's, no droughts, no famine...everything was good. We clearly see that one day God will restore everything to His original plan that we messed up. When sin came into the world so did disease, earthquakes, etc, etc...people born imperfect. Do you know of one single person that doesn't deal with something they inherited from their parents or grandparents? Heart disease, cancer, allergies, etc...all run in families. We are so far from the original perfect humans I think we would be shocked to see how different Adam and Eve were from us if we could see them now.

Now God will one day make the meat eating animals to eat hay...as the bible says...why in the world should we just assume they were created with those fangs to start with? If He can change things so much...bring us all back to Paradise in the beginning and cause a lion to eat hay...how do we know the lion wasn't eating hay to start with? How do we know the first created lion had fangs? Human being were corrupted and changed physically...so why not the animals too?

You are basing your ideas on what animals are like now after the fall...you have no prove they were like this before the fall. That is what I am saying. God will have meat eaters animals eating hay one day...how do you suppose He will do that?

Using what we see now..corrupted by sin would be no different then me taking just about any human being walking around now and saying this was the best God could do with the first human beings. Totally ignoring all the corruption done to our DNA by thousands of years of sin.

Itinerant Lurker
Mar 17th 2009, 04:43 AM
I think you can talk to us without being demeaning or rude and still get your thoughts across. I am trying to show you mine here.

Ok look when God created everything He declared it good. There was no disease, no earthquakes killing people, no tornado's, no droughts, no famine...everything was good. We clearly see that one day God will restore everything to His original plan that we messed up. When sin came into the world so did disease, earthquakes, etc, etc...people born imperfect. Do you know of one single person that doesn't deal with something they inherited from their parents or grandparents? Heart disease, cancer, allergies, etc...all run in families. We are so far from the original perfect humans I think we would be shocked to see how different Adam and Eve were from us if we could see them now.

Now God will one day make the meat eating animals to eat hay...as the bible says...why in the world should we just assume they were created with those fangs to start with? If He can change things so much...bring us all back to Paradise in the beginning and cause a lion to eat hay...how do we know the lion wasn't eating hay to start with? How do we know the first created lion had fangs? Human being were corrupted and changed physically...so why not the animals too?

You are basing your ideas on what animals are like now after the fall...you have no prove they were like this before the fall. That is what I am saying. God will have meat eaters animals eating hay one day...how do you suppose He will do that?

Using what we see now..corrupted by sin would be no different then me taking just about any human being walking around now and saying this was the best God could do with the first human beings. Totally ignoring all the corruption done to our DNA by thousands of years of sin.

It's really a bit more complicated than just having big, sharp teeth. Do you know what happens when you don't feed any kind of cat meat? They die because cat digestive systems are attuned to eating meat. If you think cats can evolve these kind of adaptations within a few thousand years you are much more of an evolutionist than I am.
http://maxshouse.com/feline_nutrition.htm

moonglow
Mar 17th 2009, 03:32 PM
It's really a bit more complicated than just having big, sharp teeth. Do you know what happens when you don't feed any kind of cat meat? They die because cat digestive systems are attuned to eating meat. If you think cats can evolve these kind of adaptations within a few thousand years you are much more of an evolutionist than I am.
http://maxshouse.com/feline_nutrition.htm

Do we even know if cats existed when God first created animals? :hmm:

Look you either believe the bible or you don't:

Genesis 1:
29 And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. 30 Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so.

In order to go with your view you would have to say the death, disease and suffering existed before the fall...before sin came into the world and that go against scriptures...goes against what God calls 'good'. Would He call death, disease and suffering, good? No, scriptures clearly show because of our sins, we brought this upon our selves.

Anyway I think this article addresses alot of the things you brought up...including whether plants, grass, etc, are alive or not compared to people and animals.

Animal death and the Fall (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0221plant_death.asp)

Part of this creation is the animal kingdom, so this must also have suffered, and the fossil record is stark testimony to that. Yet the Bible clearly teaches that animals were not always being destroyed by cataclysms, and were not always tearing each other to pieces.

