Animals are good for the soul

Eric12345

I do not believe that Jesus said much about animal souls, whether they have them or not. If you believe that Christianity teaches anything about the souls of animals, then that is simply an "add-on" which you are free to do if you wish.

I think that Cal Thomas has a very simple-minded, even childish religious perspective. If his ideas are the model of Christian perfection that you seek to support and follow as a Christian, then that is your choice, but I do not think that is a very good choice. You could do a lot better. Am I a bad person for thinking this, and then saying it?

Eric12345 writes that, "Just because you don't see things from a Christian perspective doesn't mean anytime a Christian gives his or her opinion on an issue you should take offense." According to dictionary.com, offend means, "to irritate, annoy, or anger; cause resentful displeasure in: Even the hint of prejudice offends me." Individuals who want to foist biblical law upon this nation irritate, annoy, and anger many people, no less than prejudice offends most of us. To suggest that individuals should not feel offended at viewpoints they vigorously disagree with is simply wrong. And there is no presumption of virtue, no safe harbor from criticism, because a viewpoint is labeled religious.

Sorry to say, but I find Mr. Thomas's ideas dangerous, and, therefore, offensive. To suggest that public policy be based on the book of Genesis or other books of the Bible, is terrifying. Does Mr. Thomas also suggest that women who are not virgins when married be stoned to death, that we reinstitute slavery, sectarianism, tribalism, and all of the other horrible things in the Old Testament? Does Mr. Thomas think the word is 6000 years old? (Does Mr. Thomas deny evolution, and not think that we are half a chromosome away from being monkeys?) After all, he can't pick and chose, either he is all in or not. I respect Mr. Thomas's rights to these views; he must expect that when he puts these views in the public forum that they will be opposed vigorously by some.

There is a difference between respecting an individual's right to hold and express certain viewpoints, no matter how much we disagree with them, and expressing opposition, even fervent oppposition, to someone's ideas, especially when those ideas are put into the public forum and proposed to be the basis of public policy. Here, I would submit that Mr. Thomas has done both, and, therefore, is open to criticism.

""Animals do not have souls because they are not created in the image of God. But they were created for our enjoyment and Genesis says we humans have "dominion" over them. ""

Bzzzt.

Incorrect.

But as someone else you claim 'dominion' over, I might point out that this oil spill ain't the best time for you to make that sales pitch for you increasing your 'dominionation?'

DANIELINTHELIONSDEN - I forgot...you asked what a good response to someone who doesn't put much effort into writing responses on this blog. I'd probably not spend a lot of time reading or writing back to him or her. I'd probably ignore the person. If they're not going to put the time in to write something I'm not going to bother responding. But I wouldn't mock their faith or disparage the person personally.

DANIELINTHELIONSDEN - People have several options when confronted with ideas that don't agree with. They can 1) ignore them 2) explain why they're wrong or 3) call names and disparage.

I'm not sure what anyone here should find offensive about Thomas' comments about animals and how his faith looks at them. You might disagree with him about God's image or who or what has souls, but that shouldn't be a reason to take offense. Just because you don't see things from a Christian perspective doesn't mean anytime a Christian gives his or her opinion on an issue you should take offense.

Counterww

I do not object to anyone believing in God or the Bible. I object to some relgious people trying to shove their religion down other people's throats. Do you disagree with that? Or, are you one of the religious throat-shovers?

DILD, you missed the point, as usual.

I actually find YOU to be simple minded, as you appear to think anyone that is believes in God and the Bible to be something you can attack and critique. You do it in a nuanced manner but you still disdain most religionists. It is just more jaded than most.

