Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Hi Dave,
    
>But is there some
>reason outside the realm of strict biblical interpretation which sets us apart?
    
    Yes, Dave, there is.  Reality demonstrates that the capacity to
    think and act morally or immorally is absent in animals and plants.   
    
>Do animals have spirit and souls?  In any degree?  Can non living things have 
    >spirit, posess soul?

    Does man have a spirit or soul?  This question cannot be
    presently answered objectively.  It will be answered affirmitively one 
    day, according to the Bible and the words of Jesus.  Either death will
    demonstrate the soul's existence or Christ's return will do so.  
    
    >Is there any room in Christianity for spirit
>outside the realms of humanity and of course Heaven (and Hell)?

    Don't really know what your definition of "spirit" is.  However, if
    animals, for example, have spirit of some sort, it is not a spirit that
    equals our own in value.  
    
    Life might be considered a spirit by some but the Bible defines our
    lives as being created and sustained by God Himself, directly.  So that
    life is not a spirit that is ours but the result of God's creation and
    sustaining power.
    
    jeff  

re Note 1181.1 by USAT05::BENSON:

> >But is there some
> >reason outside the realm of strict biblical interpretation which sets us apart?
>     
>     Yes, Dave, there is.  Reality demonstrates that the capacity to
>     think and act morally or immorally is absent in animals and plants.   
  
        How do we know this?  Can we be sure of this with regard to,
        say, dolphins?  What if our "reality" is colored by the fact
        that we just don't know how to communicate well with them?

        Bob

>I wonder sometimes where we actually sit in relation to (other) animals. 

I'm humbled by the knowledge that the common housefly came into existance
before we humans.

>We've 
>always regarded ourselves with a distinction of being profoundly different 
>from all other forms of life.  The sense is almost that there are 3 forms of 
>life... plant... animal... and man.

It's also humbling to know that the first two can get along quite well
without us.  We, on the other hand, presently cannot do at all without
the first two.

Richard

    > The sense is almost that there are 3 forms of 
    >life... plant... animal... and man.
    
    Four.  You forgot fetuses.

> >But is there some
> >reason outside the realm of strict biblical interpretation which sets us apart?
>     
>     Yes, Dave, there is.  Reality demonstrates that the capacity to
>     think and act morally or immorally is absent in animals and plants.   
  
>>        How do we know this?  Can we be sure of this with regard to,
>>        say, dolphins?  What if our "reality" is colored by the fact
>>        that we just don't know how to communicate well with them?

>>        Bob
    
    	Hi Bob,
    
    I don't know about dolphins and I don't see any reason to distinguish
    between animals.  They all generally behave the same way consistently, 
    that is, they all lack a moral conscience.
    
    If we were to attribute morality to animals, assuming there is a
    standard that they know about and that we don't, which they are
    consciously observing, and if we believe that God created us all and
    that His moral will for humans, plants, and animals would not differ,
    then we must find animals of all types culpable for the killing,
    stinging, eating, maiming, and so on, of humans and other animals and 
    plants.  
    
    God provided animals and plants as food for humans and for each other.
    
    Christ died for the sins of humanity.  And man is responsible for his
    sins, eternally so.  Who died for the sins of the plants and animals?
    
    jeff
    
    
    

    There you go, then.  Humans are the only creatures who sin.
    
    Richard
    

    
    Re.5
    
    I happen to be vegetarian - and have been for over 10 years now - because 
    it's healthier than eating meat, and also because I choose not to actively 
    participate in the horrible maiming and suffering that animals are 
    subjected to, to become part of a meal. I do not believe God intended for 
    them to suffer the kind of cruelty that they are put through at the hands 
    of the meat industry. 
    
    Furthermore, it is more effective use of resources on Earth to be
    vegetarian because of the amount of land, water, etc. it takes to raise
    vegetarian crops over what it takes to raise animals for slaughter.  I
    saw proof of that when visiting Brazil earlier this year.
    
    Bless the beasts...for they have no voice, they have no choice.  But we
    do.
    
