 |
| Unique |
2015
I do not want to approach this topic as a hypocrite.
I do eat animal meat, although much less than I used to as eating more grains, fruits and vegetables is part of my diet.
I actually ate in a similar way living in the United Kingdom, both times basically eating fruits and vegetables primarily for the first two meals of the week day.
This is likely a permanent diet.
On this planet, land and sea creatures, aquatic life and plant life are at times used as food, as this is an aspect of the ecosystem.
However, I am opposed to abuses, by human beings, of these creatures and plant life within that ecosystem, of any kind.
I am also opposed to the killing of creatures that are endangered or legally protected.
But recent news events had me consider this section from my MPhil.
Biblically and theologically, there is a clear distinction, ontologically between human beings and the animal kingdom.
Distinctions many in Western society will not intellectually reasonably grasp, being largely untrained philosophically and theologically.
Via the media it can be seen that certain persons are more upset, or not upset at all, over the unethical killing of an animal than she/he is over the death of a human beings, including the unborn.
Some apparently, would not have an ethical problem with an animal killer that is reported to have killed an animal illegally, being killed himself.
This is a grave error theologically and philosophically and a sign of an unregenerate person.
Biblically only human beings. and not the animal kingdom was created in God's image and likeness (Genesis 1). This provides humanity with a special spiritual status and greater value ontologically, although granted human nature is fallen and corrupted in the present realm (Genesis 2, Romans).
Related Post
June 9, 2008
2003 The Problem of Evil: Anglican and Baptist Perspectives: MPhil thesis, Bangor University
Animal Pain
Lewis was not sure why animals suffer, and stated that no human being knew. He doubted that animals had a soul of consciousness as human beings do. Without consciousness an animal experiences sensations, but does not deal with it in a deep, soulful way as a human being would.
He stated: But at least a great deal of what appears to be animal suffering need not be suffering in any real sense. It may be we who have invented the ‘sufferers’ by the ‘pathetic fallacy’ of reading into the beast a self for which there is no real evidence. Lewis (1940)(1996: 137).
Animals after all do not build civilizations, nor do they have families as we understand them. Animals communicate and live based on instinct and sensation rather than conscious rational thought, so their pain would be different. I am not minimizing their pain, and I think cruelty to animals is appalling, but I think Lewis correct in indicating that animal pain in not well understood by humanity.
What can be deduced is that it is not comparable to human pain which is experienced by rational beings.
Additional 2008
The term rational is a tricky one. In the MPhil I was meaning that the concept of being rational would consist of reasoning.
Blackburn provides a good explanation that reasoning would consist of drawing a conclusion from a set of premises. Blackburn (1996: 320).
Osterhaven explains that Biblically animals are considered to have a soul. Osterhaven. (1996: 1036).
I provide here again in this article the most commonly used Greek word for soul ‘psuche’ psoo-khay according to Strong's Concordance. Strong (1986: 106).
Osterhaven also notes that beasts as a principle of life are stated to have a spirit as well in Genesis 6:17 and 7:15. Osterhaven (1996: 1041).
Strong is in agreement on the verses and the most common Old Testament word for breath or spirit ‘ruwach’ roo’-akh is used, and I provide this once again. Strong (1986: 142).
Theologically in Scripture animals are not described as communicating with God in a spiritual way, and therefore theologically the soul/spirit nature of animals is considered unable to spiritually communicate with God.
The theological assumption can be made that the animal soul/spirit is limited to the temporal earthly realm and when an animal body dies, so does the soul. I lean toward this understanding, and do not reason that there are animals in soul/spirit form in God's presence after death.
However, in the new heaven and new earth (Revelation), God if he so pleases could resurrect animals seemingly easily. This could be done if God desires that some of his animals inhabit the Kingdom of God and it could also occur since many resurrected persons will seemingly desire to love their deceased pets.
If there were animals in the culminated Kingdom would they be immortal? Perhaps, but if they were not, certainly God, or even perhaps resurrected persons could in faith with God's power maintain the life of animals as they could be virtually immortal even if they were not technically immortal.