H A P P Y -- F A T H E R S -- D A Y -- M O N!
..
.
...................... _____
.................. , ' " .____ ` . , . ' " ` .
................. , ; , , ' " __ ` Y ' .. " `.\ \
................ / / / / , ' " ' ` Y ' " ` . \ Y Y
............... f f f f f f ' ...... ' ...... ' Y | |
............... | | | | | 1.. ,--- .. ---. . | .| . |
............... j j j | l` .... , -. .... , -. | 1 1
............... , - ` ` ` .. f .. | ... f .. | | . - .
............... 1 . ( | .... l_0, ... l_0, . | . j
................. Y . | ............ `. ....... | f
.................. ` - | , ....... .... ) ..... 1 '
.................. | | f .. , . - . `--' .. _ . Y
.................. j j j .................. `. , ` |
.................. ' ' ' \ ..... (-------' .... j
......................... | .................. , '
......................... | ``--..__..-,`.-'
............... ___... | .......... 1 ...___
........... /+--+.,' .\`.-.. _X_ ..,.'| .`.+--+\
.......... /-.+--+`-, .\... ____ ..,j .,'+--+.-\
......... f-.-+-.-+-.{ .\ ........... /. }.-+--+--Y
......... j-.-+-.-+-.-` . `.... ... / ,'-.-+-.-+-.-l
......... +-.-+-.-+-.-.+-..`Y. /-.+-.-+-.-+--+
......... +-.-+-.-+-.-+-+\ .|.f-.-+-.-+-.-+-.-+
......... +-.-+-f+-.-+--+-\ |.j--+--+Y-.+-.-.+
......... +-.-+-|+-.-+--+-.-|.+-.-+-.-+|-+-.-.+
......... +-.-+-|+--+-.-+-.-|.+-.-+-.-+|-+-.-.+
..
... Credit To "jj" ..@.. http://onwapo.com
.

Every living creature is animated by its own particular spirit that gives it life -- which, indeed, is the essence of its life.

So, Cal, be an exceptionalist if you like; call the human spirit a "soul" to distinguish it if you will; but if you deny the spirits of all other living things, yours is a spirit of error.

Eric12345

Yes but, Cal Thomas is a grown man, probably past middle age, probably approaching elderly, and his religious ideas, which he presents here in print, are simple-minded, and often insensitive and even offensive to others. So? What do you suggest would be a good response to someone like him, who barely writes a brief paragraph of non-sense in reply to every question?

The vitriol expressed in these comments is quite telling. Apparently some of you can't have a mature, adult discussion about how people's faiths relate to their view of animals without devolving into personal insults and denigrations of other people's religious faiths. That's sad.

How do you know that they weren't made in the image of God? What does God look like?

Many civilizations, including the ancient Egyptians, have anthropomorphic Gods. One of them was Bast, the cat goddess. See, ancient Egyptians was the first civilization to be domesticated by cats, and they gave all homage to Bast for protecting the grainaries from mice. Cats, of course, have never forgotten this and expect to be treated like the Gods and Goddesses that they are!

Then there's the Celtic "horned God", goat-footed Pan, various fish-tailed deities who are probably covered in oil right now, and all of the Native American animal spirits. Certainly the Native Americans hunted and ate meat, but they gave thanks to the spirit of the animal for its gift of life to them.

Cal,

What does God do with his penis? What function does his colon serve? Does he, like most of us, have five fingers on each hand? Because if I were God, I would want no fewer than 37 fingers on each of my 124 hands. . .

If humans are created in the image of God, well, it speaks quite ill of God.

Dear Mr. Thomas,

Fortunately, the founders of this nation had the wisdom and foresight to draft entirely secular documents to provide for the legal structure for this country. Thanks to their wisdom and foresight, religious extremists like you who believe in children's tales as guiding principles, and apparently know nothing about science, cannot lord over the rest of us.

Oh, the arrogance!

Do beavers consult with us as to where they should build damns? Do termites and ants ask our engineers for advice? Such foolishness.

I can imagine that our "dominion" over animals would not apply if one were lost in the Savannah without a weapon. Or bleeding in ocean waters. Or as simple as decaying in a field. Our intelligence has given us great power yes, but we exist in a natural world, and nothing has 'respect' for us, save those animals we have breed specifically to do so.

I happen to believe that animals DO have souls, and that they were NOT "created for our enjoyment," but have their own meaning and purpose in life.
You can't simultaneously respect something and belive that its sole purpose for existence is to amuse you.

"Animals do not have souls because they are not created in the image of God"

How do you know, Cal? Are you God? Or does he talk directly with you like he does with George the Dumber?

I've met a lot more dogs who exemplify the examples of Jesus better than you and your intolerat, hateful old white Huckabees.