Christians - A Penny For Your Thoughts.

[autopilot]

No I am not saying that.

But you are.

God made the animals. As you say, he did not give them the concept of right and wrong. But then as you say, he decided he did not like the way they were living so killed them all.

So going by basic logic, god made a mistake in the way he deigned them. Or at the very least, he is extremely fickle. Either way, a bit harsh.

[kalniel]

Sorry. Didnt really mean that its not worth having a discussion. A good meaningful ration discussion always opens up new thoughts.

I meant that it will take its course and go round in circles - usually. I would love to be proved wrong on this one.

Fair enough, though I'd argue that it can be just as much the non-christians who cause that I have fairly tried to answer all the questions I can, some of which seem to have been put multiple times depsite my giving what is to me a non-vague answer, or I've simply said 'I don't know' or 'I can't answer that' which is certainly the case on more than on occasion.

Hopefully, because this thread is mostly about opinions, we will not go around in circles - you either have an opinion or you don't - there's no right or wrong really - I can't turn around and say 'actually you're wrong, that's not really your opinion'.

[Kezzer]

Maybe dinosaurs hung out with Noah right, then God sent a massive meteorite into the ocean and flooded the lands thus wiping out the dinosaurs but keeping the animals we have today safe? Who knows?

The story of Noah is very confusing because of the amount of animals that would've had to fit in the ark, but there were estimates of how big the ark really was, wasn't there? I thought it was huge?

[kalniel]

But you are.

So in fact you weren't asking a question, you were just stating your interpretation of something I'd previously said? Fair enough, but don't complain if I tell you that your interpretation of something I've said isn't correct when you've put a question mark on it as if inviting me to confirm if your interpretation is correct.

God made the animals. As you say, he did not give them the concept of right and wrong. But then as you say, he decided he did not like the way they were living so killed them all.

So going by basic logic, god made a mistake in the way he deigned them. Or at the very least, he is extremely fickle. Either way, a bit harsh.

No, God didn't make any judgement on the way animals were living at all. Was it harsh that they got killed as a consequence of his killing men? Yes if you're an animal lover, but in the grand scheme of things not that important, for the reasons I stated.

[nichomach]

But you are.God made the animals. As you say, he did not give them the concept of right and wrong. But then as you say, he decided he did not like the way they were living so killed them all.

Actually, it'd be more correct to say that God didn't like the way that people were living; the animals might more properly be considered collateral damage - if one accepted the idea that they were sentient beings of equal status with humans, which I don't and in fact society in general regardless of religious doctrine does not.

So going by basic logic, god made a mistake in the way he deigned them. Or at the very least, he is extremely fickle. Either way, a bit harsh.

No, going by basic logic, God gave man free will; man abused that freedom, bad things happened.

[MadduckUK]

the animals might more properly be considered collateral damage

oh thats great, were being looked down on by someone who doesnt mind a bit of collateral damage. and its not GWB!

[autopilot]

Actually, it'd be more correct to say that God didn't like the way that people were living; the animals might more properly be considered collateral damage - if one accepted the idea that they were sentient beings of equal status with humans, which I don't and in fact society in general regardless of religious doctrine does not.

So your not big on animal welfare and dont see animals as having any rights or basic feelings, fair enough.

But collateral damage? Maybe George bush is god then If god is as powerful, intelligent and creative - why did he not come up with a better plan? maybe a human only disease or something. If god is as powerful as you say, then he must have meant for the animals to die too.

No, going by basic logic, God gave man free will; man abused that freedom, bad things happened.

But god gave us the ability to do so, so it his bad not ours. If someone designs a flaw in a piece of machinery, which then goes wrong, you just blame the machine? Surely the all might god should have had better foresight. I thought he could see into the future anyway. And how do you know God gave man free will after the eden incident. It all goes back to what the bible says again i guess, which is all made up by people with their own agenda.

I think i will leave it here now. No bad feelings to my Christian friends, we will have to agree to disagree. Cheers

[nichomach]

oh thats great, were being looked down on by someone who doesnt mind a bit of collerateral damage. and its not GWB!

As I said, assuming that you consider animals equal to humans, you might consider them collateral damage, but absent that assumption, then no.

[joshwa]

(obviously I'm just speculating here: ) Perhaps if God left all the animals alive, and only saved the number in the Ark (about 8?+ guessing) then maybe there would be too many animals and they'd kill the humans leaving no-one left. Perhaps God needed everyone to start from scratch (2 animals of each kind) for population controls reasons for all animals and humans. Perhaps he wanted to completely wipe out all building etc hence flooding the place?

Re: the 7 day vs millions of years debate as originally posted. To most Christians I know, (in fact pretty much all of the ones I know), they don't really care. It's not like it's a big part of your day to day life of living and following Bible/Christian values.

If God is capable of making everything, then why couldn't he make it in 7 days? Presumably if it would take millions of years for the rocks to be made naturally, then perhaps God has the ability of producing millions of years worth of work in only 7 days.

Alternatively another passage says "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." (2 Peter 3:8) .. so perhaps God did make it in 7 days, perhaps he made it in 7000 years?

It's all down to personal interpretation at the end of the day - and after your own personal investigation, it's your choice what you believe.

