OK, here’s MY opportunity to “gloat”. (Not really, but it’s good to set the record straight.)
“The temptation of the flesh” isn’t limited theologically to sexuality, or anything like it (look up “the works of the flesh” in Galatians 5:19-21 and parallel passages with similar phrases). Think of such a thing as anything rooted in the body, or psychologically in the temperament, that leads in a negative direction. That includes inordinate craving for food.
it’s difficult to imagine an anteater having such an inordinate craving, though. He was designed to eat ants, chitin and all. So what’s the problem? :) Either he or the cartoonist is just in the mood for another theological pitfall, “striving over words”. :)
Yes, i knew about both chitin and chiton and even chitlin, but I never bothered to look up the chemical formual for the first (oooh, a polysaccharide no less!) even though I wondered about it. I assumed it was some weird kind of protein, like keratin.
OK, here’s MY opportunity to “gloat”. (Not really, but it’s good to set the record straight.)
“The temptation of the flesh” isn’t limited theologically to sexuality, or anything like it (look up “the works of the flesh” in Galatians 5:19-21 and parallel passages with similar phrases). Think of such a thing as anything rooted in the body, or psychologically in the temperament, that leads in a negative direction. That includes inordinate craving for food.
it’s difficult to imagine an anteater having such an inordinate craving, though. He was designed to eat ants, chitin and all. So what’s the problem? :) Either he or the cartoonist is just in the mood for another theological pitfall, “striving over words”. :)
Yes, i knew about both chitin and chiton and even chitlin, but I never bothered to look up the chemical formual for the first (oooh, a polysaccharide no less!) even though I wondered about it. I assumed it was some weird kind of protein, like keratin.