How long have carnivorous animals existed?

[spirit5er]

The worst of the fundamentalist Christians think lions used their fangs to eat grass not more than 6,000 year ago.

For Christians of slightly more caliber, i'd like to know how the bible accounts for the origin of animal death.

a - If animals have always been tearing each other apart, then this is a reflection on what God was like before human sin became your excuse to blame everything on. That's gonna cause you enormous suffering trying to reconcile this pre-sin tendency with the fanciful millenium where the animals will suddenly be nice to each other. If human sin didn't cause animals to kill each other, then killing each other was not sinful, so why should this be halted in the "new world"?

b - If animals only started tearing each other part immediately after Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, then I'll have to ask why fangs and other carnivorous attributes pre-date the most liberal interpretation of the Genesis genealogies. The genealogies give you thousands of years, but fossil fangs date back millions of years. What, a pre-Adamic race of sinners?

[John Goddard]

The worst of the fundamentalist Christians think lions used their fangs to eat grass not more than 6,000 year ago.

For Christians of slightly more caliber, i'd like to know how the bible accounts for the origin of animal death.

a - If animals have always been tearing each other apart, then this is a reflection on what God was like before human sin became your excuse to blame everything on. That's gonna cause you enormous suffering trying to reconcile this pre-sin tendency with the fanciful millenium where the animals will suddenly be nice to each other. Is human sin didn't cause animals to kill each other, then killing each other was not sinful, so why should this be halted in the "new world"?

I'm not young earth so I'll leave "b" to someone else.

Isaiah 11:6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.

Example:

Matthew 10:16 Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

[FlimFlamboyant]

The worst of the fundamentalist Christians think lions used their fangs to eat grass not more than 6,000 year ago.

If that's as bad as we get, I'd say we're doing pretty well.

[spirit5er]

I'm not young earth so I'll leave "b" to someone else.

Isaiah 11:6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.

Example:

Matthew 10:16 Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

Ok. yes, there is going to be a change in animal-relations in biblical eschatology, but this doesn't explainy WHY. If animals killing each other before Adam and Eve has nothing to do with sin, then why is God motivated to halt this carnivorous behaviour? The whole point of biblical exchatology is to give hope for a day when SIN will expire. So if carnivorous behaviour is not sinful, why does it expire? The implication seems to be that the animals will cease killing each other precisely because this activity started as a result of sin.

[spirit5er]

If that's as bad as we get, I'd say we're doing pretty well.

I'd never have thought that the idea of "fangs used for eating grass" did anything good for anybody, except insofar as laughter is the best medicine.

[John Goddard]

Ok. yes, there is going to be a change in animal-relations in biblical eschatology, but this doesn't explainy WHY. If animals killing each other before Adam and Eve has nothing to do with sin, then why is God motivated to halt this carnivorous behaviour? The whole point of biblical exchatology is to give hope for a day when SIN will expire. So if carnivorous behaviour is not sinful, why does it expire? The implication seems to be that the animals will cease killing each other precisely because this activity started as a result of sin.

Point is Isaiah 11:6 and related are symbolic of people not animals.

Death, sin, and suffering expires is in New Jerusalem, Heaven of Revelation. Animals -- if they are even there -- won't be attacking humans because humans won't be suffering anymore, not necessarily because animals are cured of any prior sin.

[Faramir]

The worst of the fundamentalist Christians think lions used their fangs to eat grass not more than 6,000 year ago.

If that's as bad as we get, I'd say we're doing pretty well.

I'd never have thought that the idea of "fangs used for eating grass" did anything good for anybody, except insofar as laughter is the best medicine.

I have to agree with FlimFlam. If the worst think a fundamentalist Christian can think is that lions used fangs to eat grass, then we're doing pretty well.

Too bad Fred Phelps and his ilk claim the title fundamentalist Christian. That is much worse IMO than a little grass eating lion.

[FlimFlamboyant]

I'd never have thought that the idea of "fangs used for eating grass" did anything good for anybody, except insofar as laughter is the best medicine.

True; I can't honestly say that knowing that our cat eats grass, despite having fangs, has enriched my life in any way.

[John Goddard]

My dogs and cats eat grass too.

[The Curtmudgeon]

Genesis 1:29-30

²⁹ And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which [is] the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. ³⁰ And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein [there is] life, [I have given] every green herb for meat: and it was so.

As for fangs and the like, the group of large bats called "flying foxes'"are called that precisely because their dentition (along with the rest of their heads) resembles that of canine species, but they are in fact fruit eaters exclusively. Bears are omnivorous, but in the wild generally eat more fruit than meat; they aren't impeded by having teeth that can also handle salmon and small animals. Dogs are known to eat grass as a health measure. Enough other examples exist that professional zoologists know you can't completely judge an animal's food source by its dentition, you have to actually observe it in action.