[MadduckUK]

do you see that as the actions of what would be a "fair and just" god?

EDIT: aimed at nicomach obviously

[Alex]

I don't see how Genesis being literal or not doesn't matter; if it is literal then it is wrong...

The world is not 6000 years old
We evolved from a common ancestor with apes
There never was a global flood

[MadduckUK]

(obviously I'm just speculating here: ) Perhaps if God left all the animals alive, and only saved the number in the Ark (about 8?+ guessing) then maybe there would be too many animals and they'd kill the humans leaving no-one left. Perhaps God needed everyone to start from scratch (2 animals of each kind) for population controls reasons for all animals and humans. Perhaps he wanted to completely wipe out all building etc hence flooding the place?

ecosystem. its self-regulating

[nichomach]

So your not big on animal welfare and dont see animals as having any rights or basic feelings, fair enough.

Animal welfare, yes. I believe that as part of the natural world over which we've been given stewardship, we have a duty to care for animals, and where we use them for food and labour then we should ensure that such use is compassionately and humanely done. Animal rights? No.

But collateral damage? Maybe George bush is god then

I'm afraid that the phrase predates the presidencey of GWB (of whom I am not a fan) by a few decades, and the illogical leap of that last hypothesis is frankly bizarre coming from someone claiming the logical high ground.

If god is as powerful, intelligent and creative - why did he not come up with a better plan?
maybe a human only disease or something. If god is as powerful as you say, then he must have meant for the animals to die too.

Well, I don't actually know; perhaps it was his judgement that it was better to start with a clean slate.

But god gave us the ability to do so, so it his bad not ours.

So there is no such thing as a criminal, or an abuser then? By that extension of logic, no-one is responsible for anything. After all, if one has the capacity to do something, one bears no responsibility if one goes ahead and does it, right? I don't think anyone of any or no faith would regard that as anything other than an absurdity.

If someone designs a flaw in a piece of machinery, which then goes wrong, you just blame the machine?

Free will is not a flaw, it is an opportunity; one can choose to do right or wrong; to borrow your metaphor, God does not intend us to be machines, devoid of choice or freedom or opportunity. For every choice we make, however, there are consequences, some good, some bad.

Surely the all might god should have had better foresight. I thought he could see into the future anyway.

God is omniscient, but if one considers that for a moment, it can simply mean that he knows all that there is to know. If we have not made the choices that will create the future yet, then it doesn't exist to be known.

And how do you know God gave man free will after the eden incident.

Unfortunately, here's where we part company; I'm firmly in the camp that states that there are parts of the Bible which are allegorical as well as parts that are prophetic, parts that are literal and so forth.

It all goes back to what the bible says again i guess, which is all made up by people with their own agenda.

I wouldn't choose "agenda", necessarily, but there's a lot of the Bible which was written by man using the best understanding that he had at the time.

I think i will leave it here now. No bad feelings to my Christian friends, we will have to agree to disagree. Cheers

None on my part either, auto .

[nichomach]

ecosystem. its self-regulating

With respect, the idea that there is some kind of self-regulating natural order to things is simply not true; in every habitat in which we live, man exerts a huge influence over the local environmental conditions, as well as the flora and fauna. The idea that removing man and leaving the animals would lead to some sort of harmonious balance after man's lived in place for millennia is barking. Good example in microcosm; remember the Scottish island that the McCartney's bought? Had a large deer population. They forbade any culling of the deer, effectively removing man as a predator. Unfortunately, man had already removed any other naturally occurring predators since they threatened man's agricultural activities - i.e. sheep, which had been artificially introduced. Three years later, the island was a virtual desert and the deer themselves were starving.

Perhaps the net effect of removing man would have been so extreme that the animals would have suffered far more than they did as a consequence of the flood.

As I say, I don't know, however.

[MadduckUK]

Animal welfare, yes. I believe that as part of the natural world over which we've been given stewardship, we have a duty to care for animals, and where we use them for food and labour then we should ensure that such use is compassionately and humanely done.

so do you believe that mass drowning is careing, compassionate and humaine?

Well, I don't actually know; perhaps it was his judgement that it was better to start with a clean slate.

then why didnt he have a clean slate then? keeping "two of each animal" is not a clean slate

Free will is not a flaw, it is an opportunity; one can choose to do right or wrong; to borrow your metaphor, God does not intend us to be machines, devoid of choice or freedom or opportunity. For every choice we make, however, there are consequences, some good, some bad..

this was in reference to animals not humans

God is omniscient, but if one considers that for a moment, it can simply mean that he knows all that there is to know. If we have not made the choices that will create the future yet, then it doesn't exist to be known.

i really doesnt matter if god cant "see the future" its obvious what will happen when you put land animals underwater. they DIE.

I wouldn't choose "agenda", necessarily, but there's a lot of the Bible which was written by man using the best understanding that he had at the time.

yes, an understanding that if you tell people to do something and offer them a reward at the end they will jump through hoops for you. and as a bonus to the inventor, this reward only comes when your too dead to tell anyone its a sham.

[kalniel]

I think i will leave it here now. No bad feelings to my Christian friends, we will have to agree to disagree. Cheers

None on my part either, auto .

Ditto