    Cindy

    Depending on your definition of "moral behavior", some animals have in
    fact demonstrated adherance to a moral code in their communities (such
    as they are).  For example, there is a definate sense of being
    "indebted to" others in chimpanze communities.  If you fail to repay
    a favor when you have the chance, all hell breaks lose and the "villan" 
    is admonished.  And one does not "cheat" with another's mate (perhaps we 
    could learn something from these chimps, huh?).  There may well be many 
    other forms of simple or more complex "moralities" which we have not yet 
    been able to discern.  
    
    Some of the work that's been done with gorillas is absolutely
    astounding.  Some gorillas have been taught how to sign (american sign
    language).  Some swear at their keepers when they're angry, "feel" or
    at  least show sorry and dispondancy when they've done something wrong,
    go out of their way to please, etc... .  They behave very very much as
    you would expect a 5 year old human would in "ALL" regards (except use
    speech which is prevented for anatomical reasons).
    
    Hmmm... or what about explaining so called higher human morality in
    terms of animal instincts?  Many who have pioneered the field of
    sociobiology have done a good job with this sort of thing.  Ref:
    "The Moral Animal" (forget the author... currently on the best sellers
    list I think).
    

    Vegetarian?  You think?  If you only knew of the fauna that's living on 
    and inside plant matter before you take a bite, you may want to 
    revise your definition of what it is to be a vegitarian. Besides, why is 
    it less moral to kill and eat an animal vs killing and eating plants?  
    But I will agree that it's very very wasteful to eat animal flesh as a
    source of energy when compared to vegetarian alternatives (the argument
    loses a bit when we talk protein).  
    
    -dave
    
    
    
    

                
    Dave,
    
    I don't believe I used the word 'morality' in my note, but if it
    implies that, then it would be in reference to the cruel keeping
    and slaughtering of the animals for human consumption.  Especially
    in the production of such products as veal.  I stopped eating veal
    many years before even becoming a vegetarian.
    
    Yes, I'm aware of 'the living kingdom'...even the creatures that
    inhabit certain parts of our bodies when viewed under a microscope. 
    Who knows...the very act of typing this is probably killing lots of
    them.  (;^)
    
    Cindy

                      
    Additional...although I'm not one, there are certain vegetarians who
    will not even kill plants, but will only eat the fruits and vegetables
    that the plants yield.
    
    Athought, I personally will not eat hearts-of-palm because to produce 
    them kills the palm tree and is very wasteful. That, and it's also 
    illegal in many places to harvest palms for their hearts anyway, so 
    chances are that a fair portion of the hearts-of-palm sold here are 
    actually produced illegally.  At least this is what our botanical guide 
    in Brazil told us.
    
    Cindy

    RE .4
    
    >>Four.  You forgot fetuses.
    
    Oh yay, I forgot. This distinction was "explained" to me once by a
    woman I was dating.  Lemme see.... A fetus was a "PRE"Human.  When I
    asked if that meant whether it was human or not (as in a Yes or No),
    the answer was that it was a "PRE"Human.  When I asked if a fetus was
    plant or animal, the answer was "animal".  When I asked what species,
    the answer was "PRE"Human.  When I told her there was no such species,
    I was told that there is now (in a tone that didn't realy invite a
    rebuttle... if you know what I mean).  Sounded to me like an attempt to 
    dehumanize the fetus as a justification for "moral abortion".
    
    "We" didn't last too long.  
    
    Sticking to my guns on this dammed issue has costed me just about every 
    "relationship" I've ever had :-(
    
    -dave

    
    Well, you're to be admired for your principle in this matter, Dave.
    
    jeff

    
    Re.8
    
    Dave, about the protein issue - one can be vegetarian and get more than
    enough protein.  There's an excellent book out by John Robbins (former
    heir to the Baskin & Robbins empire) entitled, "May All Be Fed".  In it
    he discusses the protein myth esp. the connection between protein
    levels and osteoporosis, infant formula feeding, destruction of the 
    rainforests for cattleraising, and nutrition in general.  The second
    half of the book contains excellent vegetarian receipes.
    
    Cindy
                                 

    Going back to .0, I'd like to point out the difficulty in proving the
    existance of the human soul through present scientific means, methods,
    and standards.
    
