|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Near Death Experience
|
|
|
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
I found the report interesting, but was unconvinced that it provided the key to understanding NDEs in humans. Michael Shermer of the Skeptics Society has hailed it on Twitter as "Near-death experiences exposed: Surge of brain activity after the heart stops may trigger paranormal visions" (together with a link the Daily Mail!). I'm sceptical that the brain could create such am ordered narrative in such circumstances and that people would be able to remember them. Of course people like the Neuroscientist Colin Blakemore (who was on the Radio 4 Today programme), fall back on the 'memories are notoriously unreliable' argument (which of course they can be), but I think it's often the case that sceptics use arguments like this to brush away data rather than examine it. I'll be interested in what scientific believers in the objective reality of NDEs such as Dr Peter Fenwick make of the research.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
In my case the hallucinations are likely to be due to the diamorphine the doctors filled me with.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Excellent news. And yes of course all rats go to heaven.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Excellent news. And yes of course all rats go to heaven.
They do not, since they do not have immortal souls. They just die, like all animals. But that's an interesting point: it's an unquestioned assumption of this research that what happens to humans and animals at death is in fact the same.
Anyway, if we go along with this assumption for the sake of argument, it still seems rather meaningless. Since my ordinary mental life is intimately tied to brain activity, why shouldn't extraordinary experience at the point of death be reflected in "last gasp" activity of the brain? That doesn't mean at all that nothing real is happening. If there were for example extrasensory input delivered to the brain somehow, bursts of cognitive gamma rhythms would be expected as the brain processes that input. Correlation is not causation, and just because gamma rhythm appear does not tell us why...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Excellent news. And yes of course all rats go to heaven.
They do not, since they do not have immortal souls. They just die, like all animals.
Animals praise God according to psalms, the rainbow promise was to the cattle not just to humans according to Genesis, we aren't actually told much about animals (or about possible beings on other planets), probably because it's none of our business, God has trouble enough getting through to us what we *need* to know for our own soul's health!
But what impresses me about near death experiences is not the narrative itself, it's the change of attitude towards life and death that often results. That change speaks to me probably something real happened rather than just the brain cells firing off random bits of fantasy.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
...it's an unquestioned assumption of this research that what happens to humans and animals at death is in fact the same.
A subscription is required to read the journal article that Caissa linked to, but the BBC report has several direct quotes from scientists expressing caution about making such assumptions. Not 'unquestioned' at all, IMO.
On the wider point, it's rather interesting stuff, I'd say. I wonder whether some more research will gradually show us what's behind human near death experiences; another gap to be filled up in the God of the Gaps theory?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Animals praise God according to psalms, the rainbow promise was to the cattle not just to humans according to Genesis, we aren't actually told much about animals (or about possible beings on other planets), probably because it's none of our business, God has trouble enough getting through to us what we *need* to know for our own soul's health!
Sun, moon and stars praise the Lord according to Psalm 148, but I hope you will agree that this is not an indication that they have immortal souls. And the rainbow was an explicit sign that God will not destroy all living beings again (by flood), Gen 9:12, something that all living things will appreciate in this world as drowning to death isn't fun.
The argument why animals do not have immortal souls is largely philosophical, not scriptural, as I will readily admit. Frankly, the OT isn't clear about the afterlife even for humans, and the NT tells us only about humans. However, a reflection of the philosophical argument is indeed found in the statement that only humans, not animals, are created in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:26). Basically, the philosophical answer to what that may mean also speaks to the philosophical answer about life after death.
If there are animals - and indeed plants, or sun, moon and stars - in heaven, then through human agency (or more precisely, through God's agency accommodating human need). This would be a fairly literal interpretation of human connectedness to creation (Rom 8:18-22). Whether however "this particular dog" will make it to heaven I doubt very much. This valley of tears certainly can contain the cross of losing one's beloved pet, and I don't think that our tears will be dried in heaven by a simplistic re-creation of all that got lost in this world.
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
A subscription is required to read the journal article that Caissa linked to, but the BBC report has several direct quotes from scientists expressing caution about making such assumptions. Not 'unquestioned' at all, IMO.
Well, I didn't state that precisely enough. One can have many doubts about the validity of animal data for human neuroscience, in particular where higher cognitive function is concerned. That's an "internal doubt", if you will, one of physiological functionality. My point was that there is an "external doubt" based on a philosophical-theological concern about a fundamental, and relevant, difference between human and animals. I doubt that any scientist involved in the study, or any of the scientists commenting, were thinking about whether the absence of an immortal soul in animals would be invalidating the conclusions they were drawing from their biological data! (By the way, I know the Birmingham scientist they interviewed. A very nice guy, but a psychologist not a neuroscientist - no doubt he was selected because of his work on "out of body experiences".)
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
On the wider point, it's rather interesting stuff, I'd say. I wonder whether some more research will gradually show us what's behind human near death experiences; another gap to be filled up in the God of the Gaps theory?
It was exactly this expectation that I argued against in my previous post! To re-iterate, there is no religious claim that near death experiences - even if supernatural in origin - would not be embodied in the brain while the person has not finished dying. The only way such experiences could be "explained away" as mere artefacts of biological processes is if a full account could be given of these experiences in terms of these biological processes. That's simply not going to happen, it is technically impossible (or at least so far from our current technical means that it makes no sense to discuss this possibility).