This is shown by the diets that God originally instituted. Gen. 1:29–30 clearly teaches that animals and people were both created vegetarian. As pointed out in the Exposé of Ross’s book: The Genesis Question, Dr Ross accepts that these verses teach human vegetarianism before the Fall, but he is inconsistent in denying the original animal vegetarianism taught in exactly the same words in exactly the same context. We explained this further in this reply to an old-earther.

Further, even one of Dr Ross’s supporters, apologist Dr Norman Geisler, recognizes this (see how he answered the gripe about animal suffering by the apostate Charles Templeton). We have documented that Basil the Great, John Calvin and John Wesley also understood Genesis 1:29–30 as teaching that animals were all created vegetarian. So it’s Ross’s view that is the aberration.

Another strong case against carnivory being part of the original creation, also pointed out by Geisler, comes from Isaiah. Isaiah 11:6–9 and 65:25 prophecy that there will be a time in the future with no bloodshed in the animal kingdom. These are famous passages about a lion and calf, wolf and lamb, and a vegetarian lion and a nonharmful viper. Significantly, both passages close with indications that this reflects a more ideal world and the current world does not: ‘They shall not hurt or destroy …’ and ‘They shall do no evil or harm …’.4 These indicate that hurting, harming and destroying animal life would not have been part of a ‘very good’ creation. Commentators such as Dr Alec Motyer, Principal of Trinity College, Bristol, have noted that these passages are a partial restoration to what it was like in Eden:

There is an ‘Edenic’ element in Isaiah’s thinking (see on 2:4b) … the life of nature itself is transformed. Verses 6–8 offer three facets of the renewed creation and verse 9 is a concluding summary. First, in verse 6 there is the reconciliation of old hostilities, the allaying of old fears; predators (wolf, leopard, lion) and prey (lamb, goat, calf, yearling) are reconciled. So secure is this peace that a youngster can exercise the dominion originally given to humankind. Secondly, in verse 7 there is a change of nature within the beasts themselves: cow and bear eat the same food, as do lion and ox. There is also a change in the very order of things itself: the herbivoral nature of all the creatures points to Eden restored (Gn. 1:29–30). Thirdly, in verse 8 the curse is removed. The enmity between the woman’s seed and the serpent is gone (Gn. 3:15ab). Infant and ‘weaned child’ have nothing to fear from cobra and viper. Finally, in verse 9 the coming Eden is Mount Zion—a Zion which fills the whole earth. Peace (9a), holiness (9b), and ‘knowing the Lord’ (9c) pervades all.9

The problem for all long-age views is that the fossil record demonstrates carnivory, and Ross dates this to millions of years before the Fall. But this contradicts the clear biblical teaching that animals were not eating each other before the Fall. Geisler has also completely missed this point, so at least Ross is being more consistent when he simply denies that animals were created vegetarian, the way the Bible and Geisler say they were.
What do creationists mean by ‘no death before the Fall’?

Many anti-creationists knock down a straw man by simplistically attacking a ‘no death before sin’ statement out of context. That is, they argue that plants and individual cells died before the Fall, e.g. when animals ate plants.

However, creationists have often pointed out that ‘no death before sin’ applies to what the Bible calls death, which is not always the way modern biologists use it. The Bible doesn’t talk about plants dying, even though modern biologists do. Rather, the Bible talks about plants withering, for example.

What is the difference? Answer: the creatures affected by death were those the Bible calls nephesh chayyâh. When it refers to man, it is often translated ‘living soul’, but, of other creatures, including fish, it is often translated ‘living creature’. However, it is never applied to plants or invertebrates. Therefore, there is a qualitative difference between the deaths of the (vertebrate) animals called nephesh chayyâh and plant death. This is further supported by the account of the Flood and Ark. The living creatures (nephesh chayyâh) rescued on the Ark did not include plants (or invertebrates)—

In any case, it should be obvious that plants don’t experience suffering or pain as animals do. But Dr Ross absurdly claimed (Creation and Time, p. 63)

But even plants suffer when they are eaten. They experience bleeding, bruising, scarring and death. Why is the suffering of plants acceptable and not that of animals?