    Richard
    

I think it's important to remember that the ancient Jews thought of life
with such reverence that even taking a animal's life for food was not to
be done capriciously and unceremoniously.

Richard

    Re .13   (protein)
    
    Yes, you can get enough protein from plant matter.  But the
    concentrations are lower and you must consume many different types
    of vegetables/fruit to get the full spectrum of amino acids.  You
    pretty much get it all in a few bites of a steak or a piece of fish.
    So I guess it's easier to get the protein from meat, if not more
    expensive and to some, revolting and/or unethical.
    
    Arguing "for" eating a lot of meat is a difficult thing to do and
    that's not what I'm trying to do here.  But, unlike many others, I find
    nothing wrong with having a few meals per week with a "little" meat.  
    I do not believe that a "little" lean meat is unhealthy, in fact, quite 
    the contrary.
    
    
    Re .14   (existence of soul)
    
    If you were reading the battle being waged back in 1164, it might be
    impossible to "prove" anything at all, nevermind the existence of a
    soul. (Hi Jeff :-) ) So much needs to be done before the debate on this 
    could continue, starting with establishing a definition for "soul" and a
    criteria for proof of it's existence.  But scientific means need not be
    limited to "hard" reality (time/space/matter/energy).  Science is just
    a method of developing explanations (theories) for observationbs (the
    evidence) using reason (logic + premises).  That's what I understand it
    to be anyway.  Studies in the paranormal attempt to delve into these 
    "non-physical" sorts of things using scientific methods.  Maybe it's 
    a mismatch, I dunno.
    
    
    Re .15   (ancient Jews... live... revered)
    
    By why should the reverence be limited to animals, mammals in
    particular.  Did they hold the same level of reverence for fish? 
    reptiles?  birds? insects?  And why not revere plants as well?  Why 
    are these "lesser" forms?  Because they're less like us?  Does humanity
    have a problem with ego or what!
    
    As I mentioned before, Native Americans revered the mountains and
    rivers and the sky and the sun as well as "living" things.  Was this 
    reverence misplaced?  Why?
    
    -dave
    

>    Re .15   (ancient Jews... live... revered)
    
>    By why should the reverence be limited to animals, mammals in
>    particular.  Did they hold the same level of reverence for fish? 
>    reptiles?  birds? insects?  And why not revere plants as well?  Why 
>    are these "lesser" forms?  Because they're less like us?  Does humanity
>    have a problem with ego or what!

Umm....I was referring to the ancient practice of animal sacrifice.  Birds
were also used.  Grains, also.  It was all quite specific.  And to be perfectly
honest, I cannot answer the "whys" of it.

Richard

    I believe it was specific because the animals sacrificed were a typos,
    or a type of Christ.  A picture of Calvary.  God considered certain
    animals to be clean while others were unclean and therefore unworthy of
    being sacrificed (amazing as it sounds.)
    
    -Jack

    One thing they have found with the chimps that learn to sign.  They
    lie. They also don't like getting caught at it.

    re: .5
    
    I think God has a different view of what the purpose of animals
    is.
    
    I also believe that animals (at least 'higher' forms such as dogs)
    behave differently on the basis of how they are treated.  That is,
    if a dog is loved, he tends to be more loving.  If he is treated
    badly, he tends to behave badly.
    
    							Tony

      Hi Cindy,
    
        I am also vegetarian and for many of the reasons you specified.
    
        In addition, I believe vegetarian eating, with all other things
        being the same, produces greater clarity of mind which I feel
        is important for learning about God.
    
    							Tony

    
    Hi Tony,
    
    Yes, that's what I find too...and that's a lot of the reason why my
    Hindu friends are vegetarian.
    
    Cindy

    
    A meat-related item from VNS issue #3435  Tue 21-Nov-1995:
    
    Hypodermic needle risk in cold meat
    
        FARMERS have been warned to watch carefully what their pigs eat,
        because so many hypodermic needles have been found in meat on 
        delicatessen counters.

    Question:
    
    Does the Bible ever explain *why* 'unclean' animals are/were
    unclean?
    
    /Greg

1181.24

Not to my knowledge.

Richard

    I was thinking perhaps that unclean animals are scavengers.  But fish
    are scavengers and were quite a delicacy in those times.  
    