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
I've never understood why a "near-death experience" would necessarily say any more about God than, say, my present experience, which may be described as a "near coffee mug experience".
It all seems a bit Hollywood - "Move towards the light, Carol Anne. Move towards the light!"
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yonatan:
I'm sceptical that the brain could create such am ordered narrative in such circumstances and that people would be able to remember them.
Well - it could of course be a subconscious construction of a narrative after the fact that ties everything together in a coherent manner - which isn't exactly unknown to neuroscience.
This would explain why there are Muslims who have had NDEs involving a muslim conception of heaven as a garden containing four rivers and certain fruit, Hindu's having NDEs involving their beliefs and so on.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I doubt that any scientist involved in the study, or any of the scientists commenting, were thinking about whether the absence of an immortal soul in animals would be invalidating the conclusions they were drawing from their biological data!
You're a scientist; you know full well this is not how the scientific method works! Experiments are devised and carried out, then conclusions drawn and theories developed based on the results of those experiments. Theological perspectives can't 'invalidat[e] the conclusions' drawn from scientific experimentation, IMO. That sort of thinking is what drove the Church authorities to reject Galileo's work.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The only way such experiences could be "explained away" as mere artefacts of biological processes is if a full account could be given of these experiences in terms of these biological processes. That's simply not going to happen, it is technically impossible (or at least so far from our current technical means that it makes no sense to discuss this possibility).
Hmm, maybe. I'd be pretty reluctant, however, to use NDEs as any sort of evidence for God / god(s) or an afterlife even now. Your argument I've quoted above is the epitome of 'God of the Gaps' concept, ISTM.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Posted by Ingo:
quote:
...since they do not have immortal souls...
Hope you aren't suggesting that there is something within us that God cannot destroy. Doesn't sound terribly orthodox.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
What's an immortal soul? And, er, what's heaven?
My vote is for rats. Rattle snakes. Saw one on a documentary. It was afraid. Me anthropomorphizing pathetically I'm sure.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
Gosh sometimes scientists can be so stupid.
quote:
these new findings provide further meat to the bones of the idea that the brain drives these fascinating and striking experiences
These finding present absolutely nothing of the kind.
They present the idea that:
quote:
"If anything, it [the brain] is much more active during the dying process than even the waking state."
Why would a near death experience not affect the brain in this way?
If you get burnt, your brain registers pain.
If you have a near death experience, your brain registers crazy shit.
Simples.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
You're a scientist; you know full well this is not how the scientific method works! Experiments are devised and carried out, then conclusions drawn and theories developed based on the results of those experiments. Theological perspectives can't 'invalidat[e] the conclusions' drawn from scientific experimentation, IMO. That sort of thinking is what drove the Church authorities to reject Galileo's work.
I'm sorry, but WTF? The statement that this rat experiment says something about human NDEs is pure speculation at this point in time, not a "testable scientific theory". Furthermore, the assumption that NDE - or indeed any human experience - must be explicable entirely in terms of brain function is indeed a theory: but it is not a scientific theory, rather it is a philosophical one. Namely, it is materialism, or more precisely, eliminativism. Nobody knows how to turn that into a scientific theory that is testable in an objective fashion. I do not begrudge scientists their speculations, not even their philosophical ones. But it is entirely legitimate to point out that their philosophically tinged speculations are at odds with fundamental assumptions of at least some major religious systems. For of course nobody would get the idea of recording the brain activity of dying rats, were it not for NDEs and the spiritual significance that has been attributed to them by at least some people in those religious systems. The whole experimental ansatz is however flawed as far as addressing traditional Christianity is concerned, because there is no spiritual significance to dying rats in that system of thought. So whatever can be translated from rats to humans concerning death does not matter spiritually. One cannot get to that spiritual significance with this kind of experiment. Pointing this out is not "doing a Galileo", it is simply pointing out real limits.
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Hmm, maybe. I'd be pretty reluctant, however, to use NDEs as any sort of evidence for God / god(s) or an afterlife even now. Your argument I've quoted above is the epitome of 'God of the Gaps' concept, ISTM.
Are you quite done yet? First, personally I don't give a flying fart about NDEs. They have strictly "whatever" status for my personal religious convictions. Second, it is plain ridiculous to first allow the tremendous leap from "dying rats show gamma rhythms (oscillations in brain activity >40 Hz)" to "humans have NDEs" and then complain that insisting on actual hard science is a "God of the gaps" argument. If the scientific claim is that this or that brain activity literally is the NDE, then this has to be shown, experimentally. Hand-waving, wild speculation that relies on materialistic prejudice is not science. Of course, such speculation has its place, and I'm entirely happy to discuss it as a challenge to for example Christian conceptions. But on level terms then, and not with this bullshit attitude as if asking for actual evidence was some kind of rhetorical fallacy.
(And by the way, I heart God of the gaps arguments. It is mere rhetorical trickery to bully people into ignoring gaps in the scientific stories of our times just because some gaps have been closed historically. There is no a priori reason why there never should be a gap that science cannot close, wherein God indeed can comfortably reside. But this is not a God of the gaps argument, rather simply a demand to provide appropriate evidence for a highly speculative claim.)
