The Lion Shall Lie Down with the Lamb
| January 18, 2007 | Posted by Dave S. under Just For Fun, Off Topic, Philosophy, Religion |
Over at ATBC one of our brightest detractors Altabin (banned here, natch, because he’s just too smart for us) suggested an experiment. He misquoted the bible of course. It’s wolf and lamb or lion and calf. But we get his drift.
Quote
53. Were all the animals friendly to man before the Flood? Idea: raise several baby animals like snake and mouse together to see if they remain friends as they are older.That one may not have such a happy ending. Next time try it with a lion and a lamb.
As it just so happens…
That’s my newest kitty, Liam, about 3 months old and 5 pounds at the top and Kiera, one of my shepherds, 13 months old and 65 pounds at the bottom. The photo was taken this week. Note that Liam is on his back with his belly exposed. In a dog that’s a submissive posture but in a cat it means “I feel safe here with you”.
Not exactly a wolf and a lamb but not that much different either.
45 Responses to The Lion Shall Lie Down with the Lamb
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Ekstasis,
Well that would explain the child playing over the hole of the cobra. The cobra will be extinct!
I just watched that short of the very young atheist waxing poetic on ID, evolution, chistanity et al, and I was amazed that the poor fellow made no sense at all. Thosr NDE folks need to train their yungin’s a little better.{1st time post]
Jehu,
Great point. If not extinct, maybe it will just evolve into a spinach and broccoli loving vegan. It certainly will adapt to giving hugs quite effectively. Someone else can test that particular random mutation, thank you.
sagebrush gardener,
The non-violence was before the fall (you know, the apple and the wily serpent scene), not the flood. The skin of the animal that was sacrificed to make Adam and Eve’s first wardrobe foreshadows the death of Christ to shield our less-than-perfect selves in the presence of the all-consuming gaze of God. The flood and the lone ark foreshadows our escape from chaos,destructive patterns, and corrupted institutions, you know, such as Darwinian evolution theory and the Materialist mindset!!
Carnivorous animals before the flood wouldn’t contradict the biblical teaching. Most literal creationists, like myself, would argue that carnivores came after Adam sinned. So, from Adam’s sin to the flood we could reason for the emergence (rapid even) of killer carnivores.
this is a pretty weak opinion in my view. Did the lion have sharp teeth to rip apart meat, but only ate vegetables? Or, did he instantly evolve those teeth and other aparatus after the Fall? If you believe that, then you have more faith in evolution that most NDEs
Spiders don’t have the anatomy to eat plants as far as I know. Did they somehow lose that after the fall, and only go after blood?
Also, did polar bears live in warm climates with all that fur since most young earth creationist believe the Earth’s climate was warm. Did the fur appear after the flood?
I think there are a tremendous amount of difficulties with the YEC, world-wide flood, and no carnivores before the Fall viewpoint. I think Bill’s theodicy paper addresses some of it.
Does this dog and cat picture mean the Millennium has arrived?
IMHO it’s pretty clear that the Isaiah passages are metaphorical for the peace that will come to human society when Christ returns and the Kingdom of God is fully arrived. They have nothing to do with actual wolves, lambs, goats and little children playing together nicely. Unfortunately YECs and pre-trib, pre-millennialists have made this into a sort of proof text for their position.
Either way, the proposed test is silly. Even if the YEC / pre-tribbers are right about the Isaiah passages, we’re not living in the millennial kingdom, unless we all missed something important.
bFast this is weird for a reason. The bait was laid and the mice walked into the trap. Evolutionist say that ID is creationism, and if you read all the posts here expect yours then this is borne out. I like you believed that Id was trying to be scientist based. If flood theory is encompassed by ID then not only has it left science behind it has also left it’s agnostic principles behind to.
ajl, try this article for your statement on polar bears…
http://www.answersingenesis.or.....0bears.asp
kengee,
I think the amount of creationism talked of on this site simply speaks of the ID’ers willingness to listen to us; unlike the evolutionists who constantly bash christians as idiots
Well just because many IDists tend to be creationists doesn’t mean it isn’t scientific imo.
It’s inherently agnostic, but ID has theological implications – thus many supporters tend to fit the Christian creationist stereotype.
Afterall, the problem of evil otherwise known as the argument from poor design, is a philosopical question, and is pretty irrelevant to ID but is relevant to “Christian theory”.
kengee:
Evolutionist say that ID is creationism, and if you read all the posts here expect yours then this is borne out.
I would say that is a warped inference. And why is that the only people who make that warped inference are the same people who know the least about either ID or Creation?
Obviously you missed the point of “the Flood” in this thread and instead chose to twist it into something you were already biased towards.
Here is what AiG, a leading Creationist organization has to say:
This is a free world and people can reference anything they want in a conversation.
And as far as refuting the Flood, what was used as a reference to check against?
Kangee, “If you read all the posts here expect yours then this is borne out.”
Kangee, I wholeheartedly agree with you on this one. I will say, in defence of the ID community, that this is a definitely an exception thread.
Kengee,
My guess is that many creationists feel comfortable here and some like myself feel the constant reference to religion and the bible undermines ID. There is nothing in ID that supports any particular religion especially Christianity. In fact you could make the point that ID undermines traditional Christianity. But given that, the creationists are generally very polite and sincere and often very well informed and perceptive and I have learned a lot from some of them as well as learning a lot from those who espouse Darwinism.
You should also know that there are several here like myself that think ID is the best explanation for many of the major changes in life forms over the last 3.5 billion years and has definitely nothing to do with the bible. And are willing to be convinced otherwise if persuasive evidence is presented or there are dramatic new finds in the fossil record. But as of now neither exists.
Jerry, “There is nothing in ID that supports any particular religion especially Christianity.”
As a Christian, I would definitely agree with you that ID is a solidly uncomfortable fit with Christianity.
Years ago I tried on YEC. I found it to be an intolerable fit with the evidence. I then tried on OEC a la Hugh Ross. This was a bit better. However, the evidence for man being far older than 20,000 years is rather excellent, evidence for a flood that reduced the population of man to 7 is non-existant (though evidence of a global flood that devistated human populations is good.) Other issues, such as the phenomenon of death and struggle, do not support a simple Biblical interpretation.
I must currently live with significant conflict between my faith and my science. The result of this conflict is that I am abandoning any literal interpretation of the pre-Abrahamic Scriptures.
Though ID is clearly compatible with a God hypothesis (though it doesn’t compell a God hypothesis) the God that is compatible with ID seems quite different than the God described in the first chapters of Genesis.
bfast,
My comment has more to do with the traditional Christian theology of the omnificent God and the contradiction with a “tinkering” designer of life who had to manipulate nucleotides on many occasions for the last 3.5 billion years.
However, the God of the bible did intervene a lot in man’s affairs so in this sense He can be seen as “tinkering” and prayer is asking for “tinkering” on many occasions.
One obvious way around the God who has to tinker is One who set up a process that would unfold into life’s diversity when He created life in the first place. But what that process is if it does exist is still a mystery. Many speculate here but like the materialists’ beliefs it is mainly speculation.
Like nearly every type of science I find ID fun but I do not think it will answer any real questions about life’s origin and design and certainly not anything about theology. The most fun is pointing out to the materialists that they are full of something they accuse their detractors of having.
bFast, Jerry thanks for your honesty I’ve got nothing but respect for people looking for answers / truth. It’s people who think they found it I’m worried about. If ID is going to stand up it has to do it on it’s own two feet it has to do it a scientific merit. This tread does not help.