CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Society › Religion › Elvis Presley

Elvis Presley

Started by Keith Martinez77 · · 👁 11 views · 831 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants Keith Martinez77Peter Petersonferalrangerelectricdriver33Bryan King3Lisa Jackson7Chris Myersredbear12John Robinson9Daniel Chase13wearyowl29Jack Williams6rapidmason1rowdyeagle15bluemason3Scott Nguyen5Ryan Sanchez20Thomas Brooks6Henry Lopez10Brian Cruz63Brian Gray5northernscout9Chloe Rodriguez5Brenda Thompson21 …
rowdyeagle15 rowdyeagle15 Newcomer
8 messages
joined Jan 2019
#21 ·
Jesus is God, though if you ask me, splitting Him into the Holy Trinity feels like unnecessary bookkeeping. I used to believe that God simply manifested Himself directly through Jesus Christ.

Now, don't get me wrong—God performs miracles constantly—but people have this habit of turning religion into cheap kitsch. They weaponize faith just to pickpocket the Almighty. Even Elvis Presley doesn't strike me as a divine incarnation; he looks more like a religious analyst who specialized in stealing hearts.
Daniel Chase13 Daniel Chase13 Regular
340 messages
joined Oct 2016
#22 ·
feralranger said:"University professors" who actually subscribe to the whole "Flat Earth" theory?
I have to wonder, which institutions are we even talking about here?

Wait, who brought up the flat Earth theory or university professors in the first place? Where did you get that from?
feralranger feralranger Regular
323 messages
joined Oct 2012
#23 ·
Daniel Chase13 said:Wait, who brought up the flat Earth theory or university professors in the first place? Where did you get that from?

Well, we happen to be discussing Elvis Presley here, and since he’s busy peddling such utter nonsense, I can't help but wonder why you felt the need to drag academics into the conversation.
Daniel Chase13 Daniel Chase13 Regular
340 messages
joined Oct 2016
#24 ·
feralranger said:Well, we happen to be discussing Elvis Presley here, and since he’s busy peddling such utter nonsense, I can't help but wonder why you felt the need to drag academics into the conversation.

Come on now, please—take a closer look at the specific points I made regarding those college professors.
feralranger feralranger Regular
323 messages
joined Oct 2012
#25 ·
Daniel Chase13 said:Come on now, please—take a closer look at the specific points I made regarding those college professors.

Oh, right—the whole idea that the Earth is somehow only 6,000 years old. Honestly, that’s just as absurd as believing the world is flat. At least Elvis Presley stays consistent in his relentless insistence on interpreting the Bible literally, regardless of how bizarre the conclusions might be.
Daniel Chase13 Daniel Chase13 Regular
340 messages
joined Oct 2016
#26 ·
feralranger said:Oh, right—the whole idea that the Earth is somehow only 6,000 years old. Honestly, that’s just as absurd as believing the world is flat. At least Elvis Presley stays consistent in his relentless insistence on interpreting the Bible literally, regardless of how bizarre the conclusions might be.

Actually, Benedict XVI. didn't see this as "bizarre" at all. In fact, he offered his official blessing to the idea—something released via an official Vatican document—that many Catholic PhD scientists (we’re talking geologists, biologists, biophysicists, physicists, and chemists, as well as theologians and philosophers) openly lecture on the literal creation of the universe. They argue that God created the first pair, Adam and Eve, in six literal days roughly 6,000 years ago, and that fossil-bearing sedimentary rocks were actually formed rapidly during a massive, global catastrophic flood about 4,500 years ago.
Keith Martinez77 Keith Martinez77 NewcomerOP
4 messages
joined Jan 2019
#27 ·
rowdyeagle15 said:Jesus is God, though if you ask me, splitting Him into the Holy Trinity feels like unnecessary bookkeeping. I used to believe that God simply manifested Himself directly through Jesus Christ.

Now, don't get me wrong—God performs miracles constantly—but people have this habit of turning religion into cheap kitsch. They weaponize faith just to pickpocket the Almighty. Even Elvis Presley doesn't strike me as a divine incarnation; he looks more like a religious analyst who specialized in stealing hearts.