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Hope you aren't suggesting that there is something within us that God cannot destroy. Doesn't sound terribly orthodox.
God does not destroy, He ceases to maintain in being. Nothing is without God. The intended contrast is between the mortal soul of animals, which is nothing but the living form of the body and hence stops existing when the body's life comes to an end, and the immortal soul of humans, whose soul in addition subsists in incorporeal activity of the intellectual kind. This incorporeal activity does not decay with the body and hence provides an albeit limited support for the living form of humans, making their soul immortal. That's a different level of discussion, it's not about the principle all or nothing dependence of creatures on God, but about their natural limits of existence within creation. Animal souls are limited by corporeal decay, hence are mortal, human souls only in part, hence are immortal.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
So human's - let's say, 'ground of being' (a horribly Protestant theologians phrase I know, but I'm sure you'll get over it in week or so) is in God, but not life, the universe and everything? That seems to be a reversal of the problem.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
What's an immortal soul? And, er, what's heaven?
My vote is for rats. Rattle snakes. Saw one on a documentary. It was afraid. Me anthropomorphizing pathetically I'm sure.
I stopped at a car park in California. There was a notice saying "Beware of Rattle Snakes - They are Easily Frightened". So I'm with you.
As for warnings against anthropomorphising, I thought that was just a way of stopping us from noticing we are animals. We shouldn't project human attributes onto animals for fear of recognising that we're more like them than not.
And you notice God told humans they were made in his image, we don't know what he told the rats and rattlesnakes.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
And you notice God told humans they were made in his image, we don't know what he told the rats and rattlesnakes.
Probably told them we are responsible for the current mess, that's why they are afraid of us. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
I was taught that animals are closer to God that humans.. they never had a "fall", and so are currently (and eternally) in communion with God, just as we are meant to be. in a way they are already "in heaven" (for a certain value of "heaven").
Of course, I've also heard that animals have no immortal souls. but I never saw substantive proof of that (or even scriptural support that was convincing).
The thing that I believe the "fall" represents (since I take it allegorically) is the fact that human evolution reached a point where we could abstractly understand right from wrong. Some animals MAY be able to do the same to some degree. Many animals, even relatively "primitive" animals, have been shown to behave in ways that one would expect were they to posses the ability to be emphatic. Another way of saying "know right from wrong". If they do, then I think they essentially had their own "fall" (assuming they are capable of then choosing "wrong").
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
IngoB, you said this:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
My point was that there is an "external doubt" based on a philosophical-theological concern about a fundamental, and relevant, difference between human and animals. I doubt that any scientist involved in the study, or any of the scientists commenting, were thinking about whether the absence of an immortal soul in animals would be invalidating the conclusions they were drawing from their biological data!
By this, I thought you were saying that our 'philosophical-theological' perspectives should direct us away from what might be the most reasonable interpretation of the experimental observations. I evidently misunderstood, for which I apologise.
I stand by my citation of the 'God of the Gaps' argument, though. You reject the possibility of scientific investigation ever explaining NDEs, and thus you safeguard this area as positive evidence in favour of a supernatural being. But even then, you say supernatural occurrences could well be embodied in our physical forms; couldn't we say that about any physical process, though, even if we fully understand the process, in physiological terms? ISTM to me you want to have your cake and eat it...
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Depends on your point of view, I guess.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
So human's - let's say, 'ground of being' (a horribly Protestant theologians phrase I know, but I'm sure you'll get over it in week or so) is in God, but not life, the universe and everything? That seems to be a reversal of the problem.
If this is addressed to me, then I have no idea what you are talking about. Life, the universe and everything - including humans - are grounded in God. That does not mean that a stone is the same as a tomato, a tomato is the same as a fruit fly, a fruit fly is the same as a human and a human is the same as an angel. They are all grounded in God for their existence, but they all exist differently. As it happens, one natural difference between animals and humans is that the former disintegrate entirely upon death, whereas the latter do not: the human soul can subsists endlessly in its incorporeal intellectual activity, even though this is not a satisfactory existence. This explains why you can be resurrected. There is no discontinuity in the existence your entire being, there merely is a discontinuity in that part of your existence which is connected to the body. Alternative conceptions run into the teleporter conundrum: if you could be scanned perfectly in one place, but are destroyed there by the scanning, and then reassembled perfectly in another place, would that be you? Or did you die, and this is now a mere copy (albeit a perfect one) which is really another being? In the classical conceptions, your human soul continues to exist in its incorporeal activity, until it can shape a living (resurrected) body again. So you remain identifiable at all times.
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I stand by my citation of the 'God of the Gaps' argument, though. You reject the possibility of scientific investigation ever explaining NDEs, and thus you safeguard this area as positive evidence in favour of a supernatural being. But even then, you say supernatural occurrences could well be embodied in our physical forms; couldn't we say that about any physical process, though, even if we fully understand the process, in physiological terms? ISTM to me you want to have your cake and eat it...
Tosh! My main point is that it does not matter at all what science finds concerning dying rats as far as classical Christianity is concerned, because dying rats and dying humans fundamentally differ concerning what will happen to their souls. If any similarities are found, then all that tells us is that these similarities are unimportant to the main spiritual change at death. If science wants to speak to classical Christian claims there, then the whole idea of using cross-species data is fundamentally flawed. And that is a point that I think may be less than clear to the participating or commenting scientists.