It’s hard to believe that Ross wasn’t joking, but he really meant it in all seriousness. But plants don’t have a brain to interpret tissue damage as pain!

Do plants ‘die’ in the biblical sense? (read the rest at the link)

Jeffinator
Mar 17th 2009, 05:49 PM
I'm not attempting to be rude, but the claim that everything was a vegetarian at one point just comes across as so absurd that I can't honestly think anyone ascribing to it has actually thought through all it's implications. I could go into detail about how animals are adapted specifically towards killing other things to live or that this is the basic tenant of biology but showing pictures of predators that are, in essence, perfectly adapted killing machines and then claiming they ate plants just seems like it makes my point a little better.

All sarcasm aside, those pictures are basically what you are claiming - that all those creatures and millions more were originally created to eat fruits and vegetables. The commentary might be a little biting (waaahhahaha - that's supposed to be my evil pun laugh) but the conclusion matches your claim that every animal on earth used to eat plants.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2b/Tigergebiss.jpg/399px-Tigergebiss.jpg

You can see the source of my skepticism here. . .the two largest of which are very sharp, a few inches long, and don't look like they're for chewing grass.

But we are all going to die a physical death whether or not we are Christians. The difference wrought by Christ is a spiritual life, not a physical life.

Hippos are herbivores, yet look at their teeth what you think about that?

Itinerant Lurker
Mar 17th 2009, 07:59 PM
file:///C:/Users/JEFFJO%7E1/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot.jpgfile:///C:/Users/JEFFJO%7E1/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-2.jpg
file:///C:/Users/JEFFJO%7E1/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-1.jpgHippos are herbivores, yet look at their teeth what you think about that?

Hippos are actually omnivores, they've been observed eating dead carcasses. I actually knew a guy who got gored by a Hippo once, they can be incredibly aggressive when they have young present. Lot's of herbivores have defensive and/or aggressive adaptations, the most dangerous animal in all of Africa is a herbivore - the Cape Buffalo. This is a non-point.

Dani H
Mar 17th 2009, 08:15 PM
Regardless of what we think it was like before the fall, I think we can all agree that with the fall, something changed. That was far-reaching. The Bible states that the entire creation groans in expectation until the sons of God are revealed. Creation itself is in need of redemption, as it has been affected by sin.

So bottom line: I don't think God created any kind of animal to attack/devour people. That's in exact opposition to, and a perversion of, the original mandate of man having dominion.

What's the perversion?

Sin.

Jeffinator
Mar 17th 2009, 08:56 PM
Hippos are actually omnivores, they've been observed eating dead carcasses. I actually knew a guy who got gored by a Hippo once, they can be incredibly aggressive when they have young present. Lot's of herbivores have defensive and/or aggressive adaptations, the most dangerous animal in all of Africa is a herbivore - the Cape Buffalo. This is a non-point.

Aggressive yes, but they still have a diet consisting of plants. ALL animals are aggressive if you provoke them enough. Look at elephants and their huge sharp tusks, planter eater though and the same goes for gorillas. And what you said was a contradiction because if a hippo can survive on either meat or plants even though they have huge sharp teeth, why couldnt the same be true for other animals?

Itinerant Lurker
Mar 17th 2009, 11:23 PM
Aggressive yes, but they still have a diet consisting of plants. ALL animals are aggressive if you provoke them enough. Look at elephants and their huge sharp tusks, planter eater though and the same goes for gorillas. And what you said was a contradiction because if a hippo can survive on either meat or plants even though they have huge sharp teeth, why couldnt the same be true for other animals?