Great post.
Keith Martinez77 Keith Martinez77 NewcomerOP
4 messages
joined Jan 2019
#28 ·
Daniel Chase13 said:Actually, Benedict XVI. didn't see this as "bizarre" at all. In fact, he offered his official blessing to the idea—something released via an official Vatican document—that many Catholic PhD scientists (we’re talking geologists, biologists, biophysicists, physicists, and chemists, as well as theologians and philosophers) openly lecture on the literal creation of the universe. They argue that God created the first pair, Adam and Eve, in six literal days roughly 6,000 years ago, and that fossil-bearing sedimentary rocks were actually formed rapidly during a massive, global catastrophic flood about 4,500 years ago.

Here’s a lecture on the age of Earth. He thinks Earth is 6,000 years old, but he doesn't think it's a flat disc, just a globe.

The calm and polite Milton from his younger days. (Age of Earth)
🙂



The cynical Milton everyone knows. (Is Earth a flat disc?)



Duspara reminds me a bit of Milton, though this guy talks about Earth being a flat disc while the other one rambles about everything under the sun...😁
electricdriver33 electricdriver33 Active Member
80 messages
joined Mar 2023
#29 ·
Keith Martinez77 said:Here’s a lecture on the age of Earth. He thinks Earth is 6,000 years old, but he doesn't think it's a flat disc, just a globe.

The calm and polite Milton from his younger days. (Age of Earth)
🙂



The cynical Milton everyone knows. (Is Earth a flat disc?)



Duspara reminds me a bit of Milton, though this guy talks about Earth being a flat disc while the other one rambles about everything under the sun...😁

According to Milton, Alatnicar and Elvis Presley come from those typical atheist schools of thought. 🤣
feralranger feralranger Regular
323 messages
joined Oct 2012
#30 ·
Daniel Chase13 said:Actually, Benedict XVI. didn't see this as "bizarre" at all. In fact, he offered his official blessing to the idea—something released via an official Vatican document—that many Catholic PhD scientists (we’re talking geologists, biologists, biophysicists, physicists, and chemists, as well as theologians and philosophers) openly lecture on the literal creation of the universe. They argue that God created the first pair, Adam and Eve, in six literal days roughly 6,000 years ago, and that fossil-bearing sedimentary rocks were actually formed rapidly during a massive, global catastrophic flood about 4,500 years ago.

I suppose nothing actually prevents a Pope from blessing any old charlatan, so why shouldn't he bless someone like Elvis Presley or Milton Petrović, or whoever else claims to possess such "knowledge"? The Church doesn't deny science or evolution; even the Pope’s blessing included serious scientists who study evolution.

Well, I suppose the agitated atheists can all rejoice at having various Elvis Presleys to point to, since individuals like that serve as perfect fuel for ridiculing the Church...
As for me, I honestly don't know what else to say other than this is—quite frankly—bizarre.
Daniel Chase13 Daniel Chase13 Regular
340 messages
joined Oct 2016
#31 ·
feralranger said:I suppose nothing actually prevents a Pope from blessing any old charlatan, so why shouldn't he bless someone like Elvis Presley or Milton Petrović, or whoever else claims to possess such "knowledge"? The Church doesn't deny science or evolution; even the Pope’s blessing included serious scientists who study evolution.

Well, I suppose the agitated atheists can all rejoice at having various Elvis Presleys to point to, since individuals like that serve as perfect fuel for ridiculing the Church...
As for me, I honestly don't know what else to say other than this is—quite frankly—bizarre.

It wasn't bizarre at all for Benedict XVI.; he gave his official blessing to Catholic scientists and creationist theologians after personally reviewing their presentations, which had been provided to him in print beforehand (as noted in the Vatican's own correspondence). So, the Pope knew exactly what was being discussed at that conference—the literal six days of Creation, an Earth that is less than 10,000 years old, and a Great Flood occurring roughly 4,500 to 5,000 years ago.

Regarding what the Catholic Church actually recognizes, a very influential young priest, Damir Stojić, wrote about the pseudoscience of macro-evolution on August 11, 2016, stating: "I kindly ask you to provide just one piece of evidence for so-called macro-evolution (the change from one species to another); I am not referring to micro-evolution (changes within a single species). The Church, much like the broader scientific community, accepts micro-evolution. The problem is that children in school are being forced to accept so-called macro-evolution theory without a shred of scientific proof. That's why pseudo-scientists, driven by ideology, fake evidence to reduce humans to apes. Besides, they've only just uncovered the scientific farce mentioned in this article. Of course, this pseudoscience was very useful to the Nazis, the Communists, and today's secularists. If man is just an ape, then you can do whatever you want to him."

