Are Animals as innocent as we think?

[Lewis]

Well Handy animals have different personalities, because they have souls. Now to the other question, there is no record in the Bible of man eating meat or animals eating meat until Genesis 9. Leading many to believe that animals were not dangerous to man in those days.

 

[Drew]

Ecclesiastes 3:21
Who knows the spirit of the sons of men, which goes upward, and the spirit of the animal, which goes down to the earth?

If you are going to take this statement from the author of Ecclesiastes as a factual statement about the "way things are" re the fate of animals, the same principle should be applied to the following statement, also from Ecclesiates, and obviously about human beings:

For the living know they will die; but the dead do not know anything

Do you (Lewis) believe that the dead actually know nothing? I would expect you do not believe this, even though I happen to believe that the dead indeed "sleep" until called forth.

If you want to maintain that believers who have already died are indeed conscious in heaven, then you might want to consider that the author of Ecclesiastes is expressing what is, in fact, an incorrect position about the state of affairs for the dead. This is not to question the inerrancy of Scripture though - although, for brevity, I will not give a defence for this statement.

Unfortunately, to be consistent, you could not invoke Eccl 3:21 as a factually correct statement about the fate of animals.

Let me know if you see my point and whether you agree or not. I am not trying to hijack this thread into a soul sleep debate. I simply want to point out what I think are the implications of taking Eccl 3:21 as Solomon's statement of the way things actually are.

 

[Drew]

To me the heaven issue is a moot point as heaven isn't our final destination anyway.

Just an aside to handy - no intent to derail the thread: I happen to agree with you on this point. Do you not think that many Christians indeed do believe that Heaven is our final destination?

 

[Drew]

She was banging into my husband, thrashing around and spaying everyone.........

Wow that is one mean cow - I did not know they had the technology to "spay" (i.e. remove the reproductive function, if I am not mistaken) of humans! I hope no one was neutered who still wanted to have kids.............. :D

 

[Lewis]

Drew Wrote
For the living know they will die; but the dead do not know anything

Drew that statement is talking about the body. I have even used that verse twice, eulogizing funerals, and the last one August of this year. It is talking about the body, the body knows nothing after death, to the body it is like it never was here.

 

[Drew]

Drew Wrote
For the living know they will die; but the dead do not know anything

Drew that statement is talking about the body.]

I think the view that the body is the "thing" that knows stuff is an untenable position.

Those who believe that man has an immaterial soul / spirit that "goes somewhere" at death always claim that this "spirit" is indeed the bearer of consciousness, thought, interaction, communication, etc. It seems hard to argue that, on such a view, it is the body that is the place where "knowing" resides.

I assume that you believe that the "rich man and Lazarus" account in Luke 16 is a literal account of the state of affairs of a real rich man and a real Lazarus in the after-life. If so, it seems very clear that the "spirit of the rich man" in Hades (or where-ever) knows all sorts of things. He communicates with Abraham after all.

If the redeemed who have already died are presently in Heaven, their "spirits" obviously "know things". What, precisely is it that their spirits know that their bodies do not?

 

[handy]

She was banging into my husband, thrashing around and spaying everyone.........

Wow that is one mean cow - I did not know they had the technology to "spay" (i.e. remove the reproductive function, if I am not mistaken) of humans! I hope no one was neutered who still wanted to have kids.............. :D

:smt043 :smt081 :smt082

Talk about an unfortunate typo! No, as bad as it was, it wasn't THAT bad! :

I do often wonder how many Christians think that we will reside eternally in heaven. I'm not sure why we have that impression, but it seems pretty clear that our final residence will be right here on earth, the new earth fully good, and free from any ravages of sin.

And it's clear from Isaiah 11 that animals will be a part of this new earth. So, since animals have souls, why shouldn't they be restored to the life they would have had, had it not been for Adam?

 

[Lewis]

You have missed the mark. The body after death knows nothing. The spirit does. And as for Luke 16, what is a parable but a earthly illustration about a heavenly truth. And we are going off topic here. If you want to talk about this, start a new topic on this.