A lot of it has to do with basic physiology, but lets back up and take a look at some of those examples for a better explanation. Elephants have tusks but look at their teeth, after all they only have four of them. I actually have an elephant tooth, and they are obviously adapted to grind up plants.

http://www.boneclones.com/images/KO_045_Elephant_Tooth_African_lo_res.jpg

Now, let's look at a bear skull which is an omnivore (eats plants & animals)

http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=5896&g2_serialNumber=2

Here we see the nice sharp teeth in front for biting and tearing but we also have those same flat molars in the back. There's also the issue of the jaws which, on large predators like bears and tigers, are specifically for biting down with incredible force which is awesome for killing prey and not so great for chewing up plants. But we really start running into problems when we start looking at some of the more specialized carnivores like the felids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felidae) which are obligate carnivores (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivore#Obligate_carnivores). Obligate carnivores have to eat meat as they lack the physical ability to digest plants. Let's look at a felid skull, specifically a tiger skull (my grand father used to hunt tigers, so I'm a bit partial).

http://www.skullsite.co.uk/Tiger/tiger_lat.jpg

Notice the large sharp front teeth for biting and the sharp back teach for tearing with a complete lack of molars. Why would a tiger (or any other cat) need them anyway since their bodies cannot process plant matter?

Obligate carnivores, however, aren't even the extreme end of the carnivore category because they occasionally eat other things like syrup though they still require meat to survive. Other creatures dine soley on meat, the hypercarnivores (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercarnivore), include the octopus, snakes, and most sharks. When we take a look at shark teeth we, of course, see no molars and no "sieves" that some larger shark species like the whale shark use to filter out krill. Instead we see teeth adapted to bite and tear:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3f/Tiger_shark_teeth.jpg/150px-Tiger_shark_teeth.jpg

Even if we ignore how the digestive systems of obligate carnivores function and focus soley on teeth we see a disparity between herbivores and carnivores. While some herbivores have elongated teeth (hippo) or horns (cape buffalo) their function is defensive or, in rare cases, offensive against members of their own species. The teeth those animals actually use for eating are markedly different. Like I said, you can argue that all these adaptations and more arose through evolution since the fall over a few thousand years but as you guys seem to be not so hot about evolution on this kind of scale I'm not sure it brings an air of consistency to your claims.

moonglow
Mar 17th 2009, 11:56 PM
A lot of it has to do with basic physiology, but lets back up and take a look at some of those examples for a better explanation. Elephants have tusks but look at their teeth, after all they only have four of them. I actually have an elephant tooth, and they are obviously adapted to grind up plants.

http://www.boneclones.com/images/KO_045_Elephant_Tooth_African_lo_res.jpg

Now, let's look at a bear skull which is an omnivore (eats plants & animals)

http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=5896&g2_serialNumber=2

Here we see the nice sharp teeth in front for biting and tearing but we also have those same flat molars in the back. There's also the issue of the jaws which, on large predators like bears and tigers, are specifically for biting down with incredible force which is awesome for killing prey and not so great for chewing up plants. But we really start running into problems when we start looking at some of the more specialized carnivores like the felids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felidae) which are obligate carnivores (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivore#Obligate_carnivores). Obligate carnivores have to eat meat as they lack the physical ability to digest plants. Let's look at a felid skull, specifically a tiger skull (my grand father used to hunt tigers, so I'm a bit partial).

http://www.skullsite.co.uk/Tiger/tiger_lat.jpg

Notice the large sharp front teeth for biting and the sharp back teach for tearing with a complete lack of molars. Why would a tiger (or any other cat) need them anyway since their bodies cannot process plant matter?

Obligate carnivores, however, aren't even the extreme end of the carnivore category because they occasionally eat other things like syrup though they still require meat to survive. Other creatures dine soley on meat, the hypercarnivores (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercarnivore), include the octopus, snakes, and most sharks. When we take a look at shark teeth we, of course, see no molars and no "sieves" that some larger shark species like the whale shark use to filter out krill. Instead we see teeth adapted to bite and tear:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3f/Tiger_shark_teeth.jpg/150px-Tiger_shark_teeth.jpg

Even if we ignore how the digestive systems of obligate carnivores function and focus soley on teeth we see a disparity between herbivores and carnivores. While some herbivores have elongated teeth (hippo) or horns (cape buffalo) their function is defensive or, in rare cases, offensive against members of their own species. The teeth those animals actually use for eating are markedly different. Like I said, you can argue that all these adaptations and more arose through evolution since the fall over a few thousand years but as you guys seem to be not so hot about evolution on this kind of scale I'm not sure it brings an air of consistency to your claims.