The biblical "kind" that Damir Stojić is actually referring to corresponds to the level of "family" in our modern biological classification, not the level of a biological species. Biological species are merely varieties within the fixed, insurmountable boundaries established by the biblical kind—the family. Micro-evolution—viewed as extremely limited mechanisms of highly restricted variability within God's creations—is a fundamental component of Young Earth Creationism.
bluemason3 bluemason3 Veteran
1.1K messages
joined Jun 2016
#32 ·
feralranger said:I suppose nothing actually prevents a Pope from blessing any old charlatan, so why shouldn't he bless someone like Elvis Presley or Milton Petrović, or whoever else claims to possess such "knowledge"? The Church doesn't deny science or evolution; even the Pope’s blessing included serious scientists who study evolution.

Well, I suppose the agitated atheists can all rejoice at having various Elvis Presleys to point to, since individuals like that serve as perfect fuel for ridiculing the Church...
As for me, I honestly don't know what else to say other than this is—quite frankly—bizarre.

On the other hand, setting aside the aliens for a moment, young creationists seem more internally consistent to me than Christian evolutionists. I posted about this earlier in the Catholic Q&A section, and honestly, the answers didn't impress me much. Not to be biased, but who am I to judge? They clearly see things differently.

To be honest, I find it pretty tough to connect the dots between the exclusively human (though not animal) souls of Adam and Eve—as they are dogmatically defined and therefore unchangeable—and Original Sin, alongside evolution. It feels like you have to stretch rationalizations quite far to bridge that cognitive dissonance. With creationists, the alignment between their religious myth and theological foundations seems much clearer.

Of course, that approach completely ignores scientific facts and common sense, which would shrink and radicalize the flock. So, it’s in everyone's interest to play a little dumb. But even so, the logic of Christian evolutionism still feels "internally" strained if we are talking about full-blown scientific evolution rather than some repackaged version with a hidden agenda.
feralranger feralranger Regular
323 messages
joined Oct 2012
#33 ·
Daniel Chase13 said:It wasn't bizarre at all for Benedict XVI.; he gave his official blessing to Catholic scientists and creationist theologians after personally reviewing their presentations, which had been provided to him in print beforehand (as noted in the Vatican's own correspondence). So, the Pope knew exactly what was being discussed at that conference—the literal six days of Creation, an Earth that is less than 10,000 years old, and a Great Flood occurring roughly 4,500 to 5,000 years ago.

Regarding what the Catholic Church actually recognizes, a very influential young priest, Damir Stojić, wrote about the pseudoscience of macro-evolution on August 11, 2016, stating: "I kindly ask you to provide just one piece of evidence for so-called macro-evolution (the change from one species to another); I am not referring to micro-evolution (changes within a single species). The Church, much like the broader scientific community, accepts micro-evolution. The problem is that children in school are being forced to accept so-called macro-evolution theory without a shred of scientific proof. That's why pseudo-scientists, driven by ideology, fake evidence to reduce humans to apes. Besides, they've only just uncovered the scientific farce mentioned in this article. Of course, this pseudoscience was very useful to the Nazis, the Communists, and today's secularists. If man is just an ape, then you can do whatever you want to him."

The biblical "kind" that Damir Stojić is actually referring to corresponds to the level of "family" in our modern biological classification, not the level of a biological species. Biological species are merely varieties within the fixed, insurmountable boundaries established by the biblical kind—the family. Micro-evolution—viewed as extremely limited mechanisms of highly restricted variability within God's creations—is a fundamental component of Young Earth Creationism.

No one is claiming that man equals an ape, just as no one claims a giraffe equals an antelope or anything of the sort; rather, according to evolutionary theory, we are talking about the existence of common biological ancestors.

Daniel Chase13 said:It wasn't bizarre at all for Benedict XVI.; he gave his official blessing to Catholic scientists and creationist theologians after personally reviewing their presentations, which had been provided to him in print beforehand (as noted in the Vatican's own correspondence). So, the Pope knew exactly what was being discussed at that conference—the literal six days of Creation, an Earth that is less than 10,000 years old, and a Great Flood occurring roughly 4,500 to 5,000 years ago.