 

[Vic C.]

... Talk about an unfortunate typo! No, as bad as it was, it wasn't THAT bad! :

I thought it was funny too. :-D

I do often wonder how many Christians think that we will reside eternally in heaven. I'm not sure why we have that impression, but it seems pretty clear that our final residence will be right here on earth, the new earth fully good, and free from any ravages of sin.

And it's clear from Isaiah 11 that animals will be a part of this new earth. So, since animals have souls, why shouldn't they be restored to the life they would have had, had it not been for Adam?

I concur to both statements. Maybe you should create a poll. :D

 

[Drew]

You have missed the mark. The body after death knows nothing. The spirit does.

I think my comments and argument is indeed relevant.

To recap:

You argued that Eccl 3:21 was a factually correct statement about the fate of the spirit of animals.

I responded that Solomon also writes that "the dead know nothing" and that, if one is going to take 3:21 as factual, you need to take this text as factual also.

You did not dispute this need for consistency, but instead argued that the statement about the "dead knowing nothing" is a statement about the state of their bodies.

I have responded that such a view is not really workable for reasons I will expand on below.

But my line of argument is indeed relevant to the OP in the sense that if you are going to use Eccl 3:21 as factually true, you need to see "the dead know nothing" as factually true also, and in a manner that is sensible.

Is it sensible to claim that "the dead know nothing" is a statement about the state of affairs in respect to the "body" only? There are many problems with such a view.

1. The text does not specify that the entity that knows nothing is "the body" - it simply refers to the dead. It appears that you have inserted a qualification that this is only about the body. That's not the end of the world, but it is arguable that you have read "body" into the text. Do you not think it is odd that Solomon did not specify that specifically bodily knowledge is lost, while so much knowledge (allocated to the spirit) is preserved? Why doesn't Solomon make this distinction?

2. But even if we ignore item 1, one can ask whether it makes sense to draw a division between "things the body knows" (and hence are lost at death on your view) and "things the spirit knows" (and hence are preserved at death on your view). Let's say that a believer named Fred dies. On your view, his spirit goes straight to heaven (with whatever knowledge a spirit "carries") while his body goes to dust (and the knowledge that "belongs to the body" is lost). I think that this is a very odd view indeed in that stimulates the question: What, precisely
does the body "know" that the "spirit" does not? If you, or anyone who shares your view can answer this question, I would be very interested.

None of the above "proves" that the statemenet "the dead know nothing" refers only to bodily knowledge. However, one of the symptoms of an incorrect position is if it results in a number of highly implausibe conclusions - such as this mysterious split between "body knowledge" and "spirit knowledge".

Is it my body that knows that the capital of France is Paris, or is it my spirit?

Is it my body that knows that Jesus is Lord of the Universe, or is it my spirit?

Is it my body that knows that I loved my mother, or is it my spirit?

And so on.

 

[Vic C.]

Animals... lets get back to the animals. 8-)

 

[Drew]

Animals... lets get back to the animals. 8-)

Hello there Vic:

At the risk of seeming defensive: my line of argument is directly relevant to the matter at issue and I have spelled out exactly why. To repeat: if one is going to use a text such as Eccl 3:21 to make a point about animals then one needs to be able to defend such a "I takes 'em as I reads 'em" argument in the light of other texts in the same book like "the dead know nothing" text. I am making the case that a person who believes that the redeemed dead go directly to heaven and have some "knowledge" while there cannot legitimately deploy the "I takes 'em as I reads 'em" strategy in respect to the issue of the Fido and Muffy.

I do not have an answer, but what seems like a tangent speaks directly to the OP.

 

[handy]

I can see your reasoning Drew, and would ask that any answers be in kind, relating to the principle involved rather than getting into the idea of what happens to humans when we die. Especially as there are now a couple of threads to pursue that line of thought.

So, back to Fido and Muffy, and the original intent of the thread, which acutally was, should we assume that animals are innocent.

Adam's sin has spread to all of mankind. We all sin as a direct result of Adam. But, do the animals? They are under the curse of sin, in that they die. They show sinful behaviour, even sinful intent at times. But, as they are animals, can they sin? Or do we chalk up their bad deeds as simple instinct?

This weekend, as we were loading the mean heifer into the trailer, there was one incident that caused me to think of this thread specifically. My husband had already loaded the nice heifer into the trailer, and had used a stick to get the mean one turned around in the chute and headed in the right direction. By "using a stick" I don't mean that he abused her in any way, just gave her a rap or two on her rump to cause her to turn. She got turned around, but balked at the trailer door. She kind of turned around a couple of more times, as we blocked her way backwards. Several minutes went by, probably as long a ten, maybe fifteen. She kept giving Steve the evil eye. At one point, we decided just to take a break and let everyone settle down. So, we all relaxed a bit. The other heifer had pushed some of her hay into the side of the trailer that we wanted Star to go into. Steve jumped back into the chute, in order get some of the hay, to use as an incentive to get Star into the trailer. He never got near it. When Star saw him jump into the pen without looking at her, she suddenly and quite deliberately charged him, knocked him up against the panels and almost threw him over.

Life on the ole' ranch can get purty excitin'!

He swung up on the panels and jumped out, and wasn't hurt (much). But, she knew exactly what she was doing. She was mad at Steve and waited until she had the chance to ram him, and did so.

What was that? Is this an example of an animal deliberatly doing something sinful? It was deliberate that's for sure. But was it sinful?

In Exodus 21:28, God commanded that if an ox gores a man to death, the ox was to be stoned and it's flesh was not to be eaten. This surely is more than a simple, common-sense directive to put down a dangerous animal. It sounds as though God exacts judgment against animals. God doesn't hold the owner of the ox accountable either, unless the ox had a history of goring and the owner had been warned.

 

[Drew]

Adam's sin has spread to all of mankind. We all sin as a direct result of Adam. But, do the animals?

I think that we generally "forget" that the curse that Adam brought down influenced all creation - not just people, but cows, frogs, trees, rivers, DNA - the whole shebang.

My guess is that animals can indeed sin. I would bet that a case could be made that higher order primates other than humans indeed can indeed "reason" about what they do - this would be "more" than instinct.

 

[Vic C.]

Now, is it really a sin if they aren't called to a higher standard of righteousness like humans? Sin is missing the mark set by our Creator, God. What mark is an animal missing? To whom was God's word written? Man or animal? Who was given dominion over the wildlife?

 

[Drew]

Now, is it really a sin if they aren't called to a higher standard of righteousness like humans? Sin is missing the mark set by our Creator, God. What mark is an animal missing? To whom was God's word written? Man or animal? Who was given dominion over the wildlife?

I would say that one thing that the Law (here I am referring to the Torah) does is to "expose sin". The Law is not "the source" of sin - the source of sin lies in something deeper, something constitutional of all creation including animals.

As Paul states, we become aware of sin through the Law and "where there is no Law, there is no transgression". Transgression is not the same thing as "sin". Transgression is a quantity that only comes into being when the Law shines its light on sin.

So I think that all one is really justified in saying is that our dear four-footed (or eight-legged as the case may be) friends cannot be guilty of transgression. They are still stained by sin as is all creation. And when Paul writes as follows in Romans 8, I think he is clearly addressing the fact that all of creation is imbued with sin:

For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

And, interestingly, we have these words from Jesus:

Mark 16:15

He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation.

I think that we have to take Jesus at His word here - he is not simply referring to people but to all creation. I will not attempt to speculate in this post about how one "preaches the gospel to a squirrel or a lizard".....

Now admittedly, we have this also from Paul:

"But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come"

I do not think that the above allows to claim that animals are not tainted by sin - it simply suggests that such sin will not "reckoned against them".