A secondary point was that the whole idea of determining fine details of human experience from neural data is bollocks. We are so far from that, it is not even funny. What we can say about the rats is that they had some brain activity while dying that resembled the brain activity one can see in them during cognitive tasks. Quite possibly we can find experimentally that this is also the case in humans. That's nice, but rather similar to psychologists proving that smiling makes other people feel more positive, or some such. It's the sheer effort involved in the experiment and the seriousness of its presentation that prevents one from offering the most reasonable comment: "Duh!"
A tertiary point is that practically speaking we will not be able to distinguish between a natural and supernatural cause for some potentially observed flurry of cognitive activity. We would have to be able to track the entire brain state in order to exclude that something non-natural is somehow messing with the brain. And we won't be able to do that. I think ... ever, but if one wants to be more cautious then I would say that it's not going to happen in the next two hundred years. The technical challenges for that are just nuts. That we can think about this does not mean that we can do it. It's a lot like thinking about travelling to the stars, once you stop writing SF and start considering it as an engineering challenge, it's just game over.
None of this is trying to "safeguard this area as positive evidence in favour of a supernatural being". I'm perfectly fine with NDEs being no more than hallucinations induced by lack of oxygen, or whatever. All I'm saying is that we will not know that they are that anytime soon. There are multiple show stoppers here as far as science talking to religion goes. Science will not be able to say anything to decide the religious status of NDEs anytime soon. That's all.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Bless!
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I wonder what a rat thinks about when it sees its life flashing before its eyes in the last moment.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Science by definition has already said. And as it will, it just found more grist for its mill. There is no more religious significance to NDE than there is to a really mystical bowel movement. As for immortal souls. What are they again?
Just like at Cwmbran, no faith required, faith is not at issue. In fact the certainty of immortal souls nulls faith.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Winstonian
Apprentice
# 14801
|
Posted
Greetings! I am a long time occasional lurker who has often wished for time to join in on the many interesting discussions on this board. This time, however, I cannot resist. If I breach some rule of etiquette in the following, please forgive and educate me.
There are quite a number of points in this thread that could be commented upon, so rather than use quotes of previous points, for the sake of (probably elusive) brevity, I will simply summarize.
First: regarding whether animals have immortal souls and what Scripture has to say about it. It has been rightly observed that scripture doesn’t say a lot on this topic; it certainly does not tell us that animals do not have immortal souls. It does tell us that God created the animals and calls them good (Genesis 1); that he cares for each individual animal (Matthew 10); that Christ Himself uses God’s love for animals to teach us how much God loves us (Mathew 10 – the argument from the lesser to the greater only works if the lesser is true); that He cares when they are hurt, overworked, or abused (Exodus 23, Deut. 22); that they praise Him (Psalms); that He claims them as his own (Psalms, esp. 50 and 104); that He covenants with them (Genesis 9 and Hosea 2); that He is concerned when they suffer as a result of human sin (Jonah 4). Their proper care is included in the Ten Commandments (Ex. 23:12). Caring for animals is a sign of righteousness (Proverbs 12). It is Balaam’s donkey who sees the angel of the Lord before Balaam himself, and when the donkey’s mouth is opened, he does not first tell Balaam about the angel, but complains about Balaam’s abuse. The angel joins in this condemnation. (Num. 22) These are only a few examples. But this is enough to conclude that God created the animals, loves them, is in relationship with them, and is concerned about their well-being.
Second: creation in the image of God as bestowing an immortal soul. Again, it has been rightly observed that this is philosophical idea rather a Scriptural one. Indeed, much of our philosophizing on this topic is grounded in a Greek, rather than Hebrew or Christian, world view, and has been profoundly influenced by Aristotle’s notion of a natural hierarchy, whereby the lesser was created for the use of the greater. Modern Old Testament scholars, however, have looked at the phrase “image of God” in their Scriptural context and in the context of the ancient societies in which they Scriptures were written. (See Waltke, Fretheim, Brueggemann, Birch, and others) There is virtually unanimous agreement that the phrase is a reference to the ancient practice of kings to place images of themselves in far-flung regions of their empires, to represent their rule. Thus, to be created in the image of God has not to do with the way were made (e.g., with an immortal soul), but has to do with our function on earth. That function is to represent God to the rest of creation. This is entirely consistent with the unswerving Scriptural theme that power comes not with privilege, but with responsibility.
Third (related to the first): whether there are animals in heaven. Again, we don’t know a lot from Scriptures about heaven. We know more about the New Creation. (The relationship between these two ideas is an interesting, but separate, discussion.) In the new creation, not only will animals be present, but just as in the first creation before the fall, in the new creation, when “the earth is full of the knowledge of the Lord,” animals and humans will live in harmony, without killing one another. (Hosea 2, Isaiah 11) Notice: that means a plant-based diet, just like in Genesis 1. Revelation tells us that in heaven there are many non-human creatures, including creatures that look like the animals we know. Revelation also tells us that there are at least four horses and one lamb.
Fourth: regarding whether animals know fear and anthropomorphizing. It is largely acknowledged among those who study these things (animal ethologists) that animals know all the primary emotions: fear, anger, surprise, sadness, disgust, and joy. (See the work of Marc Bekoff, Jane Goodall, Jonathan Balcombe and others). Many believe animals know a great many more emotions, as well. Indeed, rats themselves have been shown to have empathy and compassion: they will forego food if eating means a fellow rat will receive a shock. This seems more than many humans are capable of, as illustrated by . . .