Regarding what the Catholic Church actually recognizes, a very influential young priest, Damir Stojić, wrote about the pseudoscience of macro-evolution on August 11, 2016, stating: "I kindly ask you to provide just one piece of evidence for so-called macro-evolution (the change from one species to another); I am not referring to micro-evolution (changes within a single species). The Church, much like the broader scientific community, accepts micro-evolution. The problem is that children in school are being forced to accept so-called macro-evolution theory without a shred of scientific proof. That's why pseudo-scientists, driven by ideology, fake evidence to reduce humans to apes. Besides, they've only just uncovered the scientific farce mentioned in this article. Of course, this pseudoscience was very useful to the Nazis, the Communists, and today's secularists. If man is just an ape, then you can do whatever you want to him."

The biblical "kind" that Damir Stojić is actually referring to corresponds to the level of "family" in our modern biological classification, not the level of a biological species. Biological species are merely varieties within the fixed, insurmountable boundaries established by the biblical kind—the family. Micro-evolution—viewed as extremely limited mechanisms of highly restricted variability within God's creations—is a fundamental component of Young Earth Creationism.

No matter how you slice it, a literal interpretation of the Bible—such as believing the Earth is only 6,000 years old or that it is a flat plane—is equally bizarre and runs contrary to obvious reality. Even the Church's dispute with Galileo wasn't about whether the Earth was round (it was clearly understood even then that it was), but rather focused on whether it moved; back then, he couldn't provide sufficiently robust evidence, though he logically connected everything, and it has long been indisputable to any educated person that Galileo was right. As far as I know (unless I am mistaken?), Pope Francis has offered an apology in the spirit of Jesus' teachings for the Church's crimes—including those against scientists.
feralranger feralranger Regular
323 messages
joined Oct 2012
#34 ·
bluemason3 said:On the other hand, setting aside the aliens for a moment, young creationists seem more internally consistent to me than Christian evolutionists. I posted about this earlier in the Catholic Q&A section, and honestly, the answers didn't impress me much. Not to be biased, but who am I to judge? They clearly see things differently.

To be honest, I find it pretty tough to connect the dots between the exclusively human (though not animal) souls of Adam and Eve—as they are dogmatically defined and therefore unchangeable—and Original Sin, alongside evolution. It feels like you have to stretch rationalizations quite far to bridge that cognitive dissonance. With creationists, the alignment between their religious myth and theological foundations seems much clearer.

Of course, that approach completely ignores scientific facts and common sense, which would shrink and radicalize the flock. So, it’s in everyone's interest to play a little dumb. But even so, the logic of Christian evolutionism still feels "internally" strained if we are talking about full-blown scientific evolution rather than some repackaged version with a hidden agenda.

Not necessarily, because believing in a literal interpretation of the Bible where the Earth is a flat disc only about 6,000 years old is patently bizarre.

Regarding evolution, one could maintain a rational perspective that while evolution is indeed a fact, it isn't the "whole story" and doesn't explain everything—much like how Newton's physics doesn't account for every single nuance of motion; reducing everything to Newton's physics would be an oversimplification and ultimately inaccurate, even if it remains approximately correct and useful for everyday applications.

Materialistic beliefs (held by a significant portion of atheists) often lean toward the idea that the universe emerged ex nihilo or similar concepts. There are various religious positions held by both theists and atheists alike.
bluemason3 bluemason3 Veteran
1.1K messages
joined Jun 2016
#35 ·
feralranger said:Not necessarily, because believing in a literal interpretation of the Bible where the Earth is a flat disc only about 6,000 years old is patently bizarre.

Regarding evolution, one could maintain a rational perspective that while evolution is indeed a fact, it isn't the "whole story" and doesn't explain everything—much like how Newton's physics doesn't account for every single nuance of motion; reducing everything to Newton's physics would be an oversimplification and ultimately inaccurate, even if it remains approximately correct and useful for everyday applications.

Materialistic beliefs (held by a significant portion of atheists) often lean toward the idea that the universe emerged ex nihilo or similar concepts. There are various religious positions held by both theists and atheists alike.