You have to argue with scriptures, not us. I gave you scriptures where God gives herbs for the animals to eat.


Genesis 1:
29 And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. 30 Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so.

All your examples are faulty because they are all based on the animals after the fall...apparently God did create animals to eat plants to start with..and once sin entered the world all that changed. You can post picture after picture but its meaningless unless you can put on here pictures of animals before the fall. Which no one can. So we either believe the scripture is correct or in error...which is it?

I believe scripture is correct. I will always choose scriptures over everything else.

For all we know the meat eaters came about at a later date, after the fall. Genesis doesn't tell us exactly what animals God created, other then vaguely such as 'fish' 'birds' and 'cattle'.

Itinerant Lurker
Mar 18th 2009, 12:26 AM
Do we even know if cats existed when God first created animals? :hmm:


The entire family felidae didn't exist before the fall?



Look you either believe the bible or you don't:

Genesis 1:
29 And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. 30 Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so.
Well, if we're being completely literal here this verse says that God gave plants to animals to eat but doesn't say that animals shouldn't or didn't eat other animals.



In order to go with your view you would have to say the death, disease and suffering existed before the fall...before sin came into the world and that go against scriptures...goes against what God calls 'good'. Would He call death, disease and suffering, good? No, scriptures clearly show because of our sins, we brought this upon our selves.
I think our society's aversion to predator-prey relationships in nature is Walt Disney's fault. We have a knack for anthropomorphisizing animals because of our separation from nature we enjoy due to our technological advancements. God built nature to be cyclical, with physical death as a necessary component of this process. There are various ways of incorporating this reality into our interpretations of scripture, but to deny this fundamental principle of biology seems, to me, to be a denial of God's creation.



It’s hard to believe that Ross wasn’t joking, but he really meant it in all seriousness. But plants don’t have a brain to interpret tissue damage as pain!
Neither do starfish. . .or jellyfish for that matter. If having a brain that interprets stimuli as physical pain is a distinction for a biblical concept of life it seems somewhat problematic. We see plants responding to negative or harmful stimuli all the time, as do we see starfish and jellyfish who have no brains. It's extremely doubtful that insects perceive "pain" as we do though their nerve clusters doubtless register stimuli. Honestly, all these distinctions start to look ridiculous when you really examine their implications.

Romber
Mar 18th 2009, 12:27 AM
Additionally, there are carnivores that cannot survive without meat and another group, the decomposers, that rely on things dying in order to survive.

What you forget to account for is the entrance of sin. Mutations, diseases, death entered when sin entered. Before then everything was sustained by God. So the question is how can you say that all animals always ate meat even before the fall?

Itinerant Lurker
Mar 18th 2009, 12:34 AM
All your examples are faulty because they are all based on the animals after the fall...apparently God did create animals to eat plants to start with..and once sin entered the world all that changed. You can post picture after picture but its meaningless unless you can put on here pictures of animals before the fall. Which no one can.


If you adhere to the view that "sin" causes mutations on a scale grand enough to produce entire family's do you, then, believe that animals still only reproduce after their "kind"?



So we either believe the scripture is correct or in error...which is it?


Once again the same claim: "Either my interpretation is correct or the bible is wrong. . .which is it?"



I believe scripture is correct. I will always choose scriptures over everything else.

For all we know the meat eaters came about at a later date, after the fall. Genesis doesn't tell us exactly what animals God created, other then vaguely such as 'fish' 'birds' and 'cattle'.

And if you want to believe in that, then that is your choice. But it's inaccurate to then claim that physical evidence supports your view in any way. If all carnivores came after the fall then is the theory of evolution even more powerful than it's strongest adherents believe?

Itinerant Lurker
Mar 18th 2009, 12:36 AM
What you forget to account for is the entrance of sin. Mutations, diseases, death entered when sin entered. Before then everything was sustained by God. So the question is how can you say that all animals always ate meat even before the fall?

So an entire family of organisms can make the jump from herbivore to obligate carnivore in a few thousand years but macroevolution is an evolutionist lie? Help me understand this.