. . . fifth, the study itself. I heard a bit about it on American radio, but have not had a chance to check out the BBC link provided. I recall the scientist in question explaining that she placed electrodes in the brains of the rats, gave them a lethal injection, and watched them die. She described the brain activity as illustrating a “hyper-conscious state.” As soon as she says that, she can no longer maintain the fiction that the rats were not aware of what is happening and were not suffering (if only by having their will to live thwarted – I don’t know whether the method of death caused physical pain, but I can’t believe – at a minimum – that electrodes in the brain are fun). To intentionally cause death, knowing it entails suffering, and then sit back and watch it all play out in order to satisfy one’s curiosity (there can be no argument that there is any genuine human need to understand near death experiences from a scientific standpoint), sounds to me more like work of a sociopath than a scientist. Frankly, the story sent chills down my spine.
I think the study raises serious ethical questions about the miseries we are willing to inflict on sentient creatures to no good end, as well as about what we are saying about who God is, and how He relates to His creation, when we do this.
This kind of behavior does not reflect the character of any kind of God I want anything to do with. Nor do I believe it reflects the character of the God I find in Scripture.
My apologies for the length of this post.
--------------------
Let everything that has breath praise the Lord!
Posts: 20 | From: Washington, DC | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Winstonian:
But this is enough to conclude that God created the animals, loves them, is in relationship with them, and is concerned about their well-being.
Sure. This however does not speak to the question whether animals have immortal souls.
quote:
Originally posted by Winstonian:
Indeed, much of our philosophizing on this topic is grounded in a Greek, rather than Hebrew or Christian, world view, and has been profoundly influenced by Aristotle’s notion of a natural hierarchy, whereby the lesser was created for the use of the greater.
I consider the separation into Hebrew "good" and Greek "bad" influences as false and very detrimental. It was no historical accident that Jesus appeared at the perfect time for combining Jewish spirituality with Greek philosophy (and eventually Roman power and law).
quote:
Originally posted by Winstonian:
Thus, to be created in the image of God has not to do with the way were made (e.g., with an immortal soul), but has to do with our function on earth. That function is to represent God to the rest of creation. This is entirely consistent with the unswerving Scriptural theme that power comes not with privilege, but with responsibility.
What is needed to carry out this function? What is this power that makes humans privileged and responsible? The answers to these questions in fact lead directly to the conclusion of an immortal soul.
quote:
Originally posted by Winstonian:
In the new creation, not only will animals be present, but just as in the first creation before the fall, in the new creation, when “the earth is full of the knowledge of the Lord,” animals and humans will live in harmony, without killing one another. (Hosea 2, Isaiah 11)
However, we do not know that animals will be resurrected. This is said about humans alone, and it is prime scriptural evidence for the difference between humans and animals. People often do not think clearly about this, but again I point to the teleporter conundrum. It is not sufficient to "resurrect" you simply by making a "perfect copy" of how you were before you died. A copy of you is not you. Much less can we see any inherent continuity of identity if in fact the body that is being resurrected is not even a "perfect copy" (but rather something quite new, as scripture suggests). In order for people to get resurrected, they actually must continue in some form beyond death. This fits neatly with the classical ideas about immortal souls. And it is only mentioned for humans, not for animals. Animals will be newly created for any New Creation, because they did not continue in any form past their death, and hence cannot be resurrected.
quote:
Originally posted by Winstonian:
Fourth: regarding whether animals know fear and anthropomorphizing. It is largely acknowledged among those who study these things (animal ethologists) that animals know all the primary emotions: fear, anger, surprise, sadness, disgust, and joy.
Has anybody doubted that animals are sentient? I'm not aware that this is the case. Of course animals feel emotions. The question is whether they are sapient, because it is sapience that - classically - is connected to having an immortal soul. Now, the classical definition of a human being is simply "a rational (thus sapient) animal". I'm sure that a rat is not sapient, and I consider it highly unlikely (though not entirely impossible) that any other animal currently living on this planet, but homo sapiens sapiens, is sapient. However, it is for example quite possible that the Neanderthals were sapient, in which case there were once two races of humans, both with immortal souls.
quote:
Originally posted by Winstonian:
As soon as she says that, she can no longer maintain the fiction that the rats were not aware of what is happening and were not suffering (if only by having their will to live thwarted – I don’t know whether the method of death caused physical pain, but I can’t believe – at a minimum – that electrodes in the brain are fun). To intentionally cause death, knowing it entails suffering, and then sit back and watch it all play out in order to satisfy one’s curiosity (there can be no argument that there is any genuine human need to understand near death experiences from a scientific standpoint), sounds to me more like work of a sociopath than a scientist. Frankly, the story sent chills down my spine.
