There is a rather subtle movement going on by followers of PETA, the Humane Society, the philosopher Peter Singer, and others to elevate animals to equality with humans. I believe it’s rooted in evolutionary theory, eastern mysticism, pantheism, and panentheism. Those who buy into macroevolution think all life forms evolved from primordial soup and are of the opinion that genetic commonalities amongst humans and other life forms gives evidence of essential sameness. Eastern mysticism teaches that animals are reincarnated humans and should be revered to some degree while pantheists and panentheists teach God is in everything and/or everything is part of God, including animals. Efforts to downplay the huge differences between humans and animals are terribly misguided and are further proof that when one dismisses God and the Bible, one is prone to embrace worldviews that fly in the face of God’s order of things.
The Bible has many instances that prove humans are superior to all other creatures, but I will highlight five of them.
- God gave man dominion over all his earthly creation in the beginning. Humans were the last creature God made, but the last became first in his earthly order and the only creature to be made in his image. Mankind was assigned the job of taking care of everything on earth, including animals (Genesis 1:28-31).
- Noah and his family built the ark and saved the animals from the flood. God didn’t tell any of the animals the plans for building the ark, when the flood would come, or how to get themselves into the ark. It was Noah and his family that took care of all of that because animals are of a far inferior intellect.
- Jesus died for man’s sins and for man’s salvation. Animals, although they will one day reap the benefits of Christ’s kingdom, were not the Lord’s target for his blessed hope of eternal life. Jesus was made like his brothers–humans–and not like any of the other creatures, which proves humans are way more valuable than any animal or group of animals.
- Jesus said that God cares about sparrows, but that man was more valuable than many sparrows. In Luke 12:1-7, he told his disciples not to be afraid to share the gospel and confess him before men, reassuring them that if God was mindful of some cheap sparrows, he would certainly be much more mindful of their well-being since they had much more value than an innumerable amount of birds.
- Jesus freed the Gadarenes man from the Legion of devils and ordered them into a herd of pigs (Mark 5:1-13). He obviously thought the man’s health was of far greater importance than a whole group of pigs. As a matter of fact, the pigs were of no value to Jesus compared to the value of the man’s life and he was the one who created the pigs.
Claiming that animals are the same as people only ends up devaluing human life, as shown in this recent legal case.
Harry A. Gaylord
sunandshield.wordpress.com 
” I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts. For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.
Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth? Wherefore I perceive that there is nothing better, than that a man should rejoice in his own works; for that is his portion: for who shall bring him to see what shall be after him?”
Ecclesiastes 3:18-22
I quote this not to contradict your position, but to merely show that you can cherry pick the bible to justify virtually any position. For instance god saved WAY more animals than he saved people in the flood story. It is also worth noting that the bible was written by humans. Had it been written by geraffes I’m sure it would tout the superiority of geraffes.
Yes we are smarter but should you only be nice to smart people? Do stupid people deserve to suffer needlessly? There is a spectrum of human intelligence, and that spectrum overlaps the spectrum with that of other species.
But that is beside the point – anything that can suffer deserves compassion. If a tree could feel pain and fear death it would be wrong to cut it down.
LikeLike
[I quote this not to contradict your position, but to merely show that you can cherry pick the bible to justify virtually any position.]
Yes, people do abuse God’s word, using it deceitfully–just as Paul warned in 2 Corinthians 4:2 and just as Satan did when he used Psalm 91 in an attempt to get Jesus to kill himself when he tempted Christ in the wilderness. But true Christians are called upon to rightly divide God’s word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15) and to test the spirits of those who want to teach us doctrine (1 John 4:1).
We know what is meant in the Bible based on the context of the passage where it appears and comparing it to other passages where it may be quoted. That takes me to your Ecclesiastes quote. Upon first glance it seems as though man is no better than other animals, but the writer is just pointing out that man’s life is relatively short and that he dies, just like animals do. In that particular instance of how the world works, man is not different and life isn’t fair sometimes.
And your point about giraffes is purely hypothetical. So is your mention of trees. I’m dealing with reality. The reality is man was chosen by God to have dominion, not animals. The spectrum of human intelligence never really overlaps those of any other species. Even the mentally disabled are superior to animals. We’re the only ones made in God’s image. God also gave us permission to use inanimate objects like trees, rocks, dirt, etc. responsibly for our benefit. God’s law provides for compassion to animals, such as in the case where Balaam beat his ass without justification and was reprimanded for it. But when a choice has to be made between what’s best for a human vs. what’s best for an animal, humans should be given priority. That’s why I have no problem with being an omnivore. Human superiority is also why most people when faced with fleeing a tornado or another disaster will try to save a human before worrying about an animal.
LikeLike
“Yes, people do abuse God’s word, using it deceitfully–just as Paul warned in 2 Corinthians 4:2 and just as Satan did when he used Psalm 91 in an attempt to get Jesus to kill himself when he tempted Christ in the wilderness.”
My view is not so much that people use the bible deceitfully (I do not pretend to know the intentions and meanings of authors who died thousands of years ago whom I never met and whose language I do not even speak, nor culture I am a member of) but rather that the bible, at least the english translations I have read of it, are made of many texts which say many different things, often apparently in conflict, which can be (and often have been) taken to support the validity of almost any two opposing positions on almost any subject.
“But true Christians are called upon to rightly divide God’s word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15) and to test the spirits of those who want to teach us doctrine (1 John 4:1).”
And every christian has his own ideas about what the true meaning of a passage is. I am not convinced of peoples’ internal ability to divine with certainty the intentions of ancient authors given the aforementioned limitations of our modern position. I think most people follow a “whatever pops into my head when I read it and is good according to my culture and values must be what he meant” approach, whether they intend to or not.
“We know what is meant in the Bible based on the context of the passage where it appears and comparing it to other passages where it may be quoted.”
Another way to look at this is if a passage says something that seems offensive to me, no worry, because I can easily find a passage that appears to contradict it to cite to say that the first passage couldn’t have meant what it explicitly says (barring errors in translation, etc).
“That takes me to your Ecclesiastes quote. Upon first glance it seems as though man is no better than other animals, but the writer is just pointing out that man’s life is relatively short and that he dies, just like animals do. In that particular instance of how the world works, man is not different and life isn’t fair sometimes.”