Romber
Mar 18th 2009, 12:38 AM
So an entire family of organisms can make the jump from herbivore to obligate carnivore in a few thousand years but macroevolution is an evolutionist lie? Help me understand this.

Not just mutations alone caused this, but God's commands to his creation. Macroevolution is on a completely different idea than what we are talking here.

Itinerant Lurker
Mar 18th 2009, 12:44 AM
Not just mutations alone caused this, but God's commands to his creation. Macroevolution is on a completely different idea than what we are talking here.

So God commanded certain herbivores to become carnivores? Did the animals have a choice? Was it because some animals were "worse" than others? If suffering and death are evil what does it say about God that he forced animals to be evil? That he supernaturally intervened to change the physiology of numerous classifications of living things and basically set up the food chain after the seven day creation event had concluded? Is this really supported by a literal view of Genesis?

Brother Mark
Mar 18th 2009, 12:51 AM
She said, "It isn't fair of God to make animals that can kill people".

I would agree with her that God isn't fair. Then I begin to ask her if she felt like anyone was perfect and without faults. She will readily agree that we have all fallen short in some way. Then I would tell her how God sent his Son Jesus to die as payment for those faults. It wasn't fair that Jesus had to suffer for our faults but both God and Jesus decided to do so because they love us so much. Love overrides fairness and for that, we are very blessed.

Blessings,

Mark

Romber
Mar 18th 2009, 01:52 AM
So God commanded certain herbivores to become carnivores? Did the animals have a choice? Was it because some animals were "worse" than others? If suffering and death are evil what does it say about God that he forced animals to be evil? That he supernaturally intervened to change the physiology of numerous classifications of living things and basically set up the food chain after the seven day creation event had concluded? Is this really supported by a literal view of Genesis?

Then what do you say to when he let Noah and his family know it is ok to eat the meat of animals after they got off the ark? Was that evil too?

moonglow
Mar 18th 2009, 03:03 AM
Itinerant Lurker I haven't said one word about evolution...you are the one that keeps bringing it up. I have no clue how the animals changed once sin entered...all I know is they did (going by the bible here..not science, not evolution). I don't think God forced them to change...they were affected by sin as everything was. How it happened...I don't know.

If you think they couldn't change to kill and eat other animals...then how do you explain these passage where God will make the meat eaters eat hay?

Isaiah 11
6 In that day the wolf and the lamb will live together;
the leopard will lie down with the baby goat.
The calf and the yearling will be safe with the lion,
and a little child will lead them all.
7 The cow will graze near the bear.
The cub and the calf will lie down together.
The lion will eat hay like a cow.
8 The baby will play safely near the hole of a cobra.
Yes, a little child will put its hand in a nest of deadly snakes without harm.
9 Nothing will hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain,
for as the waters fill the sea,
so the earth will be filled with people who know the Lord.

Isaiah 65
25 The wolf and the lamb will feed together.
The lion will eat hay like a cow.
But the snakes will eat dust.
In those days no one will be hurt or destroyed on my holy mountain.
I, the Lord, have spoken!”

I don't pretend to know how this will happen either. God created everything and IS in control of it all.


Originally Posted by Itinerant Lurker View Post
So God commanded certain herbivores to become carnivores? Did the animals have a choice? Was it because some animals were "worse" than others? If suffering and death are evil what does it say about God that he forced animals to be evil? That he supernaturally intervened to change the physiology of numerous classifications of living things and basically set up the food chain after the seven day creation event had concluded? Is this really supported by a literal view of Genesis?

You keep jumping to conclusions here. Who said animals eating other animals was evil? Does the bible say its evil? Not that I am aware of. All I am saying is death, disease, etc, did not enter the world until sin did. Then everything changed. Consider this...no thorns or thistles either before the fall. Now what do we do every spring and throughout the summer in our yards? We fight the weeds, the thorns and thistles and disease that affects our gardens. This is all a reminder of the sin Adam committed. We 'toil' the ground with our sweat.


If you adhere to the view that "sin" causes mutations on a scale grand enough to produce entire family's do you, then, believe that animals still only reproduce after their "kind"?