    -Jack

    An anthropology text I had many years ago had some valid lifestyle
    reasons for the Jewish list of unclean animals.  Pigs are no less clean
    or deirty than a cow, in fact some of the worst plagues to clobber
    early humans came for bovines, including brucelosis, tuberculosis and a
    host of others.  
    
    Pigs are simply not a good animal for a desert dwelling nomadic tribe. 
    They can't sweat, eat many of the same food humans do, and don't "herd"
    well.  whereas goats, sheep, asses, and cattle can live off cellose
    products people can't digest, have a body cooling mechanism, herd
    together, and are generally stupid enough to follow a nomadic tribe
    around in inhospitable climes.  Seafood eats whatever shows up on the
    bottom of the sea, including raw sewage, doesn't keep well, and also is
    inimical to a people who are wandering through the desert.  
    
    I think the book was "pig lovers, Pig Haters, (mumbel) wars and
    Witches"  However, it is in storage right now, so I can't pull it out
    easily.
    
    meg

    When it comes right down to it, every animal is omnivorous.  Lions have
    been seen eating plants and rabbits eating meat... when that's all
    there is to eat.  The differences between animal and plant matter are
    small when you look at it from the point of some of the digestive
    juices which operate on them.  A bean is pretty much brought down to 
    it's amino acids as is a piece of meat.  In that form a molecule of the 
    amino acid lysine from a bean is the same as that from a piece of beef.
    When you look at it from a nutritional standpoint, the differences do not 
    really lie in the quality, but the quantity of what eventually gets 
    digested.  There are exceptions (hormones pumped into cattle, pesticides 
    sprayed on fruit, etc...).  But all-in-all, ona molecular level, it's the 
    same stuff, we animals and those plants.
    
    I know that evolution is not a very popular topic in this conference,
    but, if you give the theory any credence, remember that the evidence
    indicates that man was omnivorous back in the days when natural
    selection meant something to humans.  In other words, we evolved as
    omnivores, not herbivores.
    
    Lemme see.. spirit/soul in animals.  Oh yay, someone told me that
    animals were a higher form of life than plants and that humans were
    above everything else.  I asked which is greater, the life of a sequoia
    or that of an ameoba.  Well? 
    

    re: .28 (last question)
    
    Which is greater?  Neither, really (unless size as your
    criterion).  Which is more valuable to humans?  I imagine that the tree 
    wins out in the "value" department- at least on the basis of this being a 
    one-on-one comparison.
    
    
    -steve

Warning: If you do not believe what the Bible says GO NO FURTHER, you'll
just be wasting your time.  

8*)


	re.0

	The difference between man and animals is that man is made up of
three parts (spirit, soul, and body) and animals are made up of two parts
(soul and body). 

	1 Thess 5:23 "may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete".

	This foregoing verse shows that man is made up of three parts. 

	The spirit of man is key to God's purpose and His relationship with man.
Zechariah 12:1 places man's spirit equal to or greater than His act of creating
the heavens and the earth. ".. stretched forth the heavens, laid the
foundation of the earth, and formed the spirit of man within him." 

	The spirit of man (not the soul) is what becomes regenerated by God's
Spirit when one believes in the Lord Jesus. John 4: "That which is born of
Spirit is spirit". 

	The soul and spirit are like the bones and marrow, respectively. The
spirit being the deepest part. Hebrews 4:12 speaks of the dividing of the
soul from the spirit through the operative word of God. Experientially,
if you do not allow the word of God to operate in your heart you will never
know the difference between your regenerated spirit and your soul. 

	Animals on the other hand  have souls. They have a mind, and emotion,
and a will. I know this from experience because my Bassett Hound taught me. 8*)
In Genesis 1 the Bible refers to animals as souls, even the animals in the
sea. 

	This then is the difference between man and animals. Man was designed
with a spirit to recieve God and animals weren't. This doesn't authorize man to
become careless with the whole creation. Rather, as the apex of God's creation,
man bears the responsibility to care for God's creation including animals,
plants, the environment, etc.. However, man was created with the highest
calling. He was created as a container (vessel) to contain God Himself.

Regards,
Ace