There is no mention of “sometimes”, the passage literally says “man has no advantage over the animals”. It even says that men *are* animals. I understand that you won’t accept this, but it says what it says. Again, barring the above mentioned issues.
“And your point about giraffes is purely hypothetical. So is your mention of trees.”
Yes, people often use hypothetical scenarios to illustrate abstract concepts. And other people disregard them.
“I’m dealing with reality. The reality is man was chosen by God to have dominion, not animals.”
Setting aside that that is your reality, not necessarily the reality, men have also traditionally, historically, biologically and scripturally had dominion over women – does that make it right to abuse them or cause them pain? If the bible said we have dominion over babies would you start skinning them alive? Is no part of your sense of right and wrong based on simple compassion and concern for your fellow creatures on this earth?
“The spectrum of human intelligence never really overlaps those of any other species. Even the mentally disabled are superior to animals.”
I’m sure if you dropped them off in the woods they would fare wonderfully, especially in the winter. So superior they obviously are.
Anyone who has seriously looked into the question of animal intelligence or even life itself knows that many species have many advantages over us, and many species are actually remarkably intelligent, being able to solve complex problems often more quickly than people or children can – though they tend not to have the social skills to share intelligent ideas like we do.
“We’re the only ones made in God’s image.”
Chimpanzees share 98% of our coding DNA. If we’re made in god’s image, in what sense are they not close to the same thing?
“God also gave us permission to use inanimate objects like trees, rocks, dirt, etc. responsibly for our benefit.”
People were doing all of those things and more tens of thousands of years before your religion ever existed.
“God’s law provides for compassion to animals, such as in the case where Balaam beat his ass without justification and was reprimanded for it. But when a choice has to be made between what’s best for a human vs. what’s best for an animal, humans should be given priority. That’s why I have no problem with being an omnivore. Human superiority is also why most people when faced with fleeing a tornado or another disaster will try to save a human before worrying about an animal.”
And most animals will try to save a member of their own species before saving a human. And most animals similarly don’t mind eating other species but have a strong revulsion toward violence against their own kind. The “godly” moral instincts that guide you are nearly universal to mammals in general.
LikeLike
[Chimpanzees share 98% of our coding DNA. If we’re made in god’s image, in what sense are they not close to the same thing?]
Actually, this idea has now been debunked. You should really update your scientific knowledge. It’s like saying 50% of marriages end in divorce when the fact is now known it’s more like 40%. But here’s a video by creationists who quote some of the latest research from evolutionists on that issue, starting at about 15:00 into the video.
And just last year, a study on epigenetics (how dna displays itself in organisms) revealed that orangutans and gorillas were closer in similarity to humans than chimps when they looked at the genes most similar among all of them. The more they study genes, the more they find chimps and other great apes aren’t as similar to humans as they previously assumed. Your comments are proof once again that so-called atheists such as yourself aren’t really interested in science like you claim. You’re just interested in ideas that seemingly get rid of God when they really don’t.
[And most animals will try to save a member of their own species before saving a human. And most animals…have a strong revulsion toward violence against their own kind. ]
Really? Do you really want to stick with that argument? When was the last time you saw a documentary on animals? Male rams lock horns to defend their territory or to fight over a female. Kangaroos box each other quite a bit. Male gorillas attack other male gorillas that are from a different family group than theirs. They also fight male gorillas in their own family group for domination. Same with chimps. Packs of hyenas will attack other hyenas from a different pack. Male zebras will fight each other for domination over their herd. Packs of wolves attack other packs of wolves over a specific territory. And the list goes on.
[…many species have many advantages over us, and many species are actually remarkably intelligent…though they tend not to have the social skills to share intelligent ideas like we do]
Intelligence is not only about what one can do at the moment of a particular stage, but is also about what one has the potential to do. Our potential proves our superiority. Man can now fly and breathe underwater for extended periods. Can a fish survive out of water for an extended period by inventing something to make that possible for all fish-kind? Can animals make laws that dictate the behavior of humankind like we can for them? Even a small child can set boundaries and train cats and dogs about what they can or cannot do in their houses. Can a dog or cat do the same for humans? Humans can train even the wildest animals. Can they train and domesticate the wildest human in the Amazon jungle?
[…men have also traditionally, historically, biologically and scripturally had dominion over women – does that make it right to abuse them or cause them pain?]
Women have also traditionally, historically, biologically, and scripturally had dominion over young men–their sons. And the Bible tells us that Abraham’s wife Sarah was the one who ordered Abraham to get rid of his second wife, Hagar–which he did. And Abigail rebuked her husband Nabal when he was such an ogre who mistreated David so badly that David would’ve killed him if Abigail didn’t smooth things over. Then when Abigail rebuked Nabal, he dropped dead because of his evil attitude. I’ve acknowledged the sinful nature of humans in what I’ve said, but that doesn’t detract from human superiority or elevate animals out of their inferiority.
[If the bible said we have dominion over babies would you start skinning them alive?]
Hmmm. I think I’ll answer that question after you answer why atheists who claim to be all about science love the idea of killing unborn human babies even when science proves they are human and can feel pain and why they love the idea of euthanizing the elderly and the sick, but attack humans who harpoon whales.
[And every christian has his own ideas about what the true meaning of a passage is.]
That’s only sometimes true. If a person is really a Christian, then they agree that one can only be saved by grace, not works. They believe Jesus was born of a virgin named Mary, that he didn’t sin and that he died for our sins then rose from the dead on the third day. If a person claiming to be Christian denies such things as these, then they’re not Christian. True Christians are united on these important passages which are part of our foundation.
[I think most people follow a “whatever pops into my head when I read it and is good according to my culture and values must be what he meant” approach, whether they intend to or not.]
Yes, many so-called Christians (some of them are fake) do that today and that is why some churches look like the secular world. But that in no way detracts from the fact Jesus is God and that he is the way, the truth, and the life when it comes to godliness, salvation from sin, and heaven. It also doesn’t change the fact that certain Bible passages have specific parameters for what they actually mean that is not based on personal preference. God can use a term in the Bible and it can mean several correct things at different time periods. For example, he talks about Rachel weeping for her murdered children in both the Old Testament and New Testament. In Jeremiah 31, the weeping is because the Babylonians took over Judah and slaughtered the Israelites. In Matthew 2, it was because Herod murdered all boys in Bethlehem who were 2 years and under. Two correct interpretations for one phrase.
That’s why God’s word lives and abides forever and is applicable to all time periods.
