Would that happen to a completely perfect, flawless organism that was not built to die? No, it would not. Does this happen to imperfect, flawed organisms? Yes, it does.
Is there something that says something that dies is imperfect? Perhaps death is to sustain it's young by not consuming the same resources.
Is the physical capabilities of an animal part to consider in perfection? It shouldn't be, because the choices that would be made and the integrity of their word / actions is the determining of their intentions and purity of heart -- the point of them being able to do it or not does not necessarily make a difference.
This would by why Shamans would only be the elderly in Native American tribes -- they are incapable of waging a war without their Eagle and Jaguar Warriors prepared to fight for them, however they are wise through experience and being battle-hardened (usually).
I'm not saying the elderly or experienced people have an indefinite advantage -- speaking from what I know I can easily say that you can accelerate your rate of maturity and morality / wisdom by sheer focus on the actual subjects, instead of being involved in them long enough to naturally delve deeper.
Sin is what makes something imperfect. Perfection and imperfection can not be together in a person or thing. The thing either is or isn't perfect.
You also need to be able to define perfect. My definition isn't a dictionary term and it doesn't have as wide requirements where all traits of a being is "maxed out" for what it could be, if you would have modesty, curiosity, caution, emotional control, emotional views, and the like on different levels for different people.
Like those who would rage on video games -- they're generally really poor at all 5 from what I've seen, but then compare one to say... Bruce Lee.
Not the best emotional control -- definitely far better. Emotional views? Definitely better. Curious? I would say so, modest? Definitely so, and etc.
Those aren't the only 5 traits (there's easily hundreds) but they're the ones I came up with.
Fruit = Stored sugar? Right? I don't see your point. It's not a sin to eat fruit...
Fruit is living. You generally kill it before you store it.
To solve a little bit of confusion, I do not believe that the universe is billions of years old, I believe in young-earth creation.
I wouldn't say that's a good thing you know.
I'm not suggesting that God made a sinful universe.
Things are either perfect or not perfect -- that which is not perfect has sin. A flawless, perfect living being would live forever, by what you say. Your definition suggests that I and all other humans are sinful, in which case -- you can only be suggesting that God made a sinful universe. And there's no real denial of that. Look at Hitler, look at the Crusades, look at the Hundred Years' War, look at your siblings, you generally can't say they're perfect, and I know I can't.
I was trying to explain why that was unreasonable and the Macro-evolution-everything-came-from-an-amoeba-theory does not and can not align with my faith.
Okay.
But, can you tell me, and this'll sound blunt, but it's basically true -- in a hypothetical situation where your faith was not a mainstream ideology, why would I care if you came to me and said that my ideas conflicted with yours, which concerned unproven ideas?
If nothing dies, nothing progresses.
Quite the opposite. Environmental influences on living organisms are a huge affect on their future behaviour -- a new child is largely a "blank slate". I don't see how never ending life for animals would stop progression.
You know, if that were the case I'd expect them to mature but not age beyond that which is healthy.
If the first generation of people had one set of beliefs, those beliefs would live on infinitely, no matter how misguided, terrible, or anything they may be.
Not necessarily. There will likely be a larger lust for knowledge when you know that the life you're in is the one you'll have. People with their accumulating knowledge will grow to find that there are other methods of thinking, and generally they'll be able to shed their current beliefs long enough to think of new ones with a more open mind - seeing a better one will occur.
If stars didn't die, there wouldn't be most of the material planets are made up of.
... I would think he meant "die" as in the "soul" of something transcending to another level (Heaven or Hell, I would imagine in his religion).
Stars are not living things in the first place, thus would not fit his idea :P
If I'm right, of course.
Also, without death, nobody would have any encouragement to do anything because they don't have a limited amount of time to live life.
It can work both ways. If I knew I was going to live forever I'd focus primarily on obtaining discipline to do what I want to do. The idea you came up with applies to many humans -- but we wouldn't be what we are were it not for death, so a large amount of this is hypothetical at best. A never ending being would be fluid in how it can change, in ideology at least.
- H
