Lioness in zoo kills man who invoked God

[Jenyar]

As far as I can think, there is only one conclusion an unbeliever can / could have 'jumped' to. Unless you are supposing that God could possibly have saved this man?

There are two: 1) that this man's action says something about God because he mentioned Him, and 2) that nature is still doing what it always has, and it says nothing new about God. Considering what unbelievers believe, I would have thought 2 will be thought more likely. That would have been their train of thought if the man had survived, wouldn't it? Believers might conclude that 1) the test failed, and God had (obviously) not spared him; 2) nature is still doing what it always has, and it says nothing new about God.

Had the man survived the mauling, either intact or just with his life, the same conclusions could be reached. Unbelievers would say it proved nothing, believers would say that God had (obviously) spared him, and either way, nature would have gone its natural course with nothing new.

Face it, this debate has very little to do with what happened and what we think didn't. It's about the caption under the story, and the emotions it evokes.

 

[water]

There are two: 1) that this man's action says something about God because he mentioned Him, and 2) that nature is still doing what it always has, and it says nothing new about God. Considering what unbelievers believe, I would have thought 2 will be thought more likely. That would have been their train of thought if the man had survived, wouldn't it? Believers might conclude that 1) the test failed, and God had (obviously) not spared him; 2) nature is still doing what it always has, and it says nothing new about God.

Had the man survived the mauling, either intact or just with his life, the same conclusions could be reached. Unbelievers would say it proved nothing, believers would say that God had (obviously) spared him, and either way, nature would have gone its natural course with nothing new.

Face it, this debate has very little to do with what happened and what we think didn't. It's about the caption under the story, and the emotions it evokes.

I said right away that the test was not specific enough to give any meaningful results.

 

[Godless]

The man prayed: God let this lion be a christian, that it shall not kill me.

The lioness; Thank you lord for this meal I'm about to receive.



Godless

 

[water]

I think though that the whole issue here was actually about this lion being female!

 

[Phasmid]

I think though that the whole issue here was actually about this lion being female!

I'm pretty sure it's the female lions that hunt the prey anyway. I think the males just beat each other up for mating rights.

 

[Jenyar]

Female lions defend the territory, the males defend the pride.

 

[c7ityi_]

Female lions defend the territory, the males defend the pride.

lions have good reasons to be proud. they follow god.

 

[(Q)]

lions have good reasons to be proud. they follow god.

So, why did god create carnivores and why do they follow god?

 

[c7ityi_]

So, why did god create carnivores and why do they follow god?

If you throw a rock, it falls on the ground because it follows the laws of God (and the laws of God follow God) Rocks don't really have any choice though. Animals don't have much choice either, so even though the laws they follow are a lot complicated than the ones that rocks follow, they still follow them perfectly.

You know, when there's a great natural disaster (like the tsunami) or maybe when lightning strikes, people often says that it's God who does those things. So where is the limit. If "God" controls natural powers, he is probably also in animals, and in humans, and he controls them... yes... that's why I say that God is the self...

Life/God/consciousness becomes conscious of itself. When you lift your hand, it's the same God which makes it move as the one which makes lightning strike.

Why did God create flesheating beings?

One reason is that lions are cool and we want to express ourself/God in infinite ways. Everything is separated from God, from themselves, so everything always seeks unification. Lions want to unify with life itself, that's why they're much happier if they can eat alive beings instead of if they're at the Zoo and people give them dead food.

The law of matter is egoism. Satan is the law of matter. As long as people and things identify themselves with the body/person, they will be egoistic.

 

[MrPink]

But they seems so cute and cudly?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060605/od_nm/ukraine_lion_dc

KIEV (Reuters) - A man shouting that God would keep him safe was mauled to death by a lioness in Kiev zoo after he crept into the animal's enclosure, a zoo official said on Monday.

"The man shouted 'God will save me, if he exists', lowered himself by a rope into the enclosure, took his shoes off and went up to the lions," the official said.

"A lioness went straight for him, knocked him down and severed his carotid artery."

The incident, Sunday evening when the zoo was packed with visitors, was the first of its kind at the attraction. Lions and tigers are kept in an "animal island" protected by thick concrete blocks.

LOL, what a tard.

That poor lioness, she's probably got a bad case of the runs from chewing on that fool. When the sign says dont feed the animals, they really mean it!

 

[Crunchy Cat]

So, why did god create carnivores and why do they follow god?

Duh, to eat theists.

 

[Gordon]

in the gospel of thomas jesus says: "Blessed is the lion which the man eats, and the lion will become man; and cursed is the man whom the lion eats, and the lion will become man.

though another translation says "and cursed is the man whom a lion eats so that the man becomes a lion!"



there is: "thou shalt not kill!"

The correct translation is 'Do not commit murder'. It is unfortunate that here as in other places the King James translation (so revered by many) is actually inaccurate. There are plenty of occassions when killing is permitted in Mosaic law.

Murder is 'To kill (another human) unlawfully' (dictionary definition). So committing suicide is not committing murder. And in fact when suicide was still a criminal offence in the UK (in practice you could of course only ever be prosecuted for 'Attempted Suicide') it was a completely separate offence from murder.

It is an historical fact that suicide was 'made a sin' by the church establishment long after new testament times for the reason I have already described. This dogma has continued to be perpetuated by the Roman Catholic Church and is described as thus in the Catholic (i.e. Roman Catholic) encyclopedia but that of course is not a scriptural document.


There is in any event no particular sin which would take you to Hell as opposed to any other. Again a special hierarchy of sin is very much a Roman Catholic dogma rather than being scripturally based.

regards,


Gordon.

 

[Cris]

In practice most Christians don't trust their god - there are probably no church spires or steeples that do not have a lightning rod.

 

[Jenyar]

A good builder builds on rock, not sand. A good builder also installs a lightning rod. Maybe you're thinking of Zeus, who used to throw bolts of lightning at people. Cool post count, though (6,666)