3 ms·

> The bible is a big, heterogeneous book, you can find a bit of everything in it Concerning the animal question, the Bible is clear and consistent: mankind was

> The bible is a big, heterogeneous book, you can find a bit of everything in it Concerning the animal question, the Bible is clear and consistent: mankind was supposed to faithfully steward God's creation and all that lives in it. Man has utterly failed, which is why you can't even go in the woods without getting 20 ticks, and practically every plant you find is invasive and not good for food. The present Earth is falling apart, due to man's imperfect sin nature. The confusion in this discussion arises from a conflation of mainstream Republican thought with what the Bible actually says. Edit: "God destroys those who destroy the earth." ~ Revelation 11:18. We see a consistent message from the beginning of the Bible (Genesis) to the end.

zasdffaa 4y ago
I won't judge you or your comment but I have to say as a rationalist(?) and atheist, it seems very odd to suggest the natural world would be a kind place if we were less destructive to it. By kind I mean non-infectious, non-aggressive, non-carnivorous etc. (as I read you anyway) Another way, I don't see that the lion would lie down with the lamb in any circumstances. I don't dispute that we're destroying the world, just questioning that in the absence of said destruction we would be in an eden where they, lion and lamb, would. Curious for your response, if any.
- marcinreal 4y ago
  The Bible does say we were supposed to live in an idyllic garden, Eden, before Adam's first sin. All the animals were tame, and will be tame again. Now I tend to take the Bible literally, but the important thing is that this story indicates how desperately fallen we are. It points to our need for a savior, Jesus -- who is God, because only God could get the job done.
  - zasdffaa 4y ago
    We couldn't be further apart in many ways, but in being 'fallen' from what we could have been... yeah, we're strangely indistinguishable. Thanks for your reply, it's appreciated.

zasdffaa 4y ago

I won't judge you or your comment but I have to say as a rationalist(?) and atheist, it seems very odd to suggest the natural world would be a kind place if we were less destructive to it. By kind I mean non-infectious, non-aggressive, non-carnivorous etc. (as I read you anyway) Another way, I don't see that the lion would lie down with the lamb in any circumstances. I don't dispute that we're destroying the world, just questioning that in the absence of said destruction we would be in an eden where they, lion and lamb, would. Curious for your response, if any.

marcinreal 4y ago
The Bible does say we were supposed to live in an idyllic garden, Eden, before Adam's first sin. All the animals were tame, and will be tame again. Now I tend to take the Bible literally, but the important thing is that this story indicates how desperately fallen we are. It points to our need for a savior, Jesus -- who is God, because only God could get the job done.
- zasdffaa 4y ago
  We couldn't be further apart in many ways, but in being 'fallen' from what we could have been... yeah, we're strangely indistinguishable. Thanks for your reply, it's appreciated.