[the english translations I have read of it, are made of many texts which say many different things, often apparently in conflict]
You haven’t done your research. You just heard this and it sounded good, so you held on to it. The English Bible has about 5700 Greek manuscripts that the New Testament is based on (and 9,000 in other ancient languages) and only 1% of them are questionable texts in that they disagree with the rest in some passages (Sources: Wilbur Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1980. F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1981.). Incidentally that 1% is what is used for versions newer than the kjv. So it’s weird you would use 98% as a certainty that man and chimps evolved from the same ancestor (a now debunked figure), but 99% similarity isn’t good enough to prove God’s word reliable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
[Chimpanzees share 98% of our coding DNA. If we’re made in god’s image, in what sense are they not close to the same thing?]
“Actually, this idea has now been debunked.”
No, it hasn’t.
“You should really update your scientific knowledge. It’s like saying 50% of marriages end in divorce when the fact is now known it’s more like 40%. But here’s a video by creationists who quote some of the latest research from evolutionists on that issue, starting at about 15:00 into the video.”
Your video is misleading, it takes quotes and studies out of context to insinuate many things without making specific claims. The reality of the fact is that over 98% of our coding genes, that is genes that actually do something, we share in common with chimpanzees. Of our genes overall 95% of them are the same as chimpanzee genes, though because of duplication mutations we often have many copies of the same or similar genes. If we have ten copies of the same gene and 9 are inactive that is rightly considered to be the same gene, whereas a creationist would take it out of it’s biological context and call it a 10% similarity. If I have ten copies of the same book and you have 1 copy of that book, your library is still effectively identical to mine in terms of information content. As for the vague insinuations about junk DNA we still for a fact know that much of our DNA is junk DNA because we know what it is – something like 7% of our DNA are deactivated fragments of viruses for instance. We can also remove millions of base pairs of DNA from an animal, grow the animal and it’s perfectly healthy, which proves by definition that the DNA is junk. My statement was very specific and completely accurate. But even without all of this nonsense you can’t name me a single interior or exterior organ or bone or body part in a chimpanzee that you do not have some equivalent of or visa versa, so to generate misleading statistics and skew things and pretend like we’re not similar to other species is either ignorant or outright delusional.
“And just last year, a study on epigenetics (how dna displays itself in organisms) revealed that orangutans and gorillas were closer in similarity to humans than chimps when they looked at the genes most similar among all of them. The more they study genes, the more they find chimps and other great apes aren’t as similar to humans as they previously assumed.”
All of which is fascinating and completely meaningless to the issue being argued here. Yes, some specific parts of human DNA are going to be more similar to other more distantly related species than they are to relatively more closely related species, that is because not every part of every species changes in the exact same way or at the same rate, nor should it according to darwin’s theory.
“Your comments are proof once again that so-called atheists such as yourself aren’t really interested in science like you claim.”
First of all being an atheist doesn’t mean you’re interested in science or literate about science, nor does being a jew make you greedy or good with money. I am an individual, not a stereotype and I would appreciate being considered as one. I personally am interested in science and know much more about it than you do, as evidenced by the fact that I can explain all of these intricacies and many more without googling or having to look up anything.
“You’re just interested in ideas that seemingly get rid of God when they really don’t.”
Setting aside that you’re engaging in more steotypical thinking and that atheists tend to be pretty complex people and not the flimsy caricatures you make them out to be – you are wrong on all counts. I work very hard to not base my beliefs on what I want to be true or fear being true or even to think about that at all, instead trying to objectively find out what is true and deal with it emotionally afterward. And second, in no way does the idea that we share a great deal of DNA in common with another species logically imply that there is no god.
“Really? Do you really want to stick with that argument? When was the last time you saw a documentary on animals? Male rams lock horns to defend their territory or to fight over a female. Kangaroos box each other quite a bit. Male gorillas attack other male gorillas that are from a different family group than theirs. They also fight male gorillas in their own family group for domination. Same with chimps. Packs of hyenas will attack other hyenas from a different pack. Male zebras will fight each other for domination over their herd. Packs of wolves attack other packs of wolves over a specific territory. And the list goes on.”
Yes, and humans exhibit all of the same behaviors very commonly. So too do we have strong instincts in the opposite direction against hurting one another. Humans, like all species, are a mass of conflicting impulses, sometimes one impulse wins out, sometimes another one does, often with the logical parts of our brain acting as a sort of referee. Does the fact that humans are often violently territorial and possessive of their mates and strongly competitive etc prove that we don’t have any instinct against harming one another?
“Intelligence is not only about what one can do at the moment of a particular stage, but is also about what one has the potential to do. Our potential proves our superiority. Man can now fly and breathe underwater for extended periods.”
Bacteria do both of those things. And a single human doesn’t have the capability of doing either of those things, we as a species can cumulatively develop the language, skills and knowledge to build such devices over tens of thousands of years and billions of minds working at countless different tasks. As I said before it is not so much our actual individual intelligence as it is the ability to pass on and communicate information socially. If a dog was as smart as albert einstein it would never figure out e=mc squared. Nor would dogs as a species if every one were as smart, because they couldn’t communicate or use dexterity to record information.
“Can a fish survive out of water for an extended period by inventing something to make that possible for all fish-kind? Can animals make laws that dictate the behavior of humankind like we can for them?”
Again, it is more to do with communication than intelligence.
“Even a small child can set boundaries and train cats and dogs about what they can or cannot do in their houses. Can a dog or cat do the same for humans? Humans can train even the wildest animals. Can they train and domesticate the wildest human in the Amazon jungle?”
Well actually yes we have domesticated people before. You may have heard of slavery.
[…men have also traditionally, historically, biologically and scripturally had dominion over women – does that make it right to abuse them or cause them pain?]
“Women have also traditionally, historically, biologically, and scripturally had dominion over young men–their sons…”
I am ignoring your response because you ignored my question and went off on a tangent irrelevant to my point which was about animal cruelty, not feminism.
[If the bible said we have dominion over babies would you start skinning them alive?]
“Hmmm. I think I’ll answer that question after you answer why atheists who claim to be all about science love the idea of killing unborn human babies even when science proves they are human and can feel pain and why they love the idea of euthanizing the elderly and the sick, but attack humans who harpoon whales.”
