Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Not again! I was not sure of your belief, so I asked a simple question!No! Where do you think I said that?
Not again! I was not sure of your belief, so I asked a simple question!
Also I notice you disagree with my post where I noted the Catholic Church hold no belief that any other animal has a soul. Perhaps you can point to where the Church teaches other animals do have souls?
It's biblical. And Man is unique because we are made after His kind. We alone are to be Children of God. I also believe the animals are MUCH MORE than most of us understand. But they are not created after the God kindThe belief is humans are unique in that we have souls. There is no belief that apes ever had souls
Again, I was speaking of Catholic teaching. I believe it was Pope Pius who said, no, not in the same way as humans, and then Pope Francis may have said yes, but then the Vatican seemed to gloss over that, so no official change....It's biblical. And Man is unique because we are made after His kind. We alone are to be Children of God. I also believe the animals are MUCH MORE than most of us understand. But they are not created after the God kind
that is interesting.Ecclesiastes 3:19 says humans and animals have the same fate and "the same breath", in other words, the breath of God.
Also, the same word used to describe animals in Genesis 1 is used to describe humans in Genesis 2.
And last but not least, it is observably true that animals have souls, when you consider that a soul simply means a mind (which animals have), a will, and emotions.
The debate shouldn't even be whether or not animals have souls. The debate is typically do they have souls that continue on after this life? And since the bible also talks about animals being in heaven, then that one is an easy yes, as well.
Yes, I've thought on similar lines. "In his image" wouldn't have to mean that we look like God or that God looks like a human with a long white beard, or whatever. I would not expect God to ever be visible to human eyesight, but rather filling the universe and Heaven, if Heaven is outside the physical univers.Meriweather, in regard to humans being made in the image of God, my view on that is different than most Christians. It seems that most Christians believe being made in God's image means that humans have certain characteristics of God... the claim is that we were created as a rational, volitional agent, and also that we have a moral compass. That is true, but in my view the problem with that interpretation is that angels also have those attributes, so it isn't unique to humans.
So my view is that being made in God's image is not about our nature or characteristics, but it has to do with our unique calling or purpose. Just as God has dominion over us, we were given dominion over the animals. God’s intent was for us to be His image-bearers on this earth, to rule (in a Godly way) and be caretakers of creation. That is what sets us apart from the animals, our role.
Feel free to use this thread, if you like. The original topic seems of interest to few, so the thread isn't really getting off the ground as far as that goes. But it set off some interesting debate.That's just my take on it though, and I admit that my interpretation could be wrong. Maybe it does mean we have certain characteristics of God, but this is actually a topic for a thread of its own.
I have a different view of the soul than Catholic or the Protestant daughtersAgain, I was speaking of Catholic teaching. I believe it was Pope Pius who said, no, not in the same way as humans, and then Pope Francis may have said yes, but then the Vatican seemed to gloss over that, so no official change....
Haven't found anywhere in the Bible that animals are in heaven. Have read in a couple of near death experiences of people seeing children with animals, but as far as Church and Scripture, the question of animal souls (versus animal spirits) doesn't seem to have reached a consensus. For those of us who have animals...we have our own conclusions, founded perhaps not so much on specifics in the Bible or Church about animals, but on God's love of His creation.
Please, lead is led.About 1919 there was a huge reactionary movement towards fundamentalism out of fear of science and modernity. It lead to the Scopes Monkey Trial.
I don't understand why there's a fight between science and spiritual matters.
My question as a youngster was that if God's ways are not our ways, nor His thoughts our thoughts, how could it be said we were in the likeness of God, especially as we had also been told the "right arm of God" was not the same as our right arm. The view you presented makes as much sense as any other.So my view is that being made in God's image is not about our nature or characteristics, but it has to do with our unique calling or purpose. Just as God has dominion over us, we were given dominion over the animals. God’s intent was for us to be His image-bearers on this earth, to rule (in a Godly way) and be caretakers of creation. That is what sets us apart from the animals, our role.
That's just my take on it though, and I admit that my interpretation could be wrong. Maybe it does mean we have certain characteristics of God, but this is actually a topic for a thread of its own.
Thank you, and no apology needed on your part. It was probably a matter of me summarizing my past position(s) in this thread, while you were moving forward. We were simply on different trains...of thought. It got straightened out.And I'm sorry if it seemed like I snapped at you....I just didn't know how you got that out of what I said and I was surprised that you'd ask that. But also maybe it's my lack of sleep recently that is causing me to be a bit short with people, I apologize.
That's something else that is under revision apparently for some reason. It's always been true as stated and many have drawn likenesses of the god.Yes, I've thought on similar lines. "In his image" wouldn't have to mean that we look like God or that God looks like a human with a long white beard, or whatever.
Never throughout history since the Christian god was invented has there been any suggestion that the god's right arm appeared to be any different than a male human's right arm.My question as a youngster was that if God's ways are not our ways, nor His thoughts our thoughts, how could it be said we were in the likeness of God, especially as we had also been told the "right arm of God" was not the same as our right arm. The view you presented makes as much sense as any other.
that is interesting.
can you quote me that part? Not disputing it, I'd just like to see it.
I have a theory, supported by no one, that Genesis 1, and Genesis 2, tell two different stories of the creation of man.
In Genesis 1, God creates all animals, and then creates "man" (not "a man"). These humans were not ensouled, but clearly Genesis makes the distinction, between "man" and every living creature that moveth," and Man. God first commanded that the animals to be fruitful and multiply, and then commanded man directly to do the same.
In Genesis 2, god makes "the man" the prototypical man with a soul, and from him, made a woman, who would also have a soul, having come from "the man." In other words, when Adam and Eve were created, there were already humans on earth in some abundance.
If that is not true, then who did Cain marry when he was sent east of Eden? Who did Cain fear would attack him, that God put a mark on him to forbid from killing? How did Cain and his son found a city, if the only other people who existed were his parents and dead brother back outside the Garden?
I could be wrong, if anyone knows why I'm wrong, I'm all ears.
You're not wrong on that. Many have asked the same question but I've never heard a satisfactory answer.In other words, when Adam and Eve were created, there were already humans on earth in some abundance.
You're not wrong on that. Many have asked the same question but I've never heard a satisfactory answer.
Perhaps Meriweather can with his exceptions to the meaning of words in the English language.
Do you hold it to be true?That's something else that is under revision apparently for some reason. It's always been true as stated and many have drawn likenesses of the god.
Why is it necessary to change what has held to be true for hundreds (thousands) of years?
None of that gets us any closer to answering the question on how many Christians are literal believers in their bibles, and how many have moved on to accepting Darwinian evolution?
Meriweather promoted the idea that 20% were literal believers and he attempted to say that has always been static and unchanging. I have pursued evidence to show that the literal believers in 1900 were close to 80%.
Can we go slowly and answer the questions one at a time?
Strange that an athesit who does not believe in God......would attempt to prove that what He does not believe does not exist........if BELIEF is all that is required to establish TRUTH. It takes faith and evidence to establish truth, faith alone is dead.It's far from that simple and to suggest it's so is to impose more restrictions and conditions on the flock than I as an atheist would ask for.
Everybody has moved on and are qualifying that which is to be believed in the bibles as the word of the god. Just ask a sampling of Christians to define that which is the word of god and which is not to be accepted as such!
Can it be the fault of those who wrote the bibles and the fact that they had no way to copy the bibles other than to hand write copies thousands of times? Thus producing the thousandth copy that isn't even remotely similar to the original?
I suspect that the % of Christians who take their bibles literally could be somewhat more than Meri's claim of 20%.
