Can I introduce another "creation"? I'm itching. This one already has a YWHW creationist slant to help you out Sab. Creation for a "fallen world".
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n3/designed-kill
The wonders of God's creation - Example 1, the tsetse fly
by jambon1 319 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
cantleave
Ha Ha Knowsnothing, that was one of the most comical articles I have read in a long time. I really hope the stupid don't breed!
-
still thinking
Knowsnothing...I had to do all sorts of mind gynmastics reading that...this quote really summed up his theory for me though...
The Bible gave me a whole new perspective on snakes. As a Christian and a creationist, I could now credit the sovereign Creator and Designer, who “made all things for himself . . . even the wicked for the day of evil” ( Proverbs 16:4 ).
What does that really say about the designer if there is one?
-
Knowsnothing
Exactly Still Thinking. I had never even read that text before that. That must be one of the texts that tryed to get covered up.....
The theist argument must deal with God as Creator of all.
1.) God is Creator.
2.) All things found in nature are made by him, directly or indirectly, including predatory and parasitic animals.
3.) God created predation/parasitism.
We rationalists argue:
1.) Theists posit God is love.
2.) Predation/parasitism is from God and is cruel.
3.) Therefore, God is not love.
I think I'm moving away from deism. Even that position seems untenable.
-
cyberjesus
attempts of persuading Sab are useless. He knows what he knows and everything else is not allowed to disturbe his knowledge.
-
TD
Sab:
I was not trying to describe a paradox.
Perhaps not, but that is exactly what you did.
I was stating that at first glance, mosquitos don't seem to have a purpose other than biting humans.
--That is a statement of paradox.
..But upon further examination we find that their larva keep fish populations going. So anyone dependent on the fish need the mosquitoes.
--And that is an attempt to resolve the paradox. Facially, mosquitoes don't seem to have a purpose, [that does not stand in opposition to most Western notions of God] but in reality they actually do.
Paradoxes don't make for good debate.
Paradoxes don't make good arguments, but untangling them makes for very good debate.
What enabled it was the will to live which does come from God.
I think you might be too beleaguered on this thread, my friend. Without going off on tangents like 'tapeworm rights,' stop and think about the implications of a Diety giving a 'will to live' to a Protozoan that kills people during the natural course of its reproductive cycle.
-
cyberjesus
the only reason I keep coming to this thread is cuz I learn new words ;-)
-
sabastious
That is a statement of paradox.
The definition of a paradox is a paradox. They are unexplained, so when we find an explanation for one it doesn't cease being a paradox so much as it never was a paradox to start off with (which is a paradox). A contradicton is only a contradiction until explained otherwise. Belief in God implies that there are base paradoxes that are impossible to fully explain from the human vantage point. We know foreverness exists, but we cannot explain how it exists. The very fact that foreverness exists is a paradox from our perspective. That doesn't mean we shouldn't set out to explain foreverness, we just need to know that we don't have a head start.
And that is an attempt to resolve the paradox. Facially, mosquitoes don't seem to have a purpose, [that does not stand in opposition to most Western notions of God] but in reality they actually do.
Once the paradox is resolved it wasn't really a paradox to start off with. Sure it was one by definition for a period of time, but as the facts presented themselves the contradiction was resolved. Mosquitos have a purpose, therefore as does their bites on human flesh. Humans will have to weigh the risks and rewards of the bites and choose to take action against the species or not. Destroying them all would affect the fish population with negative effects on life.
Bringing up the negatives of life is not proof of non existence of a caring creator. Especially if there is an afterlife which solves many ethical dilemmas.
I think you might be too beleaguered on this thread, my friend. Without going off on tangents like 'tapeworm rights,' stop and think about the implications of a Diety giving a 'will to live' to a Protozoan that kills people during the natural course of its reproductive cycle.
I am flattered you believe my ideas to be a challenge in any light. Not for you, but for anyone. The will to live is not a page in some schematic. It could be a set of laws like physics or biology. Anyone who believes the spark of life, what makes us more than the sum of our parts, is explainable by using scientific methodology is going to run into problems. Laurence Gonzales wrote a facinating book on survival in regards to humans and tragic disasters like people lost out in the woods or surivers of a plane crash. He notes the patterns of survival. Some have it and some don't. God is in everything competent. Using death for life can be competent, but it will come with resistance. Sometimes we are the one that takes the risk and sometimes we are the resistance to the risk taker. Life finds a way.
Deep Survival: Who Lives, Who Dies, and Why
After her plane crashes, a seventeen-year-old girl spends eleven days walking through the Peruvian jungle. Against all odds, with no food, shelter, or equipment, she gets out. A better-equipped group of adult survivors of the same crash sits down and dies. What makes the difference? Examining such stories of miraculous endurance and tragic death--how people get into trouble and how they get out again (or not)--Deep Survival takes us from the tops of snowy mountains and the depths of oceans to the workings of the brain that control our behavior. Through close analysis of case studies, Laurence Gonzales describes the "stages of survival" and reveals the essence of a survivor--truths that apply not only to surviving in the wild but also to surviving life-threatening illness, relationships, the death of a loved one, running a business during uncertain times, even war.Fascinating for any reader, and absolutely essential for anyone who takes a hike in the woods, this book will change the way we understand ourselves and the great outdoorsWhat's the difference? The will to live makes it, which is connected to our creator.
-Sab
-
sabastious
Can I introduce another "creation"? I'm itching. This one already has a YWHW creationist slant to help you out Sab. Creation for a "fallen world".
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n3/designed-kill
Literalist drivel. The snake is perfect allegory for the devil because of many biological factors. The ancient world paid close attention to the animal world and found connections between them and human behvavior. This was mostly kept secret or discovered unknowingly. This is because of evolution. Junk DNA ties us to all types of animals, so naturally we are going to see similarities in mysterious ways. In the ancient world this was articulated through allegory and anthropomorphization.
The snake slowly digests it's prey after poisoning it with venom administered through razor sharp fangs. The ancient world took keen note of this and put it into their writings. What the serpent did to Adam and Eve and their children was slowly digest them for thousands of years until YHWH put a stop to it and created the world of Noah.
-Sab
-
sabastious
attempts of persuading Sab are useless. He knows what he knows and everything else is not allowed to disturbe his knowledge.
I could talk about personal revelation, but it would just be an endless loop. I could create an elaborate lie like Joseph Smith did based on his experiences, but now his con artistry is used to discredit the Latter Day Saint's message. It's best to lean on logic and reason rather than booga booga.
-Sab