Where did I say a thing about mutations? I didn't.


Once again the same claim: "Either my interpretation is correct or the bible is wrong. . .which is it?"

As far as I know this is the first time you asked this...so why type 'once again?" The bible is right. Surely you didn't need to even ask that did you? And you never answered my question...do you think scripture is right or not? Saying well it doesn't say they didn't eat meat too...is inserting things in scripture not there. A very dangerous practice that the bible warns against doing too by the way.


And if you want to believe in that, then that is your choice. But it's inaccurate to then claim that physical evidence supports your view in any way. If all carnivores came after the fall then is the theory of evolution even more powerful than it's strongest adherents believe?

Again I never said one word about evolution...you have brought it up in every post of yours but you seem to be the only one talking about evolution. No one else is. I never claimed to have physical evidence to support my view either. :confused My only claim is scripture. Are you sure you aren't mixing up my post with someone else's? You keep saying I said stuff I never said.

You bring up what you 'think' is natures way of changing the animals...slowly through evolution and think that is what I believe. Yet I never said that. ever. As I said, I have no clue how the animals changed. But I believe it happened because the bible supports it.

Itinerant Lurker
Mar 20th 2009, 02:49 PM
Itinerant Lurker I haven't said one word about evolution...you are the one that keeps bringing it up. I have no clue how the animals changed once sin entered...all I know is they did (going by the bible here..not science, not evolution). I don't think God forced them to change...they were affected by sin as everything was. How it happened...I don't know.


When people start talking about things "changing" and increased "mutations" I sometimes automatically assume they're talking about evolution. My bad.



If you think they couldn't change to kill and eat other animals...then how do you explain these passage where God will make the meat eaters eat hay?


I think these passages are talking about how God is going to bring things about after this world is gone. Many of the descriptions of how things will be are couched in symbolism, but I think the general drift remains the same - that things will be different and there will be no suffering as we now know it.



Who said animals eating other animals was evil? Does the bible say its evil? Not that I am aware of.


I agree, this is the way God built our world.



All I am saying is death, disease, etc, did not enter the world until sin did. Then everything changed. Consider this...no thorns or thistles either before the fall. Now what do we do every spring and throughout the summer in our yards? We fight the weeds, the thorns and thistles and disease that affects our gardens. This is all a reminder of the sin Adam committed. We 'toil' the ground with our sweat.


But taking that as literally meaning there were no thorns or thistles until 6000 years ago runs completely counter to just about everything we know about the world. For one thing we know that there were thorns and thistles earlier than this, for another we know that many plant species have defence mechanisms that have been there for long periods of time to protect against insects and microorganisms, among other things. These mechanisms take a long time to develop and, unless God built living things intending for there to be predator-prey relationships, there just isn't enough time in a YEC framework.



As far as I know this is the first time you asked this...so why type 'once again?" The bible is right. Surely you didn't need to even ask that did you? And you never answered my question...do you think scripture is right or not? Saying well it doesn't say they didn't eat meat too...is inserting things in scripture not there. A very dangerous practice that the bible warns against doing too by the way.


No, saying that this passage doesn't prohibit eating meat is taking a literal approach. Claiming that this passage infers that eating meat is prohibited is inserting something into it that is not there.



You bring up what you 'think' is natures way of changing the animals...slowly through evolution and think that is what I believe. Yet I never said that. ever. As I said, I have no clue how the animals changed. But I believe it happened because the bible supports it.

Yes but the evidence in creation doesn't support it. Isn't that a problem? Shouldn't truth line up with evidence? In every other realm evidence from the physical creation leads us to sound conclusions which we apply every day in our lives. Why doesn't this area match up? Doesn't the bible claim we can make assertions of truth based on observation of creation?

JaybeeinBibleForum
Mar 20th 2009, 05:12 PM
Regardless of what we think it was like before the fall, I think we can all agree that with the fall, something changed. That was far-reaching. The Bible states that the entire creation groans in expectation until the sons of God are revealed. Creation itself is in need of redemption, as it has been affected by sin.

