Jump to content


Photo

Truel Agnostic


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
97 replies to this topic

#81 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 29 January 2011 - 09:11 PM

I've debated this and many topics over the years, and I've never encountered anyone who thinks Romans 8 is "direct" scriptural support for animal salvation.

View Post


Well I am not arguing for animal salvation per se. I am arguing for animals to receive the same glorius liberty that we do. They do not need salvation. It is just a part of God's ultimate plan.

I'm going to close with the following, that I hope shows your non-sequitur. It's always telling to me when the hardest questions are avoided by your opponent in a debate, and you flat out avoided my questions that would demonstrate your non-sequitur. I'm going to have a pretend dialogue with you to save time, please correct and comment:


Fantastic! Except that I haven't avoided anything you have argued. If you notice my posts are substantially longer that yours, because I am trying to address your arguments. I can't say the same for you, because you have rather short posts and I have numerous times now asked you to address the scriptures that have been cited. So far you haven't

Fred: Do you agree that believers go to heaven, and un-believers to hell?

Performedge: Yes


Wrong answer. And herein is I think, where your argument fails. We are all saved by grace. It is not so much what I believe about Him, but what He believes/knows about me. The Devil believes doesn't he? And all his angel followers as well. At some time every knee show bow and every tongue confess.....Right? At that moment, before the second death everyone will be a believer, but only those in God's grace will be wriiten in the book of life.


Fred: Do you agree that in Romans 8, the children of God are those who are believers, and they will forever be freed from corruption?

Performedge: Yes


To be clear I believe:

Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

These are the children of God under His grace. The saved. They are the ones who will be glorified and forever freed from coruption.

Fred: Do you agree that in Romans 8, those who are NOT children of God will NOT be freed from corruption?

Performedge: Yes


Agreed!

Fred: Do you therefore agree that in Romans 8, the restored creation will not include every human?

Performedge: Yes

Agreed!

Fred: What about every animal?

Performedge: Uh, der, uh. .. But our pets will be in heaven, Romans 8 says so!


Not just our pets. The cow you eat also!

Fred: What determines our salvation, according to the Bible?

Performedge: Belief and trust in Jesus Christ, that he died, was buried, and rose from the dead for our sins (the basic gospel as outlined in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4).


Ok, I pretty much agree.

Fred: What determines animal salvation, according to the Bible?

Performedge: Uh, der, uh, Belief and trust in Jesus Christ, that he died, was buried, and rose from the dead for our sins (the basic gospel as outlined in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4).


uh der uh. Nope. der uh.

Why would think animals need saving? Does the earth need salvation? Do the mountains? Do the boulders and the sand pebbles? Your question implies a fundamental misunderstanding.

But the earth/ground is cursed, isn't it. Damned. Did the earth do anything wrong? No! But the earth was not in God's grace. It groans for God's grace. Likewise the creatures on the earth.

He said they would be delivered into the same liberty the chidren of God receive. Not me.

Fred: I didn't realize animals were that smart. What evidence do you have that animals have this belief? Do they bark and howl and heal when you drive by church with them in the car? Please don't mistake their heads out the window panting for joy with the wind on their face, as worship.

Performedge: Uh, der, uh, all animals are going to heaven, Romans 8 says so!


:D Pretty funny! uh der uh... But seriously I think your example fails miserably. In fact I think you agree that we are all saved by His grace. But many "believers" won't be. Animals were condemned in this bondage by His will. Animals will be freed from this bondage by His will. Grace Grace God's Grace....

