 |
| 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 |