So, do animals go to heaven? Well, the answer could be yes and no. I doubt animals are in God's presence in a strictly spiritual realm, but some animals could be resurrected as the Kingdom of God is culminated.
BLACKBURN, S. (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
LEWIS, C.S. (1940)(1996) The Problem of Pain, San Francisco, Harper-Collins.
OSTERHAVEN, M.E. (1996) ‘Soul’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
OSTERHAVEN, M.E. (1996) ‘Spirit’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
STRONG, J. (1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.
 |
| Maple Ridge, British Columbia |
Begin Again
ReplyDeleteSome relationships are trivial and don’t amount to much. I just went to my 65th high school class reunion, and some there I didn’t remember much of at all. Another spouted a right-wing politics that I wasn’t ready for. But no big deal, hard to tell right now whether I’ll go back to the 66th.
In our world, marriage can become that way, trivial, passing, just a phase. Now that we know ourselves better, it’s clear that first marriage was a big mistake and we can do better. Or maybe something as structured as marriage isn’t that great for satisfying sex anyway?
ReplyDeleteThe Bible compares the man/woman relationship with ours with God. Remember when people asked, why are John’s disciples fasting but yours eat and drink? Here’s Jesus’ answer in Luke 5:34, can you make the guests of the bridegroom fast while he is with them? A prophet is one thing, your bridegroom is another! But we can outgrow our tie with the Lord too, can’t we? His expectations for us and demands on us are becoming burdensome and don’t really fit who we are now. Maybe moving on with another woman would need moving on to another friendlier God? That’s how the culture sees it now. Now that we “respect” same-sex marriage, “religion” will have to adjust too, won’t it? Just like the woman after next, God will just have to shape up and meet our expectations won’t he?
ReplyDeleteThat’s strong language, but of all the biblical God's requirements this “no adultery” one is the most out of date. Read this about “not depriving”: The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote each other to prayer, in 1 Corinthians 7: 3-5.
ReplyDeleteWhat? The chemistry is gone, long gone, and you’re still supposed to make it happen? Along with some heartfelt snarling maybe? If sex isn’t spontaneous and more than welcome, what’s the point? If anything is out of date, doesn’t this one have to be?
ReplyDeleteCome to think of it, that sounds like what God expects of us, to show up and worship him when that’s the last thing we’d really enjoy doing. Just be there? No, be there and worship, and ask the Lord for the joy you need to worship. I keep feasting on Nehemiah 8. Those folks are back together with the Lord and hearing his word, telling them who he is and how they fit into his picture. But then they all sob, they’ve messed up so much, wretched people they are. So God says, stop sobbing and start eating and drinking, this is a celebration, the joy of the Lord is your strength!
ReplyDeleteWe come to the Lord that way too in weakness and confusion and doubt—and we call to him to change us so we can love and honor and worship him in our hearts! (That’s called the “invocation,” does it need a better name?) We’re always doing the Romans 7 “wretched man” before we turn in joy to the Romans 8 “his love endures forever.” That’s the way it is with guilty sinners and their merciful Lord.
ReplyDeleteThat book of Hosea is as clear as it gets. Prophet, your task is to marry prostitute Gomer! Now there’s a spiritual calling. Keep telling the people how all their idolatries are plain and simple prostitution, going after the wrong targets for their desires. They have to understand that, so tell them again and again. But there’s something else they have to know. What else could there be than seeing in 5:4 that “a spirit of prostitution is in their heart; they do not acknowledge the Lord?”
ReplyDeleteWhat else? Gospel hope, that’s what. In that day, declares the Lord, you will call me ‘my husband’; you will no longer call me ‘my master.’ . . I will betroth you to me forever; I will betroth you in righteousness and justice, in love and compassion. I will betroth you in faithfulness and you will acknowledge the Lord (2: 15, 19-20).
ReplyDeleteO Lord, I wouldn’t even try to put together our marriages and how you care for your people, but it is your idea after all to do it that way. Show us now how we are to live together as man and wife. This is where that so unexpected “fulfill your marital duty” fits. We have violated our marriage with the Lord again and again, and here he comes with his amazing betrothals. His love does endure forever—now he calls us to do the same.