The (of course, if you read very much you'd already know all this) Curtmudgeon

[spirit5er]

Point is Isaiah 11:6 and related are symbolic of people not animals.

Death, sin, and suffering expires is in New Jerusalem, Heaven of Revelation. Animals -- if they are even there -- won't be attacking humans because humans won't be suffering anymore, not necessarily because animals are cured of any prior sin.

If a literal cat in heaven, sees a literal mouse in heaven, will the cat view that mouse as a potential food source?

In other words, where did animals ever first get the idea that they should eat each other? Did this desire start when Adam and Eve sinned, or what?

[spirit5er]

I have to agree with FlimFlam. If the worst think a fundamentalist Christian can think is that lions used fangs to eat grass, then we're doing pretty well.

Too bad Fred Phelps and his ilk claim the title fundamentalist Christian. That is much worse IMO than a little grass eating lion.

If you ever thought fangs were for eating grass, that's a pretty good indication you've got far worse problems than ineptness at paleontology.

Obviously I was talking about the worst of the fundamentalist Christians who involve themselves in the debate on why animals kill each other.

Surely you assume that as a skeptic, I can cite plenty of instances where Christians have done far worse than misinterpret animals?

Surely you don't think that my best criticism of Christianity is how Christians misinterpret carnivorism?

[spirit5er]

True; I can't honestly say that knowing that our cat eats grass, despite having fangs, has enriched my life in any way.

Deer eat grass too, without fangs.

Apparantly, the purpose in having fangs has nothing to do with grass and everything to do with killing other animals in a way that makes it possible to eat them.

Maybe your life could be enriched by asking yourself why God wanted animals to cause each other to suffer so gruesomely. Maybe you'll discover God ain't perfect, and has grown desensitized to the problems that he himself started by requiring imperfect creatures to be perfect. A perfect person does not have freewill, a perfect person has a will 100% prejudiced in favor of God at all times. Sorry, but you ain't gonna be telling me Adam and Eve were created perfect, anytime soon.

Then again, maybe asking yourself why God wants animals to rip each other apart, won't enrich your life.

Either way, if God intended animals to rip each other apart even before sin, this testifies to his nature just as much as any other desire he might have had before sin. A loving God that always wanted to view acts of torture and death that cause unbearable suffering to creatures, eh?

If animals weren't ripping each other apart until Adam and Eve sinned, this viewpoint is contradicted by the very old carnivorous fossils that date earlier than the Genesis genealogies.

What, did Satan plant those fossils and magically make them appear millions of years old, so God could try the faith of theistic evolutionists? Stranger things haven't happened.

In other words, there are problems for Christians no matter how they answer the carnivore issue.

[spirit5er]

Genesis 1:29-30

²⁹ And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which [is] the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. ³⁰ And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein [there is] life, [I have given] every green herb for meat: and it was so.

As for fangs and the like, the group of large bats called "flying foxes'"are called that precisely because their dentition (along with the rest of their heads) resembles that of canine species, but they are in fact fruit eaters exclusively. Bears are omnivorous, but in the wild generally eat more fruit than meat; they aren't impeded by having teeth that can also handle salmon and small animals. Dogs are known to eat grass as a health measure. Enough other examples exist that professional zoologists know you can't completely judge an animal's food source by its dentition, you have to actually observe it in action.

The (of course, if you read very much you'd already know all this) Curtmudgeon

Limit your cat's food to vegetables that grow naturally only, and let me know when you finally get tired of torturing kitty and contradicting God's intended purposes just to win an internet debate. Go look up any site on cat nutrition if you think cats can be healthy as vegetarians. They REQUIRE meat. I never said fanged creatures couldn't or didn't eat non-meat food. I simply said that the fangs certainly do imply tearing of flesh, since other types of teeth are perfectly suited to eating foilage. Many other creatures eat foilage and fruit without fangs, so fangs are most likely present to assist in tearing food that is harder to tear, like the bodys of other animals.

And no bat is wholly herbivore, all of them eat insects, and most are 0mnivores.

[Faramir]

If you ever thought fangs were for eating grass, that's a pretty good indication you've got far worse problems than ineptness at paleontology.

Obviously I was talking about the worst of the fundamentalist Christians who involve themselves in the debate on why animals kill each other.

Surely you assume that as a skeptic, I can cite plenty of instances where Christians have done far worse than misinterpret animals?

Surely you don't think that my best criticism of Christianity is how Christians misinterpret carnivorism?

I was just going by your words in the OP and your response to FlimFlam...

...thanks for the clarification.