In any event, I am coming to believe that "sin" is not so much an "up there in the air somewhere abstract concept" but is rather a physical quantity that has, through Adam, been woven into every nook and cranny in the Universe, including Rover and Bessy the heifer.

So animals and humans have the same fallen state - they are infected with sin. Only humans have awareness of that state through the illuminating effect of the law.

 

[Vic C.]

It's not worth arguing over this. I disagree that animals are sinners; they are not the recipients of life eternal or damnation based on anything they have done or any choice that have made.

He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation.

Got to go home now and witness to my kitties and iguana! :-D Drew, you of all here, know better than to suggest that is more than just a figure of speech or at best, a metaphor. ;-) You're trying hard to convince yourself in defense of your beliefs.

Again, the Bible was written for us, not them. God's laws were for us, not them. Jesus died a sacrificial death and rose for us, not them. The Kingdom will not be any greater if they are there nor will it be any lesser if they aren't. The Kingdom was presented to us and the relationship between God and His creation is really between God and Man.

There may be proof text for what you're trying to defend, but there's no real continuity in scripture to support this as anything more than conjecture. On the other hand, there is plenty there to fully support the belief that we only, are the crown and object of His Creation.

 

[Drew]

He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation.

Got to go home now and witness to my kitties and iguana! :-D Drew, you of all here, know better than to suggest that is more than just a figure of speech or at best, a metaphor. ;-) You're trying hard to convince yourself in defense of your beliefs.

I am quite serious when I say that "preaching to all creation" is not a figure of speech. I did not (and do not now) have time in the post my beliefs about what this might mean. But rest assured, I am not proposing that we have evangelistic meetings with cats and dogs in the pews. But I am quite convinced that we have collectively ignored the reality of sin in the "world out there". Sin has stained the universe, not just people.

Again, the Bible was written for us, not them. God's laws were for us, not them. Jesus died a sacrificial death and rose for us, not them.

I do not have time to do more than make this high level assertion: Jesus died for all creation, not just human beings. To think otherwise is to, in my opinion, misunderstand the very nature of sin. I may start a thread and try to argue that sin is a very "physical" quantity - not an abstract "judicial" kind of one. For example, taking the lead from NT Wright, I will suggest that sin had to "be cornered in one physical place - the person of Jesus" in order to be condemned.

 

[handy]

Some interesting thoughts by both of you. And, I agree that this isn't worth arguing over, it's just an interesting subject to me given the interaction I have with animals on a daily basis. No theology here, just chit-chat.

Maybe the key is the Law. It is God's commandments to mankind that sets us over the animals. And, by "over the animals" I mean that God commanded us to subdue the earth and rule over them. Because we have the Law, commandments of God, and the animals don't, the animals show the results of the curse of sin, yet cannot in of themselves be sinful.

Even when they are deliberately spRaying you! :wink:

There is a rather dark explanation for Mark 16:15. This explanation doesn't reflect on our Lord, but rather the wickedness and prejudices of men. The Jews had just as many racial prejudices as pretty much every other sub-group. The commandment to preach the gospel to every creature meant that they would have to preach the gospel to the Gentiles as well as the Jews. Just as the Brits were to preach the gospel to the tribes of India, and the Whites were to preach the gospel to the slaves. When we think of slavery, we can imagine that many would justify not preaching the gospel to the blacks, because blacks weren't really considered fully human. Dark, but probably the truest explanation for the verbage of the commandment. Jesus was adamant, EVERYONE GETS THE GOSPEL!

 

[Vic C.]

Maybe the key is the Law. It is God's commandments to mankind that sets us over the animals. And, by "over the animals" I mean that God commanded us to subdue the earth and rule over them. Because we have the Law, commandments of God, and the animals don't, the animals show the results of the curse of sin, yet cannot in of themselves be sinful.

Hey Handy and all...

Here is a couple of quickies to ponder over:

Why was man given dominion over the animal "kingdom"?

When was man given dominion over the animal "kingdom"?

and just for the fun of it:

Who killed the first animal?