Thursday, June 19, 2008

Question

Matt,


You gave me this bible verse;


"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" Romans 5:12


Ok, so here I take it that death started when Adam and Eve first sinned. So when did lions start to have sharp teeth? Were they given sharp teeth before A&E sinned, or after? If the former, wouldn't that suggest that God knew A&E would sin? If the latter, how can this be explained in biological terms (POOF Godidit?).

12 comments:

Matthew said...

"Ok, so here I take it that death started when Adam and Eve first sinned."

That's a much debated theological stance, actually (does it apply to animals, or just people?), but I'll take it.

"So when did lions start to have sharp teeth? Were they given sharp teeth before A&E sinned, or after?"

You never actually stated it, but I'm going to assume you're inquiring as to the dietary habits of the lion (if not, correct me).

"If the former, wouldn't that suggest that God knew A&E would sin?"

Yes, yes it would.

"If the latter, how can this be explained in biological terms (POOF Godidit?)."

POOF evolutiondidit.

OPTIONS:

1. Lions have always had sharp teeth because they were always intended to eat meat, and they were always intended to eat meat because God (being all-knowing) would have known ahead of time that Adam and Eve would sin.
- A Distinct Possibility

2. Lions did not have sharp teeth until after the flood, then "POOF Godidit."
- Highly Unlikely

3. Lions did not have sharp teeth initially, but developed them through micro-evolution as time progressed (while not an evolutionist, I do subscribe to micro-evolution as it is observable and proven - I suspect most creationists would agree with me).
- Plausible, Not Likely

4. Lions have always had sharp teeth, however this is no indication of dietary habits (the bamboo-eating panda also has sharp teeth).
- A Distinct Possibility

5. Combination of 1 & 4 - God knew lions would one day need sharp teeth to consume meat, so He designed them this way, however they lived many years as herbivores not unlike the panda of today, which is classified as a "carnivore," yet rarely (and in many cases never) consumes anything other than bamboo.
- Most Likely

I can't say for sure, because I don't know for sure, but I'm fairly confident that the answer is one of the five listed above.

Excellent question.

SteveMudSkipper said...

Good

POOF evolutiondidit! Now you are stealing my stuff man! haha.

RE: point 4. I'm assuming two inch long teeth are just meant for killing. I could equally use snake venom and avoid your panda dilemma. Poisonous snake venom would have no purpose in a deathless paradise.

RE: point 1. So God knew Adam and Eve would sin. He framed them. He wanted them to sin, knowing full well that sin meant burning in hell. Pretty callous.

But its all for a greater good right? You gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet.

So many questions arise from this.

Eating the apple was all part of his plan. Satan telling them to eat the apple was part of the plan. Why was he so irate if it was part of the plan?

SteveMudSkipper said...

Correction; by apple I meant fruit. It doesn't say apple, that just got stuck in my head for some reason.

Matthew said...

"POOF evolutiondidit! Now you are stealing my stuff man! haha."

That's the idea! ; )

"Poisonous snake venom would have no purpose in a deathless paradise."

Actually, if you take the entire creation theory as a whole, there's speculation (and I've heard there were lab tests, but I can't verify that because I haven't studied this in depth) that snake venom wasn't potent until after the flood (atmospheric conditions would have been very different before the flood).

"Eating the apple was all part of his plan. Satan telling them to eat the apple was part of the plan. Why was he so irate if it was part of the plan?"

You have no idea how tired I am of hearing this one, Steve... it's not your fault, cuz this is the first time you've brought it up, but this one does really tick me off.

God told them not to eat the fruit, therefore eating the fruit was disobedient and disrespectful. Compare it to a human parent (read the whole thing before you roll your eyes, this one gets misrepresented A LOT) who tells his kid not to do something, but the kid does it anyway. The parent can use the scenario for something good (teach a lesson, show 'em how the world works, etc.) but they will still be angry at the child's disobedience and the child will be punished. Likewise, God finds a way to make something good come out of our mistakes, the only difference being that He can see our mistakes coming from a LONG way off. God plans around our mistakes - and even if He didn't, or if He was "callous," He would still exist, so again this debate can't "prove anything."

"Correction; by apple I meant fruit. It doesn't say apple, that just got stuck in my head for some reason."

I blame Walt Disney, everything's his fault somehow. I'll prove that theory eventually. You must have confused Eve with Snow White. ; )

SteveMudSkipper said...

POOF Evolutiondidit!

Can we make the fruit a banana for entertainments sake (it's the atheist's worst nightmare)?

God told them not to eat the banana. But he knew they would behave like monkeys and peel it anyway.

"...God finds a way to make something good come out of our mistakes,..."

They are not mistakes if it is all part of God's plan.

"He can see our mistakes coming from a LONG way off. "

Exactly, he knew the A&E would eat the banana, that is why he made it easy to get to the tree. That is why satan was allowed to roam the garden. You see. Don't be mad at Satan, he was just doing God's work. Strange but true.

So the Christian dogma is that God has a plan. He knows what we are going to do, but he punishes us for doing it. Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, Adolf Hitler, were all part of God's plan.

That is callous. That is sociopathic. I really believe that the imaginary guy in the bible was thought up by a group of sociopaths in Israel. (I think the Razor would favor that hypothesis).

Matthew said...

"Exactly, he knew the A&E would eat the banana, that is why he made it easy to get to the tree. That is why satan was allowed to roam the garden. You see. Don't be mad at Satan, he was just doing God's work. Strange but true."

This comment has stirred an interesting question in the back of my mind... what is your political stance? Liberal or conservative?

"He knows what we are going to do, but he punishes us for doing it."

Perhaps you don't have children, but I'm going to assume you do here for a moment: If you tell your child not to do something, but in the back of your mind you know them well enough to know that they are going to do it anyway, does that make their disobedience any less punishable simply because you saw it coming? Of course not, that would be childish and sounds more like the type of excuse the child would come up with ("daddy, you knew I was going to do that, so it's your fault because you let me do it anyway!") than any reasonable perspective of the situation.

"That is callous. That is sociopathic. I really believe that the imaginary guy in the bible was thought up by a group of sociopaths in Israel. (I think the Razor would favor that hypothesis)."

If you're gonna get mad at Ray for the stuff he says about atheists, then you'd better watch your mouth when your talking about my God. The only one being callous is you.

SteveMudSkipper said...

The difference between your analogy and the God of the bible is that the parent cannot stop their child (not being omnipotent nor omniscient), from making mistakes.

Your God, according to your doctrine, is both able and has the foresight to prevent us from making mistakes.

If I had children, I wouldn't put a basket of bananas in the middle of the room, sit them down, tell them not to eat them, and then leave the room. When I came back into the room, and found out (somehow circumventing my own omniscience) that they ate it, I wouldn't punish them for doing something which was in their nature, to want. That is just bad parenting.

Likewise, since we are both honest and realize that since God knows everything, our "sins" are all bricks in the wall. My placing the bananas in the room, leaving, the kids eating them, and my punishment are all part of the plan. Why? For his amusement?

So, I still don't understand. Maybe you can give me another analogy.

Interesting paradox.

BTW, political stance, none. Callous, just being honest. The only explanation I can think of is a sociopath. I'm not joking or trying to make you mad. That is the only thing I can think of when I analyze this doctrine.

Matthew said...

Actually, my mother recently confided in me that when I was very young in order to teach me to listen to her, she would take everything she wanted me to leave alone and put it far out of reach... all except for one. She would leave one thing out, and then tell me to leave it alone. If I reached for it, she would slap my hand and tell me "no" and this went on and on until I learned. Is she a bad parent? I wouldn't have learned if I hadn't been allowed to make mistakes.

Matthew said...

That's the difference between me and you: I don't think it's bad parenting to let your children make mistakes in order to learn.

SteveMudSkipper said...

Did your mother, when you made the mistake (that she set you up for you to make (authoritarian personality?)), then burn you with a clothes iron or put you in the oven?

I think it is bad parenting to let your children make mistakes that can cost them their life. I wouldn't let my child drive drunk, play with a loaded gun, or give them a can of gasoline and a lighter. That is child abuse and you can be arrested.

You see, you make your analogy as mild as possible so it seems reasonable, but you are comparing apples and oranges.

Matthew said...

You don't want to understand anything I say, therefore it is impossible for you to do so. Sometimes I honestly wonder if you ever even stop to let what I say sink in before you respond. Think your argument through a little more clearly, and it will resolve itself. I sense I'm wasting my time trying to show you your errors here.

SteveMudSkipper said...

Sorry to aggravate you.

I think I honestly know what you are trying to say, but it doesn't correspond to my understanding of scripture.

For instance, when you say your mother slapped you on the hand, that is a finite punishment. But God meets out infinite punishment. Two different things.

Likewise, when you say "slap my hand," this is qualitatively different from being tortured/burned for eternity. BIG difference.

I'm not trying to be obtuse or play dumb.