Catholics are making it up.

Forbidding meat was wrong at one time and eating meat was wrong at one time (according to you). The whole meat issue is ambiguous, which makes my point that "the Bible" is not monolithic.

Oh you give me a headache with your weird illogic. Meat wasn't for us to eat until after the Flood, that's very clear according to the Bible but since then we are free to eat meat.(I tend to think of this as related to the deterioration of the whole Creation after the Flood, the decrease in longevity for instance that had preceded it, and even though plants and animals would also have suffered some loss that might reduce their nutritional value, meat would probably have offered more nutrition to hard-working humanity in the Flood-devastated world).So AFTER THAT to forbid it is wrong according to the Bible. I don't see that we are REQUIRED to eat it, but forbidding it is clearly wrong.Sigh.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Why? Where's the logic in that? The dividing line for good/evil was at the supposed "Fall", not at the Flood. Which you made up. The supposed deterioration doesn't work as a reason for decreased longevity. Methuselah lived much longer than Adam. Which you made up. As it would in the pre-Flood "Fallen" world. Which doesn't make a lick of sense.

The deterioration after the Flood ought to be obvious for pete's sake. Death and disease were already in the world since the Fall but after the Flood the whole environment changed for the worse. The decrease in longevity is clear from the Bible itself, I certainly didn't make that up, but it's possible to infer many other changes that contributed to hardship for man and beast.The vast majority of living things had died, all were starting over with reduced genetic diversity, the world must have been devastated, and though it recovered to some extent, the changed climate, ice age, soil depletion would have meant the recovery fell far short of the level of vigorous life before the Flood.Both Methuselah and Adam lived before the Flood, I was talking about after the Flood when you can track the decrease in longevity through the genealogies.Yeah meat would have offered more nutrition before the Fall or the Flood, but pay attention, the idea is that before the Flood there was adequate nutrition in plant life, but afterward with the deterioration of all forms of life more was needed.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There is no Fall in the Bible and death existed before the Garden of Eden was created which is why there was a Tree of Life.Only fools that have never honestly read the Bible believe in silliness like the Fall.

They say it's ok to eat fish 'cos they're cold blooded. Don't ask me why that's a thing for them or the bible.

Not only is it not "obvious", it's contrary to the evidence. That's both factually false and unscriptural. That's also completely made up.

I gave evidence for my side, where's yours? I believe I said it's an inference and listed some differences that support the inference. But of course it's not "unscriptural," that's a really silly idea. Scripturally, after the Fall thorns and thistles came up and growing food became difficult, so much more so one would expect would there be such problems after the Flood wiped out the whole early environment. For it to be "unscriptural" you'd have to show that scripture says the environment changed for the better. You got a verse or two for that? No, it's an inference based on Biblical references plus common sense. Such thinking is not "made up." Simple logic should tell you that, or even basic principles of language.

You must have repeated that canard dozens of times by now and been answered that many times: As just quoted, the Bible says death ENTERED by sin, which was the Fall when Adam and Eve disobeyed God, therefore death did not exist before that point so the Tree of Life had some other purpose than you are imagining, which is usually understood to sustain the life Adam and Eve had, in that case immortality, just as food sustains our mortal lives now.And of course God's barring the way to that tree after the Fall is understood to protect them against becoming immortal in their sinful condition, as Satan and his demons are. So you have no scruples about condemning the entire history of Christian theologians as fools who have never sincerely read the Bible. Obviously we should have made you Pope over all history and theology as the only one who ever understood these things.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Just to say: I've been watching it from time to time and it IS very good, I'm glad. I do have a problem reading the subtitles so I'm glad so much of it is in English. I hadn't known who the actors were before or I might not have hesitated at all as I did, but the two of them are great, Anthony Hopkins and Jonathan Pryce. And it is raising some of the important issues in Catholicism I appreciate the opportunity to think about.

No Faith, the Bible does not say that. The author of Romans asserts that but without providing any evidence of its truth. Correct. Fools and charlatans are the best description for the Christian Apologists. What is truly deplorable is those fools that buy their snake oil.

Amazing. Romans isn't the Bible according to you.

Correct Faith. Romans is only one piece that was included in most but not all Canons. There is no such thing as "The Bible" but rather a whole variety of Bibles containing different material.And the fact remains that what you posted from Romans is a simply assertion with no evidence to support it. It is just the opinion of the author of Romans and contradicted by what is actually written in Genesis.Have you ever read the Bible Faith?

Your unbelievable ego and arrogance against the history of Christian thought is absolutely breathtaking.

jar claims that Christians will be judged by what they do. Calling out the majority of professing Christians as being ignorant and killing the faith of weaker believers will likely require an explanation before God some day. And protesting that he does many little "good thing" like taking out the neighbors trash and putting shopping carts back in the corral will not carry enough weight to offset the damage he does through his pen. I am not God and cannot imagine what jars encounter with the Risen Christ will be like but i know that God respects the humble and resists the proud. All of jars fancy book learnin, critical thinking, and arrogant public commentary against other believers will likely be weighed against whatever good the gun toting Texan has done. As Christians we need to pray for him rather than belittle him...though it is tempting.