Will it be enough to feed all carnivores?
Random Thoughts, strictly Text
- Thread starter david starling
- Start date
Will it be enough to feed all carnivores?
david starling
Well-known member
No, but they can't believe it's not butter!
The prophet Isaiah says that lion ''will eat straw like the ox''! (Is. 11:7)
david starling
Well-known member
Benevolution, instead of Evilution.
Didn't you believe in the estimated age of the Earth containing millions of years of fossil record with pain, death, killing, disease, thorns, struggle, suffering and extinction by said materialistic science?
david starling
Well-known member
Darwinian Evolution is manifestly a Saturnian-influenced doctrine.
Meaning???
david starling
Well-known member
Survival of the Fittest.
If by that you mean natural selection, then unlike the purported age of the Earth, this is an easily demonstrable theory. Natural selection does not equal Darwinian evolution, it was noted by philosophers and creationists before Darwin.
''Blyth, however, differed from Darwin in his starting assumptions. Blyth believed in God as the Creator, rather than the blind forces of nature. He believed that God created original kinds, that all modern species descended from those kinds, and that natural selection acted by conserving rather than originating. Blyth also believed that man was a separate creation from animals. This is especially important since humans are made in the image of God, an attribute that cannot be applied to animals (Genesis 1:27). Blyth seemed to view natural selection as a mechanism designed directly or indirectly by God to allow His creation to survive in a post-Fall, post-Flood world. This is very different from Darwin’s view. Darwin wrote, “What a book a devil’s chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering low and horridly cruel works of nature.'' - https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/is-natural-selection-the-same-thing-as-evolution/
david starling
Well-known member
God is invisible. An image of God is an idol, and idolatry is forbidden, according to the Bible. Envisioning the human form as an image of God is idolatry.
Jesus Christ is said to be image of the invisible God. (Col. 1:15) Adam and Eve were created in the image of God (Gen. 1:27). Unlike in idolatrous religions, images are not manifestations of God, but representations. This is common sense - a picture or a painting of yourself is not you, though it is something like you and is able to represent you.
ὅμοιος (Col. 1:15) not ὁμοούσιος (?)
Last edited:
david starling
Well-known member
The standard counter-argument is that man created God in his own image, to place himself on a pedestal above all the other animals. Jesus said, "As you do unto to the least of these [*] so you do unto me"-{Matthew 25:40}
[*The words "my brethren" are usually included , and used as an excuse that he was talking ONLY about Believers in need. But, it could just as easily been a term of address, since it was the brethren he was admonishing. This excuse is used by those who care ONLY about the welfare of fellow Christians.]
Psalm 145:9? Proverbs 12:10? Matthew 5:46-48? BibleThump brother.
david starling
Well-known member
Same excuse?
Excusing what? Are you implying that the Bible says you should only care for fellow believers in light of Psalm 145:9, Proverbs 12:10 and Matthew 5:46-48 among host of other passages? Now not providing for your own is morally wrong in 1 Timothy 5:8 and all cultures I am familiar with, indeed one may say that such a preference is natural and biblical!
Last edited:
david starling
Well-known member
It's back to Saturn: If you don't work, and serve the elite, too bad for you. That's how "the Fittest" is now defined.
david starling
Well-known member
I meant that SOME avowed Christians are applying it only to their own version of "Christians". Does "your own", include all of humanity, just your own relatives, or even just those who Believe as you do?
Also, are animals other than humans included in "the least of these"?
Do you read the Bible as a whole, or are you building ideas on single paragraphs? Also he says the ''least of''. Can't twist those words like that.
Are you saying that it is sinful to care first for your family and relatives (1 Timothy 5:8), second for your neighbours (Matthew 25:40), third for your enemies (Matthew 5:46-48 - note that he doesn't say you should stop loving your neighbour), and fourth for animals (Proverbs 12:10) in a post-Fall, post-Flood world? Do you have children? You probably invested more in them than in feeding animals.
david starling
Well-known member
I'm saying just the opposite.