Again, you ignore my question and go off on an unrelated rant which, btw, completely misrepresents countless millions of people who don’t sit around all day as you insinuate lusting over the idea of hurting babies – do you actually believe that of people? If so you must be either very insecure to need to think that poorly of others or you are a very cynical and unpleasant person.
[And every christian has his own ideas about what the true meaning of a passage is.]
“That’s only sometimes true.”
Show me two christians with identical philosophies please.
“If a person is really a Christian, then they agree that one can only be saved by grace, not works.”
The bible says both this and the reverse, some christians favor one set of passages and others favor the other. Ironically your example is a perfect illustration of what I was saying. You think your group is the only real christians… just like every other member of every other group thinks the same about theirs.
“They believe Jesus was born of a virgin named Mary, that he didn’t sin and that he died for our sins then rose from the dead on the third day. If a person claiming to be Christian denies such things as these, then they’re not Christian. True Christians are united on these important passages which are part of our foundation.”
Even by your definition there are many who interpret scripture differently, supposedly on personal revelation from god.
[I think most people follow a “whatever pops into my head when I read it and is good according to my culture and values must be what he meant” approach, whether they intend to or not.]
“Yes, many so-called Christians (some of them are fake) do that today and that is why some churches look like the secular world.”
All churches look like the secular world, just from different periods. Most don’t seem to lag more than 50 years behind the times on most issues.
“But that in no way detracts from the fact Jesus is God and that he is the way, the truth, and the life when it comes to godliness, salvation from sin, and heaven. It also doesn’t change the fact that certain Bible passages have specific parameters for what they actually mean that is not based on personal preference.”
When the bible says that we are saved by faith alone and then elsewhere says faith is nothing without works, then yes, people go with their personal preference. Or cultural bias.
“God can use a term in the Bible and it can mean several correct things at different time periods. For example, he talks about Rachel weeping for her murdered children in both the Old Testament and New Testament. In Jeremiah 31, the weeping is because the Babylonians took over Judah and slaughtered the Israelites. In Matthew 2, it was because Herod murdered all boys in Bethlehem who were 2 years and under. Two correct interpretations for one phrase.”
I grasp the concept of a word meaning two different things, and am not sure what the importance of that was or what the contradiction was supposed to be.
“That’s why God’s word lives and abides forever and is applicable to all time periods.”
Except all the parts that we don’t follow.
“[the english translations I have read of it, are made of many texts which say many different things, often apparently in conflict]
“You haven’t done your research. You just heard this and it sounded good, so you held on to it.”
No believe me I’ve done my research, and by the way I was even nice enough to qualify my remarks and say “apparently” in conflict, which you responded to by making more broad, negative generalizations about me. No, any time I have heard of a biblical contradiction or an evil thing in the bible or an absurd thing in the bible I’ve looked it up, which is why I know that some anti-bible websites do have out of context quotes but many of them don’t, or have very few.
“The English Bible has about 5700 Greek manuscripts that the New Testament is based on (and 9,000 in other ancient languages) and only 1% of them are questionable texts in that they disagree with the rest in some passages (Sources: Wilbur Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1980. F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1981.).”
I was not meaning that two manuscripts say two different things, though that does happen often. I meant that the content of one text differs from the content of another, which is impossible to quantify since it is highly debatable because it’s more conceptual.
“Incidentally that 1% is what is used for versions newer than the kjv.”
15 books were later removed from the original king james bible, the idea that it is infallible or perfect in any way is absurd on that basis alone. These statistics are also easy to skew since there are many different texts which tell entirely different versions of the stories of the bible which are obviously not being considered in these figures.
“So it’s weird you would use 98% as a certainty that man and chimps evolved from the same ancestor (a now debunked figure), but 99% similarity isn’t good enough to prove God’s word reliable.”
These are two entirely different claims and evidences. If 100% of steven king’s novels are 100% word for word the same that means that they reliably convey his words, not that the contents are true or that they have any scholarly merit. In logic this is called a non-sequiter. Saying that these 5,000 copies of a text are all identical therefore you can trust it’s contents is like saying apples taste good therefore oranges are good for you. One has nothing to do with the other whatsoever. Degrees of genetic similarity do however imply a hereditary relationship due to the mechanics of DNA and reproduction.
LikeLike
[Your video is misleading, it takes quotes and studies out of context to insinuate many things without making specific claims.]
They supply the citation for their sources from which they quote. All one has to do is go to their sources and view the context to find out they are telling the truth. I can understand why you call the video misleading when it isn’t. It goes against what you’ve been brainwashed into believing and just explodes the ideas that God doesn’t exist and that chimps and humans are the same. Furthermore, you make a whole bunch of claims without providing sources like I have. Just because you’re agnostic or atheist doesn’t mean I’m going to take your word for something like other people would. As a matter of fact, I work from the assumption that agnostic/atheists are deceived people who deceive others, so please provide some sources so I can show how untruthful they are.
[All of which is fascinating and completely meaningless to the issue being argued here.]
If you look at the study, they examined the genes of orangutans, gorillas, and chimps which had the most in common with human genes. So it is very much related to your 98% argument since the chimps ended up being 76% to 78% similar to humans in their DNA sequences. You dismiss it because of your biases in spite of the sound evidence.
[First of all being an atheist doesn’t mean you’re interested in science or literate about science, nor does being a jew make you greedy or good with money. I am an individual, not a stereotype and I would appreciate being considered as one. I personally am interested in science and know much more about it than you do, as evidenced by the fact that I can explain all of these intricacies and many more without googling or having to look up anything.]
Do you realize how contradictory this statement is? You make the argument that atheists are not necessarily interested in science then make the case that you fit the stereotype of an atheist who highly regards science. It’s a subtle admission that I’m correct in my conclusions about atheists and their focus on scientism. But the new atheists, whenever they show up on the Internet or in the media, constantly tell us they’re all about science. So are you telling me they’re liars? Because I already knew that.
[Again, it is more to do with communication than intelligence.]
And our various forms of communication are a reflection of higher intelligence and are dependent on our higher intelligence. Communication and intelligence work hand in hand. They complement and are interdependent on each other. One has just as much to do with the other.
[Does the fact that humans are often violently territorial and possessive of their mates and strongly competitive etc prove that we don’t have any instinct against harming one another?]
You were the one who said previously that “most animals…have a strong revulsion toward violence against their own kind.” I was just showing how uninformed you were on that presumption and was not delving into human instinct or territorial behavior regarding humans on that point. Human behavior was not even in the picture when I was addressing that specific comment from you.
