Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: HiTech RedNeck

Just my opinion, not an attack of any sort as I am a live-and-let-live kinda guy, but I vote no on animal’s having souls.

My reasoning is that if animals had souls, God would not have told Adam that they were all placed on this earth for his use. I know that this is a very broad and generalized statement, but you get the gist, Adam was allowed to use the animals (responsibly) as food and as beasts of burden.

I am of the opinion that God would not subject a being with a celestial soul to being destined to be dinner or slave labor/indentured servitude.

Again, just my opinion, which is free, and worth every penny.


34 posted on 12/23/2016 9:28:54 AM PST by Sergio (An object at rest cannot be stopped! - The Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]


To: Sergio

The animals are incapable of some things, such as moral choice as we know it. A bad dog is a factor of its breeding and environment.

The term, nephesh, generally meaning soul, is used in the creation story with respect to a large segment of the animal kingdom. Tying it to breathing doesn’t quite work, because this term is also used of fish.

A slavery or servitude would be wrong if moral choice were possible of the animals. As it were, we are still bidden to regard our beasts’ lives (or as commonly rendered in bibles, be kind to them). But an eternally remaining part would be free of whatever that slavery or servitude was.


36 posted on 12/23/2016 9:41:04 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson