The Birth Pains of Creation: Animal Death and Suffering Before the Fall of Man

The following was a presentation I gave on 20 Feb 2016. I claim to be no expert in these matters, so if you can find any factual or historical errors I'd be greatly obliged if you'd bring them to my attention in the comments below. Likewise, if you disagree with my scriptural exegesis then I'd appreciate hearing your input.

Patriarchal Inbreeding

I've often thought that inbreeding depression might be part of the reason why the Patriarchs' wives had difficulty producing children. Abram married his half-sister. Isaac married his double-first-cousin-once-removed. Jacob married two of his first-cousins who were also simultaneously his double-second-cousins-once-removed. And those are just the genealogical details that we *know* about; if we knew more details about the wives beyond Terah's generation I'm sure it'd be even worse. These are not healthy practices. It's reminiscent of European royalty! Thankfully this pattern seems to have dissipated as the Israelites became larger and vastly increased their gene pool (presumably by marrying slaves/converts/Egyptians/Canaanites/whomever).

Spirulina and Wheatgrass Juice: not really superfoods after all

Spirulina is a single celled blue-green algae commonly sold as a nutritional supplement in wealthy nations like ours. People rave about it, praising it as a superfood, making incredible claims like "the nutritional value of 1kg Spirulina is equivalent to 1000kgs of assorted fruits and vegetables" (source). Wheatgrass juice is given similar acclaim: "One ounce of Wheatgrass Juice is equivalent to the vitamins, minerals, and amino acids found in 2-1/2 pounds of green leaf vegetables" (source).

Well, I'm sorry to say the hype is unwarranted. Spirulina and wheatgrass are certainly good, but not really any better than green vegetables like broccoli and spinach. 1 lb of fresh spirulina or wheatgrass juice is roughly equivalent to 1 lb of fresh broccoli or spinach.

Icons of God the Father?

I've had my fair share of conversations and debates about icons, usually with my Catholic and Orthodox friends. Are icons good? Should we pray to them? Do they violate the 2nd commandment? Etc. But for some reason we've NEVER talked about images of God the Father, not even once. Until now, it never occurred to me to bring up the subject. It just wasn't on my radar---I never knew about them. I guess I'm just a naive Protestant after all. However, this seems like a very big deal to me. Sure, images of Christ and Saints are one thing. But images of the Father? Really?

ROMAN CATHOLICISM

Images of God the Father are common in the Roman Catholic Church. Nobody seems to have a problem with them. Arguments I've heard defending such images includes:

      (a) taking John 14:9 out of context, "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father",

      (b) appealing to the Council of Trent, which says that veneration directed toward 

      an image is paid to the person it represents, not to the image itself; and

      (c) vague appeals to the Prophet Daniel's vision of the "Ancient of Days."

Personally, I think these arguments are factitious. I believe it's indefensible to even make images of God the Father, to say nothing of setting up such images for veneration.

Source

Description: Depiction of God the Father with his typical "triangle" halo, located in the sanctuary in St. Peter's Catholic Church, in Saint Charles, Missouri. The Holy Ghost is symbolized by a dove with a special "cross" halo.

Source

Description: A stained glass window depicting the Father (and Holy Spirit) at St. Virgil Church, in Morris Plains, New Jersey

How Many "Branches" of Christianity?

Most of the time when people talk about the institutional divisions within the Christian Church, you'll hear them talk about "the three branches":

1. Roman Catholicism
2. Protestantism stemming from the European Reformation.
3. Eastern Orthodoxy 

[Note: Some might be uncomfortable with this 'branch' language---for example, Roman Catholics usually consider themselves THE church, instead of a 'branch' of the church---but I have to use some label, and this terminology seems to be a pretty standard convention. Even Roman Catholics have to admit that these other structures are 'branches' in some sense of the word, even if they believe themselves to be the one true branch.]

We classify these three as "branches" because each group is institutionally separate, each with its own unique ecclesiological claims, founded on a particular history and theology. Numerically these three are the biggest and play the most prominent roles in European and American history, which explains why most people stop counting here. Nevertheless, in this post I'd like to dig deeper. How many branches are there, really? Let's explore some of the gritty details. To be consistent, we would have to add another two:

4. Oriental Orthodoxy
5. Assyrian Church of the East