[Well actually yes we have domesticated people before. You may have heard of slavery.]
You totally misunderstood the question. If you look at the context, I said “Even a small child can set boundaries and train cats and dogs about what they can or cannot do in their houses. Can a dog or cat do the same for humans? Humans can train even the wildest animals. Can they train and domesticate the wildest human in the Amazon jungle?” If you follow my line of questioning, I was asking can animals train the wildest human in the Amazon jungle, NOT can humans train and domesticate the wildest human.
[Show me two christians with identical philosophies please.]
On what exactly? Your request is too broad since I gave you specifics on basic tenets that all true Christians agree on.
[“That’s why God’s word lives and abides forever and is applicable to all time periods.”
Except all the parts that we don’t follow.]
Just because a part of God’s word isn’t followed doesn’t mean it isn’t applicable. It still lives and abides forever and that’s why God will judge all believers and nonbelievers on judgment day based on what his word says, whether you accept it or dismiss it.
[I meant that the content of one text differs from the content of another, which is impossible to quantify since it is highly debatable because it’s more conceptual.]
Do you see you contradiction in this statement? You just admitted that it’s possible you’re wrong that the content of one text differs from the content of another. It sounds as if you’re saying it is impossible to quantify if the content of one text differs from the content of another–that the idea of the content of one text differing from another is highly debatable because it’s conceptual. If that’s the case then you don’t have enough to go on to draw the conclusion that the Bible is “often apparently in conflict” as you stated before and maybe you should have just left this point out altogether since you’re vacillating on it.
[15 books were later removed from the original king james bible, the idea that it is infallible or perfect in any way is absurd on that basis alone.]
Again–you should check your history. The translators of the kjv admitted that they did not consider the apocryphal or deuterocanonical books as the inspired words of God. They stated in their correspondence that those books were included only for historical purposes. When they were in the kjv, they were separated from the Old Testament and New Testament and not intertwined with the true canon as is done in Roman Catholic bibles. So you’ve just assumed something without looking at the underlying facts. The word of God is infallible and perfect regardless of your misconceptions. You can’t see that because the word of God is foolish to those like you who are perishing. You need Jesus to save you from your sins and to open your eyes. He’s the only one who can do it. Otherwise, you’ll die in your sins and it will be too late to accept his payment for your sins.
[I am ignoring your response because you ignored my question and went off on a tangent irrelevant to my point which was about animal cruelty, not feminism.]
But the fact you mentioned my response means you didn’t ignore it after all. Another one of your contradictions. You missed my whole point. The fact that women of God had a say in their marriages and with their husbands and sons showed that your original assumptions were unfounded. So let me spell it out more clearly since you didn’t understand the implication. Men who were genuine, reliable followers of God did not abuse women, nor would they because they knew that wives were to be regarded as bone of their bone and flesh of their flesh as Adam did in the beginning. In the New Testament, men are supposed to love their wives as Christ loved the church. Furthermore, I already mentioned it was wrong to abuse animals even if they are inferior life forms. You were the one assuming that since I said humans take precedence over animals, that meant it was ok to abuse them.
[Again, you ignore my question and go off on an unrelated rant which, btw, completely misrepresents countless millions of people who don’t sit around all day as you insinuate lusting over the idea of hurting babies – do you actually believe that of people?]
My response to your baby-killing question wasn’t a tangent. I’m well aware that atheists many times act like they care about human babies, but when it comes to unborn babies, they don’t care if they’re slaughtered at the local abortion clinic. I was pointing out your question was disingenuous. And yes there are people who sit around all day in bloodlust of slaughtering the innocent unborn. Our current U.S. President and the anti-lifers supporting him call it “women’s reproductive health” to make it sound appealing. That’s why they crafted the mandate trying to force everyone to pay for abortion-inducing drugs for their female employees. Margaret Sanger and a whole group of other of the rich upper crust of Western society hatched this idea originally as a way of ridding the world of those who they considered beneath them, like the poor. It was and is all about eugenics.
And your atheist colleagues on college campuses across the Western Hemisphere are all for it. So is Planned Parenthood and those who support them, a great many of whom are atheist.
[These are two entirely different claims and evidences. …Degrees of genetic similarity do however imply a hereditary relationship due to the mechanics of DNA and reproduction.]
No they’re not. You’re saying in general that if something is 98% certain, that means it can be accepted as reliable. If two things are 98% similar, they’re practically the same in your estimation. You know comparing manuscripts to genes isn’t an entirely different argument because there are hundreds of manuscripts covering the lives of such historical figures as Julius Caesar, Plato, Socrates, and others and you assume the info you know about them is true even though there are discrepancies in the accounts of their lives and accomplishments. And as shown in the video I previously shared, sometimes genetic similarities are due to the fact all genes came from the same designer, especially when one considers we have over 99% of genes in common with mice and 50% in common with bananas.
LikeLike
Well done Mr. Gaylord. 👍🏾👍🏾
LikeLike
Christians are morons for believing any of this hogwash. Religion and “God” were created by man. Anyone who believes has no rational thinking skills and is a blind, stupid sheep.
LikeLike
[Religion and “God” were created by man. Anyone who believes has no rational thinking skills]
Halee,
The God of the Bible wasn’t created by man. Can you prove these assumptions that you’ve made? It has been my experience that those who make such statements haven’t weighed the evidence. And are you saying that anything created by man has to be wrong? If that’s the case, then try applying your argument to other things. For instance, “Evolution was created by man,” or “textbooks were created by man,” or “philosophy was created by man,” or “languages were created by man.” I’m sure you can see how ridiculous such a statement really is.
LikeLike
What I think he means is that the concept of a god was created by man. It fulfilled a purpose, it gave people a sense that the world was just and fair and provided answers. As humanity progresses we now have other rational means for this; we have systems of justice, geology, biology, physics. Now god only fulfils the role of answering question like life after death that we don’t know about. Personally, since it presents no evidence that can be tested; it is futile in these areas as well.
LikeLike
What’s futile is your comment. I already addressed how much of a liar you are when I replied to your previous comment, so I won’t waste my time delineating further how much of a liar you are.
LikeLike
Well, I’d rather be a “moron”, be wrong, and be buried, than be a “rational thinker” and go to hell. 🙄
LikeLike
Humans are animals too, and the worst kind. We should never be allowed to expand beyond planet earth because we have full potential to be the ravagers of all life forms, like those depicted in science fiction films/novels.
LikeLike
I am a staunch atheist. All I would say is that when you talk about ‘Eastern mysticism’ I would call your faith no more than ‘Western mysticism’, its all the same to me: ancient books written by goat herders making guesses, telling stories none of it supported by evidence, indeed contradicting modern scientific evidence which I’m in no doubt you hold as the best way to come by truth in your everyday life when you drive a car or witness an organ transplant.
As for animals I’m afraid the ‘humans are special’ argument has been thoroughly debunked by DNA which is the code for life. Our genes slot in perfectly with the mammals and primates: nothing special; just heavier brains.
LikeLike
[I am a staunch atheist.]
Liar. Atheist is simply a PC term for God-hating, Satan-loving misanthrope. Just look at the history of what atheists in power have accomplished and you’ll see. God has placed the knowledge of his existence in every human so atheists inherently know he exists. Claims that God doesn’t exist are just an outward pretense “atheists” put on to deceive others because they love their sin and don’t like the idea of God telling them to repent of their pet sin.
[…telling stories none of it supported by evidence…]
But you have automatically given evidence in this statement that the Bible is true. You imply that people lie. The Bible says in Psalm 116:11 “I said in my haste, All men are liars.” So you just contradicted yourself by agreeing with the Bible. You agree with the Bible that men are liars, which by default you are saying the Bible is true. And if the Bible has provided this simple evidence that it’s true, then you have shown yourself to be a liar by claiming no evidence supports the Bible.
You also want us to believe that some people are capable of speaking the truth and that speaking the truth is a good thing by implying YOU are speaking the truth. You have therefore given more evidence that the Bible is true. The Bible also says some people are capable of speaking the truth and that speaking the truth is good–“He that speaketh truth sheweth forth righteousness,” Proverbs 12:17.
You also have implied that we must not listen to liars but to those who speak the truth and to do that, the evidence must back up the truth. Well, you have once again agreed with the Bible–
“O deliver me from the deceitful and unjust man.” Psalm 43:1
“He that worketh deceit shall not dwell within my house: he that telleth lies shall not tarry in my sight.” Psalm 101:7
“And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.” Deuteronomy 18:21-22
So if a goat herder writes something and it is proven true, then we can believe the goat herder. But if an “atheist” says a specific book isn’t true, but that specific book gives proof that it’s true and the “atheist” unknowingly proves that specific book is true, then the “atheist” has violated the law of noncontradiction. He has contradicted himself and is therefore the liar while the book isn’t. We can therefore dismiss the atheist’s original statement that the book isn’t true.
[…indeed contradicting modern scientific evidence…]
So “staunch atheist” you haven’t really examined the Bible. It’s chock full of scientific evidence that even pre-dates modern scientific discoveries. You haven’t really done any research on this, but like so many other liars like yourself, you just took another human’s word for it after acknowledging that men are liars. You didn’t do the proper research to make sure that the men you listen to (including yourself) weren’t the liars. We already know by the evidence you gave in making your statement, that you are in fact a liar as I have shown above. Now here’s scientific evidence of your lies, but of the Bible’s scientific truths:
Everything God made is capable of praising him in its own voice
Dinosaur eggs from China disprove ‘Old Earth’ evolution theories
1000+ scientific studies confirm what believers already knew–prayer brings healing
What importance does belief in a young earth have for Christianity?
Contradicting the Bible reveals astronomers’ weaknesses
LikeLike
You do realize that referencing an article you wrote, not edited or reviewed by the scientific community, as a method of substantiating your own claims is circular and inadequate to serve as evidence, right? In fact, it’s similar to quoting the Bible to support the existence of God…
LikeLike
Anonymous,
You do realize that referencing an article I wrote that highlights info from reviewed scientists to substantiate my claims is not circular reasoning, don’t you? You do realize that quoting the Bible then backing it up with real life examples & fulfilled prophecy supports God’s existence, don’t you? Please stop deceiving yourself. You know the truth and are afraid to admit it because of the repercussions it presents for yourself.
LikeLike
Vanity christians arguing with non belivers Some christians think they know the bible and no nothing non belivers how sad i feel for them a true christian shows they are christian by their works God bless.
LikeLike
And some who call themselves Christians seek to promote their own vanity by accusing true Christians of being vanity Christians simply because those Christians follow the command to contend for their faith (Jude 3). Why do they criticize those Christians? Because they wish to kowtow to the world so they can be accepted by the world and comfort themselves in their own sin.
LikeLike
I was reading your message and very impressed how you defend the the Word of God i like to preach to people the truth but a lot of times i don’t know all the information to tell them i also do agree that we are saved by Jesus grace and not by works but i also believe that we are living in the last days but there are many false preachers out there crupting the grace of Jesus making it seem like its ok to sin and thats why most people are not truly following the bible and thinking they can live how ever they want because there saved by grace i also believe that Jesus will not return after the tribulation but many people that call them selfs christains say Jesus will come be for the tribulation but if you study it thats not even biblical i should really watch anita fuentus , and pastor david land ford and i think the last name is steven quayle i dont know if i spelled that right cause im not good at spelling i don’t agree with every thing they say if i don’t think it lines up with the KJVB but most of what they say i think is true compared to most false preachers out there
LikeLike
Amen brother! 🙋🏽
LikeLike
“Jesus died for man’s sins and for man’s salvation. Animals, although they will one day reap the benefits of Christ’s kingdom, were not the Lord’s target for his blessed hope of eternal life. Jesus was made like his brothers–humans–and not like any of the other creatures, which proves humans are way more valuable than any animal or group of animals.”
The reason died for our sins because we are the ones who sinned and started sin in the first place. Animals didn’t need the same saving we did because it was mankind that ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge, not the animals.
Just because we have been given dominion over the animals does not give us the right to cause harm upon the animals and God’s will concerning the animals was clearly stated in Isaiah 11:9.
http://www.jesuspeopleforanimals.com/
LikeLike
“Proving” is a bit overstating things – it states those things, yes, but things are not dictated by the Bible. Words are only true if reality reflects them, and reality is uncaring of the words of humanity.
Also:
“Claiming that animals are the same as people only ends up devaluing human life, as shown in this recent legal case.”