Modern law about animal experiments guarantee a level of being free of pain and anxiety to lab animals that farm animals can only dream about. I have not read the study so far, but for sure these rats died as painlessly as possible. A for death itself, I intentionally cause the death of those cows I would like to eat (albeit being protected from the gory details by a complicated supply chain). Said cows almost certainly have a rougher time than those lab rats before dying. Finally, I note that nobody gives a damn what I do to a rat when I catch it in a trap in my house, unless I make a public nuisance out of being cruel to it in ending its life. There are plenty of double standards in our dealings with animals, and rest assured, the standards in labs are leaps and bounds ahead of what one sees elsewhere. (I should also note that lab animals are expensive, really expensive. Even the rats, which are not exactly rats picked up on the street. Few people in science now have the money to "waste" animals needlessly, in particular not higher mammals. A monkey trained over months for a task, for example, is an asset of massive value that is treated very well even on purely economical grounds, never mind the ethics, or for that matter simple human empathy...)
quote:
Originally posted by Winstonian:
I think the study raises serious ethical questions about the miseries we are willing to inflict on sentient creatures to no good end, as well as about what we are saying about who God is, and how He relates to His creation, when we do this.
Is filling my belly with meat really a "better end" than finding out about brain activity at death?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
...practically speaking we will not be able to distinguish between a natural and supernatural cause for some potentially observed flurry of cognitive activity. We would have to be able to track the entire brain state in order to exclude that something non-natural is somehow messing with the brain. And we won't be able to do that. I think ... ever, but if one wants to be more cautious then I would say that it's not going to happen in the next two hundred years.
Sure, you may well be right about the technological challenges and likely timescale. But in the meantime, scientists in this field will continue trying to find naturalistic explanations for this on-death increase in brain activity, rather than trying explicitly to exclude the possibility of a non- or super-natural origin. Maybe I'm splitting hairs but it seems to me like an an important semantic distinction.
quote:
Originally posted by Winstonian:
Modern Old Testament scholars, however, have looked at the phrase “image of God” in their Scriptural context and in the context of the ancient societies in which they Scriptures were written. (See Waltke, Fretheim, Brueggemann, Birch, and others) There is virtually unanimous agreement that the phrase is a reference to the ancient practice of kings to place images of themselves in far-flung regions of their empires, to represent their rule. Thus, to be created in the image of God has not to do with the way were made (e.g., with an immortal soul), but has to do with our function on earth. That function is to represent God to the rest of creation. This is entirely consistent with the unswerving Scriptural theme that power comes not with privilege, but with responsibility.
Hi Winstonian, and thanks for your contribution. I gather the 'image' and 'likeness' of God language in Genesis isn't just referring to representations of kings, but to the ancient Near East idol-making practices of the time. A former theology teacher of mine enthusiastically uses terms like 'image-idol' to describe humanity's relationship to God. I think you're spot-on to say that 'image of God' relates to our function much more than to our nature.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
I was taught that animals are closer to God that humans.. they never had a "fall", and so are currently (and eternally) in communion with God, just as we are meant to be. in a way they are already "in heaven" (for a certain value of "heaven").
Of course, I've also heard that animals have no immortal souls. but I never saw substantive proof of that (or even scriptural support that was convincing).
The thing that I believe the "fall" represents (since I take it allegorically) is the fact that human evolution reached a point where we could abstractly understand right from wrong. Some animals MAY be able to do the same to some degree. Many animals, even relatively "primitive" animals, have been shown to behave in ways that one would expect were they to posses the ability to be emphatic. Another way of saying "know right from wrong". If they do, then I think they essentially had their own "fall" (assuming they are capable of then choosing "wrong").
IIRC, in Christianity the animal kingdom is affected by the Fall, in Islam they are not.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Winstonian
Apprentice
# 14801
|
Posted
Originally posted by IngoB quote:
Sure. This however does not speak to the question whether animals have immortal souls.
True. I don't think Scripture tells us one way or another whether animals have immortal souls. I think it tells us that animals matter to God, so they should matter to us.
quote:
I consider the separation into Hebrew "good" and Greek "bad" influences as false and very detrimental.
I did not mean to imply that Greek is necessarily bad - only that the traditional understandings of what it means to be created in the image of God are based on sources outside Scripture and must therefore be subject to careful scrutiny.
quote:
What is needed to carry out this function? What is this power that makes humans privileged and responsible? The answers to these questions in fact lead directly to the conclusion of an immortal soul.
I don't think that follows. Yes, humans are given power and ability to represent God, but I'm not sure that leads inexorably to the conclusion that humans have an immortal soul and animals don't. Can you explain how you get there?
quote:
However, we do not know that animals will be resurrected.
True again. However, we don't know that they won't be, either. Scripture says animals will be in the new creation - it doesn't say that they will be newly created there. (It seems there should be some recompense for the misery they suffer here.) Given God's clear care for animals, it seems to me wiser to give them the benefit of the doubt. We are so often wrong when deem what is other as lesser or what is lesser as not requiring our concern. Regardless, whether they have immortal souls and are resurrected or not, that does not have a bearing on our obligations to treat them with compassion. That obligation exists here and now.
quote:
Has anybody doubted that animals are sentient?