In the context of evolution, believing in a single original pair and original sin feels bizarre, but those are fixed dogmas within the Catholic Church, so I'm not sure how much room there actually is for symbolic interpretation.
feralranger feralranger Regular
323 messages
joined Oct 2012
#36 ·
bluemason3 said:In the context of evolution, believing in a single original pair and original sin feels bizarre, but those are fixed dogmas within the Catholic Church, so I'm not sure how much room there actually is for symbolic interpretation.

Like many others, I sat through Catholic religious education classes, and I recall one particular incident from my elementary school days back in the old country. At the time, our religious studies were held in a parish classroom. My chemistry teacher was a staunch, uncompromising atheist and a committed communist (her husband, incidentally, was a rather notorious bigwig in the SK). During one specific chemistry lecture, she touched upon the origins of Earth and demanded that every student enrolled in religious studies stand up. About half the class rose to their feet, but because I was considered the top student—particularly in the natural sciences like physics and especially mathematics—she insisted that I remain seated while telling everyone else they could sit down. She began interrogating me about what we had been taught in religion class, clearly intending to mock the subject matter, yet I simply recounted exactly what I had heard during those lessons from a priest who was, by any standard, exceptionally well-educated: that the biblical account of creation is written figuratively and should not be taken as literal fact. Needless to say, she was absolutely livid at my response, as it provided her with absolutely no leverage for the mockery she had planned.

As a side note, later on in my time in a city similar to a mid-sized American suburb, the professors were significantly more cultured (and most were, professionally speaking, among the finest high school educators you could encounter), so even those who identified as atheists would offer Christmas greetings to those who celebrated it. On Christmas—which, mind you, was a regular working day just like any other—we didn't actually do any schoolwork with two of my professors; instead, we simply shared a few drinks with them. We had some non-alcoholic options alongside wine, though nobody got intoxicated or behaved indecently. We even played guitars, though we stuck to the "new wave" hits of the era rather than any hymns.

Back then, as a believer, I found that non-dogmatic atheists were perfectly fine, and I hold them in the highest regard, just as I do now that I have transitioned to being an agnostic (and an atheist), particularly when dealing with non-dogmatic theists. I tend to have, if I may say so, certain "issues" with the stubborn extremists on both sides—much like in politics, whether it's the clash between far-right zealots and hardline leftists, or those self-proclaimed "anti-fascists" who turn a blind eye to the fascist-leaning atrocities committed by those claiming to fight against them.
Lisa Jackson7 Lisa Jackson7 Regular
259 messages
joined Oct 2018
#37 ·
feralranger said:Not necessarily, because believing in a literal interpretation of the Bible where the Earth is a flat disc only about 6,000 years old is patently bizarre.

Regarding evolution, one could maintain a rational perspective that while evolution is indeed a fact, it isn't the "whole story" and doesn't explain everything—much like how Newton's physics doesn't account for every single nuance of motion; reducing everything to Newton's physics would be an oversimplification and ultimately inaccurate, even if it remains approximately correct and useful for everyday applications.

Materialistic beliefs (held by a significant portion of atheists) often lean toward the idea that the universe emerged ex nihilo or similar concepts. There are various religious positions held by both theists and atheists alike.

God works within Creation...

Just dropping a link for now... “Theistically Guided” Evolution as God’s Incarnational Work

The view of evolution I propose is what I will call theistically guided evolution. I define theistically guided evolution as the view that all life on earth is the result of the evolutionary process (“descent with modification”), but in various places God guided or influenced this process. God could guide the evolutionary process by mutating some gamete or even adding new information to the gametes, thereby resulting in one organism giving rise to a significantly different offspring. [Here Collins has a footnote: I prefer to think of God’s guiding the evolutionary process in a non-mechanical way, a sort of nurturing or brooding over the evolutionary process as God is said to brood over the waters in Genesis 1:2. For a sophisticated account of how God could have guided the evolutionary process, see Robert Russell, “Mutation: a New Defense of Theistic Evolution”; some of Russell’s ideas are presented in another column.] Since in this view god works in and through The Natural process of reproduction, the offspring could be said to be both the product of the natural operation of the world and a creation of god. The extent to which god guides The process, and The extent to which The evolutionary process is a result of unguided chance plus Natural selection, however, remains an open question.
feralranger feralranger Regular
323 messages
joined Oct 2012
#38 ·
Lisa Jackson7 said:God works within Creation...