Well, it’s a little hard to charge someone for animal cruelty when they’ve performed an abortion…
Also, I am uncertain why one has to devalue humans to make them the same as animals. That would seem to be less rational than simply valuing animals more to put them on the same level. Of course, humans are perfectly capable of devaluing other humans for whatever reason they please, regardless of their relative status to animals, so I’m not sure why that’s a reason for not considering animals as worthy as humans.
Besides, isn’t humility supposed to be better than pride?
LikeLike
@Dusk,
[“Proving” is a bit overstating things – it states those things, yes, but things are not dictated by the Bible. Words are only true if reality reflects them…]
The fact that the Bible says humans would have dominion over animals is proven all over the world by the fact we do have control over the animal kingdom just like the Bible says. So the words of the Bible are reflected in reality.
[I am uncertain why one has to devalue humans to make them the same as animals. That would seem to be less rational than simply valuing animals more to put them on the same level.]
Maybe you weren’t paying attention a few months ago when a gorilla was shot dead at a zoo after a 4-yr-old boy fell into its enclosure. People went ballistic on social media to complain about killing the gorilla while they threatened the zoo and the parents of the boy.
LikeLike
“The fact that the Bible says humans would have dominion over animals is proven all over the world by the fact we do have control over the animal kingdom just like the Bible says. So the words of the Bible are reflected in reality.”
I’m really not sure how you’d justify that. We have “dominion” over a tiny handful of species. Most of the time we simply destroy what we can’t control, which is everything else. We don’t “control” pests and predators, we kill them, precisely because we can’t control them.
Our “rule” is based on nothing but force, as no wild animal instinctively bows to humans, and domesticated animals are only that way after countless generations of selective breeding and training. Even domesticated animals have to be taught obedience. The only species that believes humanity has dominion over everything is humanity itself.
We have no real control, and the many environmental problems in the world are a testament to that. We would indeed have continued to destroy until there were virtually no species left on Earth, if at all, had the environmental movement not raised awareness of how harmful our attitudes towards other life are.
I honestly have to ask what control you think we have. Humans don’t have control over the dead, and our control over the living is either nonexistent or tenuous.
“People went ballistic on social media to complain about killing the gorilla while they threatened the zoo and the parents of the boy.”
I don’t know the details, and frankly I think the “complaining” is more because of a meme than actual concern. Though I do have to wonder if they would have shot Harambe if he were human. Then again, depending on your view the answer to that question may be obvious.
LikeLike
@Dusk,
[We have “dominion” over a tiny handful of species. Most of the time we simply destroy what we can’t control, which is everything else. We don’t “control” pests and predators, we kill them, precisely because we can’t control them.]
What are your sources for that contradictory statement? Do you have some scientific data from a reliable source that lists all species we control in comparison to the ones we don’t? I’ve shared plenty of sources in my previous comments so where are yours? And do you know your statement contradicts itself? You claim “we…destroy what we can’t control… we kill them precisely because we can’t control them.” However, these are definitions of control: “to hold in check; curb” ; “to eliminate or prevent the flourishing or spread of.” When we kill pests and predators, by definition we are exercising control over them.
[Our “rule” is based on nothing but force, as no wild animal instinctively bows to humans…]
Again, Dusk, you don’t seem to have a grasp on the definition of the words you are using. When someone exercises “dominion” or “control” over something, it means they have the power to subdue it whether the thing subdued willingly surrenders or is taken by force. The ability to overpower something means that the one who overpowers it has control or dominion.
[We have no real control, and the many environmental problems in the world are a testament to that. We would indeed have continued to destroy until there were virtually no species left on Earth, if at all, had the environmental movement not raised awareness of how harmful our attitudes towards other life are.]
Wow, Dusk, you are full of contradictions. Don’t you know that when a person uses contradictory statements, they show their statements aren’t true since they contradict themselves? You say “we have no real control” and would have destroyed all species if not for the environmental movement. But the fact that humans started a movement to protect endangered species by setting up laws proves that humans do indeed have real control. Duh!
So that’s three contradictory statements on your part thus far that I’ve pointed out. I think that at this point it’s safe to say we can dismiss your whole comment, in addition to the fact you have submitted no reliable sources to back your claims.
LikeLike
Just so I undwrstand:
Man writes a story you call the Bible. Man puts himself above all else in this story.
Weak minds who want power over all think the story is true so they can prove they are superior.
Wow, pathetic!
LikeLike
Steve,
Your comment is illogical. You give no examples from the Bible to back any of your statements, first of all. That leads me to believe you probably never read it and are mindlessly repeating what you heard in school or on the Internet from God-haters–like a robot or a parrot would. And as far as man writing the Bible, that is a pathetic, illogical reason for dismissing the Bible as I point out in this previous comment.
LikeLike
Comment system here is being weird and not letting me put the comment where I want, but I doubt I’ll need to because of this statement:
“So that’s three contradictory statements on your part thus far that I’ve pointed out. I think that at this point it’s safe to say we can dismiss your whole comment, in addition to the fact you have submitted no reliable sources to back your claims.”
Since you’re obviously more interested in being condescending rather than an actual discussion, despite the fact that I haven’t treated you with the same, I have no obligation to respond. You’ll obviously feel you’re in the right no matter what I say, especially given such statements as:
“What are your sources for that contradictory statement? Do you have some scientific data from a reliable source that lists all species we control in comparison to the ones we don’t? ”
Do you actually want me to provide one? That question is not only spectacular coming from someone who wrote a blog post about the Bible “proving” that humans are superior to animals, but is also an obvious attempt to obfuscate my argument, when you yourself haven’t provided any scientific sources. Not to mention, judging from reading some other comments, you would simply dismiss any scientific sources I provided.
“Again, Dusk, you don’t seem to have a grasp on the definition of the words you are using. When someone exercises “dominion” or “control” over something, it means they have the power to subdue it whether the thing subdued willingly surrenders or is taken by force. The ability to overpower something means that the one who overpowers it has control or dominion.”
So essentially you are proposing a “might makes right” sort of morality regarding animals, because if we can destroy them we have “dominion” over them. Also, “dominion” means rule, specially requiring the one with dominion to be able to command those they have dominion over, and humans have no control over the dead.
This is precisely why I have such dislike for the “humanity as superior” notion, because it leads to attitudes like this. It’s hard to see what good has actually come of believing of humanity as superior – and divinely mandated master of all life.