ReplyDeleteNo, wife or husband of mine—sex with you no longer seems inviting or exciting, nor does conversation with you, nor prayer, nor watching TV even. But we belong to Jesus and we ask him to know the love he has for us, still—and that we may have it for each other. We begin again, not with someone else but with each other. The Lord starts us off again with the joy of the Lord is your strength and we ask for that joy now, for him and in each other. O Lord, you give us so many kind new beginnings, give us that now—not with strangers but with each other.
ReplyDeleteIs hard marriage different from anything else hard in our lives? Yes it is, it is so close to our foolish rejection of our Lord, that we fall into so often. But beginning again with the Lord and with each other—how amazing that always is and will be.
ReplyDeleteThe Song of Songs is some book (chapter 4 especially), with such an exalted picture of love—how could it be just about man and woman love, doesn’t it have to be about the way Jesus loves us? No, I don’t think so, though I see where you’re coming from. It’s about the two of you, and the two of you, and the blessing the Lord has for you, still. Ask and receive that your joy may be full.
ReplyDeleteYou have stolen my heart, my sister, my bride; you have stolen my heart with one glance of your eyes, with one jewel of your necklace. How delightful is your love, my sister, my bride! How much more pleasing is your love than wine, and the fragrance of your perfume than any other spice! Your lips drop sweetness as the honeycomb, my bride; milk and honey are under your tongue. The fragrance of your garments is like that of Lebanon. You are a garden locked up, my sister my bride; you are a spring enclosed, a sealed fountain. Your plants are an orchard of pomegranates with choice fruits, with henna and nard, nard and saffron, calamus and cinnamon, with every kind of incense tree, with myrrh and aloes, and all the finest spices. You are a garden fountain, a well of flowing water, streaming down from Lebanon.
ReplyDeleteAwake, north wind, and come, south wind! Blow on my garden, that its fragrance may spread abroad. Let my lover come into his garden, and taste its choice fruits.
ReplyDeleteD. Clair Davis
My husband and I divorced over religious differences.
ReplyDeleteHe thought he was God and I didn't.
I'm not a complete idiot -- Some parts are just missing.
ReplyDeleteGod must love stupid people; He made so many.
ReplyDeleteI Have a Degree in Liberal Arts; Do You Want Fries With That?
ReplyDeleteA journey of a thousand miles begins with a cash advance.
ReplyDeleteeverything is very interesting and I enjoy sharing you brought it great
ReplyDeleteNote: friendly mode.Smile
ReplyDeleteI don’t like to be negative on blogs, and I work 60 hours a week and do not want to make hassles. But I reason I need to state this.
It is too controversial for a main post and so I will place it in comments in places.
I also humbly admit my sinfulness and finiteness.
With all the anti-Christian, post-Christian movements in Western society, the Church is hurting itself.
I find often Christians are too weak on justice or love and sometimes both.
Then there is sexual sin, with which I have always admitted as an adult is a struggle for me, in thought primarily. I claim no innocence.
Therefore, I critique it more so as a fellow sinner, saved by grace, in Christ, as opposed to a self-righteous judge. To be clear.
As my post-student self I have been dialoguing with women at work and other from the ages of 17-60+.
I have had many good talks.
Personally, by the way, in my case, I do not find age primary in relating, but rather worldview and shared interests.
I have had a long time to ponder on being single, and although I am no relationship expert, I have developed what I reason are insightful and largely true, at least, perspectives in regard to the problem of evil and relationships. Let us word it that way.
Seems to me, there are two main groups of women, that show interest in me, and I show interest in.
One, the committed Christian. I saw an example of one tonight on a social networking site. She has a very good but likely small Christian ministry. We have not dialogued but she shows as likely at least an occasional viewer of my posts/profile.
I see her personal photos and she has been in a relationship for years and is not married. Further, I look at her photos and she has photos of her and what appears a male ‘relationship partner’ and in some she is dressed beside him with her breasts being very prominent.
Let us cut the crap. I can deduce having studied human nature that 9?% they are having some kind of sexual relations, outside of marriage being together for years.
Virtually no one is being fooled. If that is the goal.
If he is a non-Christian and she is a Christian, and I state if, then we have this same old Western dilemma with Christian women dating and mating non-believers at the expense of believers.
If they are both believers, there is zero excuse, despite social reasons for not marrying or instead the relationship should be ended.
Mathew 5 and 1 Corinthians 7 and 2 Corinthians 6 bring one to the clear theology that marriage is the fix, largely, for fornication. It is very imperfect in this sinful realm, of course.
To not follow that directive when there is a viable partner is definite and definitive sin.
At any age of adulthood.
If one ignores the believer that is interested where there might be mutual interest, that is also definite and definitive sin.
Certainly some are doing this to me...even as I am talking to many women, some in Christ.
In Christians are not marrying (2 Corinthians 6) and fornicating because as I have read Christian men are wimpy, or weird or whatever, this is a female cop-out.
The Christian also discredits self and ministry by publicly claiming Christ and by fornicating.
Cont.
Hey...
ReplyDeleteAgain, virtually no one is fooled. If you are dating someone for a year or more and not on the marriage track, come on, fornication is basically likely if not certain.
If not in the flesh, in the mind (Mathew 5, 1 Corinthians 7).
Christian women, need to realize that social rules and social status can be as problematic to females as pornography is to men.
To state that one needs a boyfriend and because only the non-Christians are good, that is the only option, is non-Biblical and a cop-out.
By actions you also at times can deny access to you from Christian men that need to learn how to date better etc...
Realize that the non-Christian can be more experienced and cool, because he can just mate with you for awhile and move on. If you get pregnant, abortion on demand is an option in his worldview, most likely, for example.
Also no guarantee there will be a public and in the family Daddy if the birth occurs.
The Christian man has to be more careful.
And you negate the possibility that perhaps you can learn some spiritual truths from that ‘dork’ or ‘nerd’, you have written off or are saving for ‘maybe later’...
To trust in female intuition and/or social rules, family/friends over Scripture and to be guided by the Holy Spirit is a sinful cop-out.
Putting career above marriage is also sin, if you are fornicating in the process.
And you can fornicate in the head, even while not dating (Matthew 5, 1 Corinthians 7).
Think about that...cont..
Cont...
ReplyDeleteTwo, the closet Christian that believes but is following the secular route and fornicating.
One needs to ponder.
If you stick with this person outside of Christ there is no guarantee they will come to Christ (1 Corinthians 7, 2 Corinthians 6).
You risk ageing and becoming less attractive if/when you do decide to marry ‘Christian’.
Many men do not like it when they sense have been rejected and later the woman is much older and less attractive and leaves one as a lost option.
I dislike it.
If you have children with the non-Christian, it is less likely that the children will eventually be saved.
Do you want to spend your earthly life, in this present realm with those you may very well have no everlasting future with?
Both these groups, by not dating Christian men, and/or by ignoring Christian men for a ‘better’ option, career or because of social reasons, are although not the primary cause, besides their own potential sin, are effecting single men to potentially sin because of little options with Christian women.
I am not playing Adam here and blaming the woman. Each man will be judged for his own sin, independently, but my point stands.
It is not true that most Christian men prefer porn over actual women. I know I have heard and read studies that some men prefer the cop-out of porn to a relationship, but many, many Christian men are not like that...period.
Lack of willingness to dialogue with a Christian man one likes, perhaps secretly, is a red flag.
I do not buy the ‘I don’t want to hurt him’ argument. If you have rejected the man already, he is already hurt if he likes you.
I reason this is more about the female protecting self. And why is that, exactly?
If the man as not yet sold you emotionally enough to commit to him at all, even as a friend with potential, for example, have you considered that maybe you have not given the man a significant chance to win your heart?
Remember that pre-existing conditions and social rules can have a Christian man virtually written off at the start. But is this Biblical?
I realize that intellectual arguments don’t cause (primarily) romantic feelings.
I am not completely stupid here...Winking smile
But whose rules are you following? Consider we are also influenced by demonic beings to sin.
Acts 4; heed to God and not man.