Is there anything in the Bible indicating that animals don't have souls? If not, then why does this theory persist? Humans have an awful track record of assuming what God intends, so I'm not sure we should assume not just because it's more convenient or easier.
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Matthew 10:29
Are not two sparrows sold for a small coin? Yet not one of them falls to the ground without your Father's knowledge.
The creation has enough soul to sing praises to it's creator - even the sparrows. They are known to God. John the Baptist tells us that the inanimate parts of the creation are known to God as well. Luke 3:8
Produce good fruits as evidence of your repentance; and do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father,' for I tell you, God can raise up children to Abraham from these stones."
Souls and resurrection bodies are contentious topics for me. I have written a lot about this subject, and also about the end of the age on my site, but as we have discussed with parables, you can't always come at things directly. Trying to understand things using existing terms and preconceptions only allows things to be understood in those terms. Knowledge by epiphany, or lateral thinking, or revelation transcends the normal limits of understanding. Remember, they couldn't understand the Kingdom of God in terms of the Mosaic Law. PS. Was your request for Epiphanist to write about these things on my own site a hint to get off yours? LOL.
No, I didn't mean that, of course. I did recognize after posting it that it might have come across that way... sorry. It's just that the comment sections here are so small. I really need to consider a message board or some other method of encouraging all disucssions like this. I mentioned having you post on your blog about this as a means for finding out more. I want to learn more about how you interpret these passages and thought that would give you more room to do so without your insight being lost in someone else's comment section.
Interesting question. If animals have souls, then you have to ask, are they also under the burden of original sin? If so, then they have to be saved, which means that they would have to be able to understand and make the choice.
Or, animals are incapable of sin, not understanding right and wrong, and therefore their souls remain in an unblemished state, and they go to heaven.
What is the purpose of a soul? Perhaps something that yearns after God? Can animals be said to year after God, or perceive of a Creator?
I guess it all boils down to your definition a "soul."
Original sin is over rated, particularly for people who are now forgiven. The establishment of the Law created original sin, without the Law there was no sin. Animals are not subject to the Law and so their behaviour is not relevant in the concept of original sin.
Luke 19 : 39 Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to him, "Teacher, rebuke your disciples."
40 He said in reply, "I tell you, if they keep silent, the stones will cry out!"
If stones could recognise their creator, how much more so the animals!
Don't take this comment too seriously, it is meant to illustrate the difficulty of pinning down what a soul is.
So it seems as if the consensus so far is that animals aren't strictly banned from having souls (although we could spend an eternity discussing the nature of a "soul"). So where did this persistent fallacy come from?
If we weren't meant to eat them, why do they taste so good???
Post a Comment