So bottom line: I don't think God created any kind of animal to attack/devour people. That's in exact opposition to, and a perversion of, the original mandate of man having dominion.

What's the perversion?

Sin.

Cheers Dan, that resolves my query; I NOW know what I'm going to tell my niece tomorrow.

I have to say, other than the post above, I am pretty disappointed with how this thread has turned out. Instead of practical explanations I can relay to her, I get Bible phrases about "lambs lying with lions" - I'm a 40 y.o Christian and even I don't know the significance of that verse, so how the heck is a 7yr old girl being raised in the hindu faith going to know?

Before the post above I've waded through a page and a half consisting of arguments about whether the eating of grass is vegetarian breaking out, I've been asked, "What do you mean?" when my opening question left NO room for ambiguity, I've seen arguments between people about politeness....and still the arguments rage.

None of this inspires me with confidence to come back and ask further questions, let alone read the rest of the thread. You've probably heard of the saying, "If you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything". I believe in something similar; "If you have nothing effective to contribute, don't contribute anything".

Dan, let me thank you again for resolving my dilemma. The rest of you - I hope will continue enjoying this thread.

moonglow
Mar 20th 2009, 05:39 PM
Cheers Dan, that resolves my query; I NOW know what I'm going to tell my niece tomorrow.

I have to say, other than the post above, I am pretty disappointed with how this thread has turned out. Instead of practical explanations I can relay to her, I get Bible phrases about "lambs lying with lions" - I'm a 40 y.o Christian and even I don't know the significance of that verse, so how the heck is a 7yr old girl being raised in the hindu faith going to know?

Before the post above I've waded through a page and a half consisting of arguments about whether the eating of grass is vegetarian breaking out, I've been asked, "What do you mean?" when my opening question left NO room for ambiguity, I've seen arguments between people about politeness....and still the arguments rage.

None of this inspires me with confidence to come back and ask further questions, let alone read the rest of the thread. You've probably heard of the saying, "If you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything". I believe in something similar; "If you have nothing effective to contribute, don't contribute anything".

Dan, let me thank you again for resolving my dilemma. The rest of you - I hope will continue enjoying this thread.

Sorry JaybeeinBibleForum..I really didn't understand her question...or I wouldn't have asked. It was vague to me. And I apologize that we got so off track. I will shut up now. :blush:

JaybeeinBibleForum
Mar 20th 2009, 06:01 PM
Sorry JaybeeinBibleForum..I really didn't understand her question...or I wouldn't have asked. It was vague to me. And I apologize that we got so off track. I will shut up now. :blush:

You don't have to, it's all water under the bridge now. I've got my answer so it's all good. All is forgiven. :)

And now, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, for my next trick....I'm going to go put my feet up in front of an episode of Star Trek and have a nice cold Franziskaner white beer - that's the type made from wheat, not barley as usual. And give some thought to what I want for dinner..I've worked hard all week and any man who does deserves a cold one at the end.

:cool:

Peace!!


Jaybee.

Firefighter
Mar 25th 2009, 01:02 PM
This question is a PERFECT opportunity to discuss God's grace with her...

God is not fair. Nowhere in scripture does it say that God is fair. If God were fair, then we would have to pay the price for our sins and Christ could not have done that for us. God is just, not fair.

dan
Mar 26th 2009, 10:00 AM
She said, "It isn't fair of God to make animals that can kill people".

She is being raised, somewhat liberally, in the hindu faith. As such she has something of a mild aversion to people eating meat, and I don't think it'll be much comfort to her that, in the food chain, we humans are pretty much at the happy end. Outside of food, of course, we humans have killed far more sharks/bears/lions etc than they us, but again, this is not something about which I hope to instil any pride in her.

Your considered thoughts would be welcomed, good people.

That is, why not show pride that men have killed animals to save human life? Oh, because she is Hindu.

Nevertheless, Paul says that because there is a Resurrection, one should preserve human life against dangerous beasts, I believe.

1COR 15:32 If, after the way of men, I was fighting with beasts at Ephesus, what profit is it to me? If the dead do not come to life again, let us take our pleasure in feasting, for tomorrow we come to an end.