Burn and Deputy,
You are both behaving like a pair of gibbering gibbons in an attempt to slither from the issues that I have raised.
Neither one of you has even attempted to answer the questions that I have posed, and you have both sought to elude its object by first claiming that you both do not understand the issues that I note, and then when the penny finally drops, you attempt to cloud the issue with irrelevancies and smoke-screening.
Don't spoil my fun. HS glosses over the harmonizations that resolve the apparent aporiae. Namely, that creation is "fallen".
If you read my posts carefully. you will note that I dealt with this issue when you first raised it, despite it having nothing to do with the issue at hand. I have 'glossed' over nothing. Of course if you are suggesting, as do Creationists, that at the moment of Adam's sin the balance of nature was altered, you need to duck for cover as you will be handed your head on a plate again.
I am going to humor you now, and ask how the 'creation being in bondage' allows for the statement in Romans 1:20 with regard to judgement to be rationalized? In what way is 'creation' in 'bondage' and how has the 'creation fallen.
What is so difficult about these questions that both yourself and Deputy have to slither and slide from their implication?
I ask again.
Romans 1:20 indicates that enough of the PERSON of God can be recognized from his creation in order to justify adverse judgement against those who do not see the PERSON of God in his 'creation'.
I am asking YOU what the fact that every creature from the smallest microbe to the largest mammal on this planet relies on the death of another in order to survive, i.e. survival of the fittest, the strong at the expense of the weak, tell YOU about God's PERSON? Should a person who concludes that God 'created' his visible universe in a manner that relied at its core on deceit, violence, poison and amorality be adversely judged for doing so?
Burn, you remind me of an intellectual pinball bouncing from viewpoint to viewpoint, ever changing, sometimes correct, generally not. As long as you keep moving so fast that no flies can land on your arse, you seem to feel that you have succeeded in the matter of debate. Only when you learn to hold a thought from conception to completion will your confidence in yourself will be justified.
It doesn't take a believer in teleology to point out teleological apories in a teleological system...
It also does not take a genius to appreciate that this is exactly what I have been doing, but for some reason, this fact seems to have evaded our literalist Deputy and has confused the BurningShip.
The blinkers of believers?