CRAPPING DEAD DINOSAUR MEAT....and the religious implications...

by Terry 125 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • cofty

    Some have faith in God and some in chance. - PSac

    What a strange thing to say.

  • Satanus

    It's basically the same today. Look at ourselves. We, as the dominant species are basically killing, eating or destroying everything in our path, causing another extinction, and quickly, compared to some of the other extinctions. As well, the biblegod is cast as the uber dino, the super alpha male.


  • Apognophos

    I don't know what faith in God vs. chance has to do with the dinosaurs.

    I'm actually disappointed in this thread, I thought the title was a punchline to a Flintstones joke, like, "What does Fred spend the whole night doing after eating a double-Brontosaurus Burger at the drive-in?"

  • Terry

    Rip riffed:

    You see, NATURE is what is. Not, what isn't.

    "Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we are put in this world to rise above."

    -Rose to Charlie

    (Katherine Hepburn to Humphrey Bogart)- The African Queen 1951

    A lovely notion and great dialogue.....however!

    If I look at a caterpiller and the transformation into butterfly and choose to regard them as separate natures---it is I who am mistaken! It is all in the caterpillar's DNA from the start.

    So too with humanity. Each of us seldom realizes our full potential. Yet--we cannot exceed our own specific personal DNA as to what that potential is.

    We look through the lens of Scripture and overlap God's magesterium without stopping to give strong realistic consideration to the BEFORE HUMAN CREATION scenario.

    That is the purpose of this Topic.

    BEFORE MAN and BEFORE SIN.....the highest form of life was specifically and provably centered on violent death, predation and crapping dead dinosaur meat.

    I see this as worthy of explanation by Deists and Theists who claim "death entered the world through sin"......

    Is this no a valid question?

  • james_woods

    Actually, Terry - if you think about it, the Old Testament itself makes eating the fruit of the forbidden tree a far more serious sin than eating meat, or even murder re. Cain vs. Abel.

    The notion of "meat eating = sinfulness" is a much more modern manifestation of modern-day pacifist based religion.

    Note that IIRC, while the OT says God gave the passengers of the ark "every kind of animal to eat" after the flood, it also never says that humans could NOT eat animal flesh before the flood.

  • PSacramento
    What a strange thing to say.

    No really, think about it.

    Everytime a believer plays the lottery or gambles he is putting his faith in Chance and not God.

    Look at what Terry posted:

    We are simply the result of blind chance and millions of years of struggling to survive to pass life on to the next struggling soul.

    One can believe that God did it or that "blind chance" did.

    Of course there are those that believe in both and neither so...

  • Finkelstein

    In Judao-Christian theology all animals were non aggressive herbivores prior to Adam and Eve's existence,

    which includes of course Dinosaurs, it wasn't until after the creation of sin by Adam and Eve that the animals reverted

    to being carnivorous. Which begs the question what did the fish eat ?

    By that assertion also Dinosaurs turned into carnivorous creatures after Adam and Eve were tossed from the Garden of Eden.

    Which makes discovered fossils such as Tyrannosaurus Rex only 6000 years old.

  • PSacramento

    RE: theology and carnivores:

    Genesis 1: 24-25

    24 a Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after 1 their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after 1 their kind”; and it was so. 25 God made the a beasts of the earth after 1 their kind, and the cattle after 1 their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good

    THe word for beast is "chayah" and in the rest of the bible is used to describe a carnivore numerous times also note the distinction between beast and cattle, if both were herbavores there would be no need to make a distinction.

    There is no "christian" theological doctrine about carnivores.

  • james_woods

    But that cannot be ALL Judeo-Christian theology, Finkelstein...yes, true of the VERY most fundamental - but I doubt of all Judeo-Christian thought.

    This somehow reminds me of the notion that "eating of the forbidden fruit" was a euphemism for sex...a thought that sprang up during fundamentalism, but not something stated in the Old Testament.

    Like I said before - the notion that no animal or human ate meat before the flood is not Biblical.

  • PSacramento
    Like I said before - the notion that no animal or human ate meat before the flood is not Biblical.

    James is correct.

    The circle of life is quite clear in Genesis.

Share this