Grand Canyon University Web Resources

Depicts General George Washington and members of the Colonial Army crossing the Delaware River en route to very important victories during the Revolutionary War. The design is based on the 1851 painting by Emmanuel Leutze, "Washington Crossing the Delaware," which currently hangs in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City.

stephen.cr...@student.adelaide.edu.au wrote:
> Isn't a bit pointless for [righteous] Abel to spend his life tending
> sheep if God had prohibited eating animals until after Noah?

I would think that Able and his kin ate and enjoyed mutton as much as
Noah and his family did. But sheep not only are used for foods* but
for wool, worship Gen. 4:4) and other things. And we know from reading
scripture that (after eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good
and evil) Adam and Eve did not like to go naked. They were somewhat
prudish about remaining nudist after "the eyes of both were
opened"(Gen. 3:7-8). Also, of course, it may have got a bit cold in
the winter time. And wool can protect one's modesty and also protect
one from the cold.

Secondly in Genesis 1:30 God gives man all the beast, so it was man's
responsibility to keep the sheep" (Gen. 4:2), as sheep probably would
not last long on their on out in the wilds.

*For example, parts of sheep have been used by many Scotch
Presbyterians to make haggis, and they cannot imagine God not wanting
any Presbyterian (or even Able) enjoying haggis. ;-)

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))

In article <151.00.15.05.389614000@srcbs.org>, Bart Goddard says...
>
>gkmcnees@comcast.net wrote:
>
>
>>> He does things beCAUSE they are good. See the word "cause"?
>>> The a thing's goodness binds your God.
>>
>> This is within Himself, and has nothing to do with creation.
>
>The "things" are not within Himself. You have some "things"
>which are good in their own right. God does them, and He
>has not choice, because those things are "good".
>
>Well, we know your stance.

No, you still do not know it, Bob. You are still playing the same game of
putting Calvinist interpretations on Gary's words, to come up with teh same old
threadbare Calvinist Straw Man arguemnts.

>Scripture says differently.

No, it does not.

> The things are good because
>God did them, not vv.

Scripture NEVER says this.

>
>
>>> A true omnipotent God defines good because He IS Good.
>>
>> I would say that a truly good God defines good because He IS Good.
>> He is truth.
>
>This is using a word to define itself.
> You say "God is Good"
>because you have some standard of goodness and you're
>saying that God fits it. The rest of us say "God is Good"
>because all good and only good flow from Him.

But you are not ONE of these "the rest of us". For you attribute evil to God,
and then _call_ it 'good'.


--
---------------------------
Su