I still want to know what the animals did wrong.

It's not remotely that clear, it's very much interpretational. Regardless, you could probably make this stand wrt Sodom and Gomorrah alone if that were the whole context. But not for S&G, the people of the flood, the Egyptians, the Midianites and the Amalekites and the Caananites, Elisha's youths, and so on.

If the guy killed 20 people once under extremely unusual circumstances, then I might at least give him an ear. If he killed thousands of people, including babies and infants, on multiple separate occasions, and he was vague about the exact circumstances, and his justifications were often no more elaborate than "he called me bald-head" or "she gave succor to the enemy," and sometimes some of his victims were left alive (women and children) and he went back to make sure he got all of them, and he had a history of unleashing deadly biological agents onto unsuspecting populaces... then it's going to be a hard sell.

Really now.

Huh? When have I ever supported anyone doing anything like genocide or mass slaughter of women and children or unleashing plagues on nations?

Yeah, I'm much more likely to say "**********," myself.

Uh, that's EXACTLY what you were trying to do.

And re-read what YOU wrote.

"I offered this as an explanation of how God could do these things without infringing on free will."

YOU just said that God did these things in your own defense on how he had angels do it, so it didn't infringe on free will.

This is something a third grader can understand, yet you cannot.

What's even more awesome is that you write condescending posts to posters that somehow can't see your oh-so-obvious, and obviously correct viewpoint.

Let me ask you something. *shudder*

Do you think these angels were able to say no to god when he sent them to kill people?

It is very clear the answer is yes. DUCY?

.

Right, forgot about this.

I have no idea. But you can refer back to my wool/cotton analogy if you like.

Yeah, I could, but I won't. I prefer to assume you have no clue what you're talking about...

Jehovah demanded the slaughter of innocent animals. Please explain.

lol. I do not know if you meant this as a joke, but I could not help laughing when I read it.

My point with the wool/cotton thing was that in the OT one of the rules were that the Israelites were not allowed to wear wool/cotton combo's. I found this very silly and arbitrary. I mentioned it to my mother and she explained to me that in that time there was a pagan god that in part of one of the fertility rituals or something the pagan would combine wool and cotton.

So then all of the sudden it became clear and was no longer arbitrary.

So what I am saying is that even though on face value something might seem odd or wrong, without knowing the full history we cannot make such claims.

I'm glad I amused you.

So, why do you think the animals were so evil that Jehovah demanded their death?

I do not think that they were necessarily evil. But that there was a reason that in that situation it was better to kill the animals then to let them live. There were many times where God said that they could keep all of the animals. Seems on the surface that it is arbitrary, but that is where my previous comments come into play.

roundguy, how do you know that every single one of the animals wasn't diseased and a danger to the entire ecosystem? why would you just assume that at least one of the animals could be allowed to live without threatening life itself?

Yes, yes it does.

Sorry, if it looks like a duck.....