Yes. Descartes, for one, who believed they had no awareness of what was happening to them and so they could not suffer. He and his followers were quite cruel to animals. Factory farmers today often make the same argument, saying that animals feel only "unconscious pain" and therefore it is not real pain. The same idea is embedded in the thought that animals act only on instinct and therefore are somehow not aware of what they are doing in any meaningful way.
quote:
The question is whether they are sapient,
This may be true if you are talking about immortal souls. It doesn't matter if you are talking about an obligation to be compassionate toward them - ideas I admit I rather conflated in my first post. But - rationality (which what I take you to mean), like most of the other things relied on historically to distinguish humans from animals, turns out to be a difference of degree rather than kind. Studies have shown astonishing intelligence in many animals, intentional choices, planning for the future, important personal relationships among the same and different species, remarkable memories, the ability to teach their young which humans to fear (by facial recognition) and which not to fear, the ability to analyze a problem (how to get the nut out of a container - I am thinking here of an experiment with birds, lest anyone think I'm referring to chimps), design and build the right tool, use the tool, and show others how to do the same thing. They also have social codes within their communities, show empathy, and know when they are being treated unfairly by humans (why does that dog get a treat for shaking on command and I don't. I won't do the trick anymore.) They do not, of course (as far as we know), think abstractly about the meaning of life or whether there is a God or try to solve similar abstract and theoretical problems - and there are vast differences among species regarding the feats described above. They are certainly not the intellectual equals of humans (as a class), but they have been severely underestimated for most of time, and have paid a high price as a result (in the sense of humans believing they do not suffer or that their suffering somehow doesn't matter because they are not "rational"). But perhaps I am misunderstanding what you mean by "sapient?"
quote:
Modern law about animal experiments guarantee a level of being free of pain and anxiety to lab animals that farm animals can only dream about.
Under at least some American law, rats and mice are not considered "animals" for purposes of lab experiments, so they have no protection. But, yes, factory farmed animals endure the tortures of the damned. That's why I'm a vegan. Or, that's one of the reasons - the other is that once I came to understand that farm animals - just like dogs and cats - are each unique individuals with their own personalities and friendships and will to live, I could no longer justify eating them.
quote:
I note that nobody gives a damn what I do to a rat when I catch it in a trap in my house
They do in the circles I move in! I have had conversations with people about the most humane method for dealing with mice in their homes and offices. (I don't know anyone who has had to deal with rats, though.)
quote:
Is filling my belly with meat really a "better end" than finding out about brain activity at death?
Arguably, eating meat keeps you alive. Of course, I believe that eating meat is also unnecessary for most of us in the western world, as we have a variety of other nutritious options readily available (most of which are less expensive and much healthier than meat). Nevertheless, food is a necessity; understanding brain activity during a near death experience may be quite interesting - and even potentially useful -- from a scientific standpoint, but it is not necessary. When you are keeping animals in labs, implanting things in their brains, and putting them to death, I think good ethics -- and good theology -- require us to move with care.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin: quote:
I gather the 'image' and 'likeness' of God language in Genesis isn't just referring to representations of kings, but to the ancient Near East idol-making practices of the time.
I have truncated a number of fairly complex ideas so as not to blather on too long (many of you are no doubt saying, "too late!"), so, yes,, there is more to the "image of God" story - thank you for the addition.
--------------------
Let everything that has breath praise the Lord!
Posts: 20 | From: Washington, DC | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
So human's - let's say, 'ground of being' (a horribly Protestant theologians phrase I know,
Tillich wasn't horrible. quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Depends upon your point of view, I guess.
Or on how much Tillich one has read.
Rather, on how much Tillich one has understood.
Either way, I didn't get the impression Fletcher was claiming Tillich was horrible in the first place. I could be wrong.
[ 15. August 2013, 23:30: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Blather away Winstonian. A pleasure to meet and read you.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
barrea
Shipmate
# 3211
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Blather away Winstonian. A pleasure to meet and read you.
Yes Winstonian, Although I hav'nt posted on this thread I find your posts most interesting.
--------------------
Therefore having been justified by faith,we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 5:1
Posts: 1050 | From: england | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Winstonian
Apprentice
# 14801
|
Posted
Just saw this today. Seemed a timely addition to some of my comments above. This article addresses a study that shows that chickens are smarter than the average four-year-old human child. Chickens: smarter than a four-year-old
--------------------
Let everything that has breath praise the Lord!
Posts: 20 | From: Washington, DC | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
IIRC, in Christianity the animal kingdom is affected by the Fall, in Islam they are not.
Interesting, I guess our "the lion and the lamb shall lie down together" indicates a belief the animal world's brutality is not God's highest intention. I never thought about what Islam or any other religion says about wild animal brutality.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
So human's - let's say, 'ground of being' (a horribly Protestant theologians phrase I know,
Tillich wasn't horrible. quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Depends upon your point of view, I guess.
Or on how much Tillich one has read.
Rather, on how much Tillich one has understood.
Either way, I didn't get the impression Fletcher was claiming Tillich was horrible in the first place. I could be wrong.
I agree, though I'm not sure what horribly Protestant means. Perhaps we could have a thread (in Heaven for preference) on what 'horribly X' means for various X.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Winstonian - apparently when I was a toddler I made the connection between chickens, whom I loved, and chicken. I shook my head at chicken after that.
A couple of years ago I interacted with chickens in a friend's back yard. Their individual, traited personalities were startlingly obvious.
MGLW and I have just agreed to go veggie during the week for health and consumer reasons and that opened up the whole going veggie possibility.
I have always consciously been a visceral carnivore, become more so. Enjoyed the horror of it all. Now that is nagging. Although I LOVE meat.