Just dropping a link for now... “Theistically Guided” Evolution as God’s Incarnational Work

The view of evolution I propose is what I will call theistically guided evolution. I define theistically guided evolution as the view that all life on earth is the result of the evolutionary process (“descent with modification”), but in various places God guided or influenced this process. God could guide the evolutionary process by mutating some gamete or even adding new information to the gametes, thereby resulting in one organism giving rise to a significantly different offspring. [Here Collins has a footnote: I prefer to think of God’s guiding the evolutionary process in a non-mechanical way, a sort of nurturing or brooding over the evolutionary process as God is said to brood over the waters in Genesis 1:2. For a sophisticated account of how God could have guided the evolutionary process, see Robert Russell, “Mutation: a New Defense of Theistic Evolution”; some of Russell’s ideas are presented in another column.] Since in this view god works in and through The Natural process of reproduction, the offspring could be said to be both the product of the natural operation of the world and a creation of god. The extent to which god guides The process, and The extent to which The evolutionary process is a result of unguided chance plus Natural selection, however, remains an open question.
[/I]

Yet, one cannot help but notice the logical inconsistencies here, unless, of course, one subscribes to the notion of an imperfect God who finds it necessary to constantly tinker with His own creation.

Suppose we imagine a hypothetical scenario where God acts as an automotive engineer; would such a being truly need to modify a vehicle—perhaps refining a transmission or correcting flaws in a drivetrain or braking system? Or if we consider God as a software programmer, would His code necessitate multiple beta versions or iterative patches to fix bugs? Certainly not—for such a reality would inherently imply His imperfection. This "God" described in the quote seems to be doing precisely that.

Consequently, one can only entertain this idea within the framework of believing in some sort of flawed "God" (which is perhaps the only way the passage you cited could maintain any semblance of consistency)... but if God is imperfect, then one must ask oneself: what kind of God is He, really?
Lisa Jackson7 Lisa Jackson7 Regular
259 messages
joined Oct 2018
#39 ·
feralranger said:[/I]

Yet, one cannot help but notice the logical inconsistencies here, unless, of course, one subscribes to the notion of an imperfect God who finds it necessary to constantly tinker with His own creation.

Suppose we imagine a hypothetical scenario where God acts as an automotive engineer; would such a being truly need to modify a vehicle—perhaps refining a transmission or correcting flaws in a drivetrain or braking system? Or if we consider God as a software programmer, would His code necessitate multiple beta versions or iterative patches to fix bugs? Certainly not—for such a reality would inherently imply His imperfection. This "God" described in the quote seems to be doing precisely that.

Consequently, one can only entertain this idea within the framework of believing in some sort of flawed "God" (which is perhaps the only way the passage you cited could maintain any semblance of consistency)... but if God is imperfect, then one must ask oneself: what kind of God is He, really?

A car's "perfection" is dead. Life is perfect because of its "imperfections"—or better yet, it's just good.
If we're sticking to metaphors, God looks more like an artist to me than some engineer or coder.

I mean, don't most human creations live "their own lives"? Does that make them any less perfect?
Daniel Chase13 Daniel Chase13 Regular
340 messages
joined Oct 2016
#40 ·
feralranger said:[/I]

Yet, one cannot help but notice the logical inconsistencies here, unless, of course, one subscribes to the notion of an imperfect God who finds it necessary to constantly tinker with His own creation.

Suppose we imagine a hypothetical scenario where God acts as an automotive engineer; would such a being truly need to modify a vehicle—perhaps refining a transmission or correcting flaws in a drivetrain or braking system? Or if we consider God as a software programmer, would His code necessitate multiple beta versions or iterative patches to fix bugs? Certainly not—for such a reality would inherently imply His imperfection. This "God" described in the quote seems to be doing precisely that.

Consequently, one can only entertain this idea within the framework of believing in some sort of flawed "God" (which is perhaps the only way the passage you cited could maintain any semblance of consistency)... but if God is imperfect, then one must ask oneself: what kind of God is He, really?

Exactly.

God is perfect—perfect love, perfect goodness, and perfect truth.

Originally, before the first couple, Adam and Eve, fell into sin, a perfectly good God didn't create a world defined by physical death, disharmony among creatures, pain, infections, or disease. There was no struggle for survival, no "survival of the fittest" where one species thrives at the expense of another (in the beginning, there was no such hierarchy), and no natural disasters. This current version of the world—this broken reality—was never His intention.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads