On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 12:55:45 +0100 "Iain Strachan"
<igd.strachan@gmail.com> writes:
>I guess it does. I'm just working through these ideas myself.
>I find the "literal" interpretation to be something that is way too hard
to stomach; namely that everything was perfect and there was no death and
suffering. Then Adam & Eve go and eat a piece of fruit that they were
told not to. As a result God puts the most appalling curse on the whole
of creation, not just Adam and his progeny, and animals start eating each
other and inflicting suffering on each other. I have sympathy with
Darwin, who said:
>I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have
designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their
feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars
>
Iain (and Merv),
This strikes me as an "I'm smarter than God" approach based on "what I
don't like is bad and should never be." It also involves an illegitimate
transference, assuming that the caterpillar has the same feeling as
humans do. A little thought, rather than emotional reaction, should
quickly demonstrate that a world with life but without death is an
impossibility, unless it is strictly static.
On the other hand, I might argue in a form parallel to Darwin's that I
find offal offensive, so there should not be any. But it is a necessary
consequence of the nutrition of mammals, so a good God would not have
allowed any in his creation. So our existence has just disproved the
goodness of God, if not his very existence.
It's easy to "fix" something if everything else can be ignored, a human
specialty wonderfully practiced by Vernon and other YECs.
Dave
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Sep 1 17:49:11 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Sep 01 2006 - 17:49:11 EDT