“Wow, Dusk, you are full of contradictions. Don’t you know that when a person uses contradictory statements, they show their statements aren’t true since they contradict themselves? You say “we have no real control” and would have destroyed all species if not for the environmental movement. But the fact that humans started a movement to protect endangered species by setting up laws proves that humans do indeed have real control. Duh!”
That would only be true if the environmental movement had completely succeeded in reversing the damage we have done, which it has not, not even close. Extinct species are still extinct, and more join them every year. Pollution and climate change are still major problems. This itself proves that we don’t have total control, because we have been unable to reverse the damage we’ve caused.
Also, saying my statements are contradictory doesn’t make them so.
“Your comment is illogical. You give no examples from the Bible to back any of your statements, first of all.”
He didn’t need to, YOU did. He need do nothing but use the various sources you used, which I assume he didn’t list so-as to not insult your intelligence. And I suspect if he provided different ones, you’d deny those too, just as you dismissed Ecclesiastes 3:18-21 elsewhere.
“And as far as man writing the Bible, that is a pathetic, illogical reason for dismissing the Bible as I point out in this previous comment.”
It’s completely logical, because the Bible is held to the same standard as all other human works, which means that simplistic statements with neither proof nor supporting arguments will be treated the same as similarly unsubstantiated statements today would be, whether they are from otherwise respected scientists or the ravings of someone on social media.
The issue isn’t that the Bible was written by man, it’s that its supposed divinity is its ONLY “proof” it supplies for its own validity, and it has little other reason to be trusted given its numerous ambiguities, inaccuracies, and absurdities.
Speaking of substantiated statements, I am going to give you a piece of advice – start using some scientific proof of your own. You ask for scientific sources but scorn them yourself, so you have no ground to stand on when you ask others for proof (and don’t think I don’t know of those verses where Jesus scorns hypocrisy). As it stands, you convince no one but yourself, and while this may make you feel good, it does NOT do the work of the Lord. In fact, it serves no purpose whatsoever except pissing in the wind and getting it blown back onto you.
And cut the condescension. I have yet to encounter an instance in which mockery convinced someone. Again, might make you feel good, but patting yourself on the back doesn’t tend to impress, and I’d bet high stakes it doesn’t impress God either. So make a decision – are you trying to actually convince people or spread God’s word, or are you just trolling?
LikeLike
[Since you’re obviously more interested in being condescending rather than an actual discussion]
Dusk,
Your complaining about condescension, whether real or imaginary, is simply a smokescreen and does not negate the fact you contradicted yourself multiple times, serving to only highlight your weak arguments. You left yourself open to me pointing out your weaknesses with all of your blatant contradictions. If you don’t want to be criticized for making contradictions, then don’t make them.
Simple as that.
[…you yourself haven’t provided any scientific sources.]
The Bible is a reliable, valid scientific and historical source. I also gave other sources in this follow-up comment and this other comment. I guess you overlooked them.
[So essentially you are proposing a “might makes right” sort of morality regarding animals, because if we can destroy them we have “dominion” over them.]
That’s not my proposal. That’s me stating what the definition of “dominion” is, as found in the dictionary. I just applied the definition to what is actually happening in the world. You’re the one who injected “might makes right.” Dominion is neutral and can be either for good or for bad. So you are the one actually attempting to obfuscate my arguments because I was astute enough to point out your blatant contradictions.
[…humans have no control over the dead]
That was never an argument that I made. The subject of my post is about man’s dominion over the animal kingdom, not control over the dead. Hence, this is your straw man argument.
[That would only be true if the environmental movement had completely succeeded in reversing the damage we have done, which it has not, not even close. Extinct species are still extinct… Pollution and climate change are still major problems. This itself proves that we don’t have total control, because we have been unable to reverse the damage…]
Again–your lack of grasping the definitions. You assume (wrongly) that dominion must always mean “total control” when it doesn’t. “Climate change” or more accurately “global warming” is just a scam of pagans and nihilistic socialists. And as far as our failure to reverse damage, I guess you haven’t heard of the laws of thermodynamics. Natural resources–animal, mineral, etc.–are subject to those laws so in some cases reverses cannot be made. On the other hand, you have cases like the bald eagle, the gray wolf, and other organisms that have benefited from the environmental movement, proving that dominion does exist and it often works, despite your nihilistic view.
[The issue isn’t that the Bible was written by man…it has little other reason to be trusted given its numerous ambiguities, inaccuracies, and absurdities.]
Pure poppycock from someone who really doesn’t care about the fact that the facts back up what the Bible says. I point you to this commment once again. It shows how absurd this statement of yours is. It’s also historically true and spiritually true from the standpoint of its fulfilled prophecies and the lives genuinely changed by its truths.
[…start using some scientific proof of your own. You ask for scientific sources but scorn them yourself]
Says the guy who obviously hasn’t read all of my comments. As I said before, the Bible is a reliable source for scientific proof. And you imply the Bible is true by your very own statements. The Bible says clearly several times that it’s wrong to lie. You have implied in your statements that it’s wrong to lie. Thus, you agree with the Bible and are claiming it’s true–even though you are wrongfully calling me a liar when it’s you who is deceived. You also contradicted yourself again by claiming the Bible isn’t true even as you claim to be in agreement with the Bible that it’s wrong to lie. Contradictions, contradictions. You’re very confused.
LikeLike
My opinion on the significance of humans – which may well be a mere wishful interpretation, because I sincerely find the idea of animals not having right to afterlife distasteful – is that Jesus thought of humans as the creatures with the direst moral, and thus ontological status in the entire Creation. They are the creatures because of whom the Earth is in the fallen state, the only ones capable of sinning, doing evil, offending God, plotting and scheming… They are the only creatures liable to the possibility of sharing the same form of eternity with Satan, in Hell…
A great writer (was it Dostoevsky?) said somewhere: “I could never imagine the Heavens without my pet dog…” I like to believe God will take into account our love and empathy for all our earthly brethren. Either that, or that the animals will continue their life in the heaven because, well, dissolution and annihilation of life (of innocent beings, anyway) is not what God does.
That said, I dare think the problem of “God’s image” is relative to say the least. If anything, animals haven’t remotely given as much “trouble” to God as humans did. In fact, humans, Satan and Satan’s demons are the only “problematic” beings God has created.
LikeLike