Jesus was a carnivore. The trajectory moves on ...
In my heaven, the infinite plains and oceans are populated with everything that was ever Felt.
Belle Ringer - Aspergersesque or just plain mildly personality disordered as I am and hence disagreeable, nasty by nature and habit and choice - it's just a metaphor for us. That's you and me here now too.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Winstonian:
Just saw this today. Seemed a timely addition to some of my comments above. This article addresses a study that shows that chickens are smarter than the average four-year-old human child. Chickens: smarter than a four-year-old
But surely the whole point of a four-year-old is that it's going to get EVEN SMARTER, which is unlikely to happen to the chicken?
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Winstonian
Apprentice
# 14801
|
Posted
quote:
But surely the whole point of a four-year-old is that it's going to get EVEN SMARTER, which is unlikely to happen to the chicken?
True. The point is not that animals are as smart as humans - as noted above, as a class I know of no animal species as smart as humans as a class. The point is that they are a lot smarter than they have been thought to be. They are also much more aware of themselves and their surroundings than they have been credit for (sentient). So we cannot continue to kid ourselves that they don't really suffer, or they don't know what's happening to them when they are mistreated,or like ideas that have been used by humans to tell ourselves we don't need to worry about dogs or chickens or rats because they are "only animals." There's nothing "only" about them. They suffer. Their suffering is as real and meaningful to them as ours is to us. Their suffering matters. They are, as Farm Sanctuary likes to say, some one, not some thing. When we stop our ears to the suffering of those we have deemed of little value (and over whom we have great power), I believe, we will have much to answer for before God. Again - I do not say animals are equal to humans; I say animals are sentient creatures loved by God to whom we owe a duty of care - and our exercise of that care is a reflection of the character of God.
(Also, to be clear, the intelligence aspect is interesting and important in that it demonstrates that animals' interactions with the world are rich, varied, and complex; they do not operate only by instinct. Our duty of care, however, depends on the ability of the animal to know joy and sorrow - it's sentience - not its intelligence - and particularly not its intelligence as measured by human standards. As Jonathan Balcombe (I believe) says - "Animals are as smart as they need to be.")
--------------------
Let everything that has breath praise the Lord!
Posts: 20 | From: Washington, DC | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Winstonian
Apprentice
# 14801
|
Posted
Martin - very interesting observations. Most of us, as children, have a connection to animals that is talked out of us, one way or another, as we age. When I was a child, I would eat fish from a box in the freezer but would not eat the fresh fish our neighbor brought. My mother, probably sensing trouble ahead, never explained to me that the fish in the box were the same thing as the fish on the counter.
I used to be a great lover of all meat and diary, too. I am fortunate in that once I made the connection that food animals are as individual as pets, a switch flipped for me, and I lost all appetite for it. In fact, I made no decision to go vegetarian - when I came home from a conference where I had made the connection, my spouse presented me with a chicken for dinner, which I could not eat. That was the end of that. Giving up fish and dairy was a slower march, but based entirely on learning about the animals involved and how the food got my plate. Blech. (I will still eat cheese or butter as an accommodation to others if I am in their homes - for non-vegans the idea of feeding a vegan is usually enough to make their head explode, but they can usually manage vegetarian. Also, sometimes in a restaurant one needs to resign oneself to some butter of cheese or insist that the group move elsewhere - which seems inhospitable.)
"Jesus was a carnivore..." Maybe. There are those who argue he wasn't, although I believe they are on tenuous ground. Scripture only says once that Jesus ate meat - a piece of fish after the resurrection. Others argue that because of the culture in which he lived, the rich homes he was invited to, and the celebration of the Passover, we must assume he ate meat. Either way, he did not eat meat the way we eat it. He didn't eat it three times a day seven days a week (many of us do, or nearly do); he didn't eat meat from factory farms and high-speed slaughter houses; he did not eat meat from animals who were treated as widgets - those systems did not exist when he walked the earth. If he ate kosher meat, as we must assume if we are going to assume he ate meat, he ate meat that was required to be raised with care and slaughtered with compassion and with a recognition that the life taken belonged to God.
We are fortunate to live in a time and place where we have a variety of food options that have not been available (and in some places still are not) historically. (Of course, we also live in a time and place where nearly all animals raised for food are raised in previously unimaginably deplorable conditions.) We can make compassionate choices about our food - and our entertainment, cleaning supplies, personal products, pets, and a host of other things that have a direct bearing on how animals live. I have a friend at the Humane Society for the United States who says that animals welfare is a cause for which everyone can do something. Every little bit helps, I say, and none of us gets it all right.
--------------------
Let everything that has breath praise the Lord!
Posts: 20 | From: Washington, DC | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
@IngoB - I retract my barbed, flesh tearing 'Bless', not, unfortunately, out of sheer penitence for its own sake, but because it is inappropriate. I actually just read everything you said. Your rhetoric is first class. It would have been more appropriate after your previous comment in which you sounded like Jor-El lecturing his son on how pigs have wings.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Risking the faux pas or bad form of a double post Winstonian, superb testimony and analysis. My badly made point was that Jesus would have been culturally a meat eater, once a week if that as you said, but the trajectory to vegetarianism for multiple reasons is easily made for me now as to a more compassionate definition of marriage.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