#82 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,531 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 30 January 2011 - 12:32 AM

Performedge, I intend this to hopefully be my last word on this particular topic with you, then let the reader decide. I don't want either of us to waste much more time on this. Before this I will take a moment to comment on why I personally find it almost fruitless to debate you. If you have read most of my posts over time, you'll know I very seldom invoke strawman or other debate hot-buttons with other Christians. I honestly do not think you ever use them on purpose, but in what I think has been our first encounter of any real significance, they have been so common and widespread it makes it very difficult to get a point across to you. It causes your opponent to waste gobs of time hacking through the straw. In this latest salvo from the barnyard, now I have to clarify what "believer" is, when I assure you 95% of the Christians on this board knew plain well what I was referring to! I would then have to hack through the straw of your radical version of what "dogmatic" means, I'll simply take the first item listed in Webster's online. From this plain definition, you certainly seem to fit the definition for dogmatic on this view, that's the perception you have given whether you meant to or not. On the other hand, I have gone out of my way on several occasions to make it clear that the Bible does not provide a clear answer to this question, but oh by the way here is a clue to consider. Finally, while on the topic of debate style, I don't expect my opponent to have the time to address every little point I make, and thus why I will sometimes emphasize certain questions I would like a response to. Previously, you had only singled out Romans 8 for me to comment on, now you are complaining that I'm not dealing with the other verses you brought up. I'm not going to because I don't have time, and besides if I can't get you to see your faulty application of Romans 8, why should I continue (from what I recall earlier I thought Dave already did a good job addressing the whole animal body/soul thing).

Now here's one last ditch effort to show you why your interpretation of Romans 8 proving animals will share eternity with us in heaven is a non-sequitur. I think most Christians would agree that a straightforward interpretation of Romans 8:21-22 is that it represents the lifting of the curse. Does the lifting of the curse have anything at all to say about those who are saved and those who are not? It doesn't. They are tied together yet distinct from each other, similar to winning a football game and the celebration parade are connected yet separate events. The lifting of the curse doesn't speak to whether or not former dead persons will be restored to heaven, yet when you use Romans 8 in a parallel animal universe, it suddenly does speak to whether or not past dead animals will be in heaven. That's faulty logic my friend. At this I leave it to the reader to decide.

Fred

#83 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 30 January 2011 - 02:31 AM

Fred, I am surprised at such a comment from you.  We may disagree on this subject, but all I have offered is my appologia on it.  I haven't criticized you for not believing as I do.  You offerred an interprtation of scripture as your appologia.  I took note of that.  I on the other hand I am offering scripture and what the scripture actually says either in the Hebrew/Greek or the KJV.  If that is blind dogmatism then I'm all for it brother.


1) How do you save an animal?
2) It was a snake that "lied" to Eve, so if they have souls. How do they repent?
3) The snake sinned before Adam and Eve, why was not the fall of man laid upon the sin of a snake?
4) Do you think the the snake was a metaphor? How do you curse a metaphor to crawl on it's belly?
5) What makes animals souls different to the point that they are not responsible for their sins but yet we are? Are they above us in the creation?
6) Since the snake sinned before man, why did not a snake die for our sins?
7) Why was not a snake an old testament sin atonement since the snake made man sin?

Well your interpretation is just that.  It is your interpretation.  What I do know for a fact is that the topic of discussion in Job has nothing to do with the doctrine of whether animals have or are souls or whether they will be redeemed in the end.  The analogy I gave clearly upset you, because paleontologists interpret bones/fossils in dirt.  We creos generally reject those interpretations.  I rejected yours.  That's all.  It's not a strawman.  But it is a parallel analogy.


If you cannot answer the questions above, the fact you claim is not viable.

For some reason only you in your interpretation are focussed on the doubling.  And from that, you conclude various implications and doctrines about animal souls and their redemption.  I would prefer a conservative approach to looking at what Job 42:12-13 actually says.  That's why I said "That's quite an interpretation"


Does the Bible say anywhere that there are certain souls that don't need to be saved?



Animals are a part of my possessions.  Wealth.  I consider my children as my heritage and reward from God like the Psalmist says.  My children are in my image.  We are in His image.  My dog is not in my image.  Neither would be my sheep, my camels, or my oxen.  Neither are they in His image.  But they are definitly living nephesh.  Just like you and I are.


And the rich man poor man died, and the rich man saw his dogs that ate the crumbs from his table in Heaven, while he burned in Hell. If Christ would have considered animals on earth as part of the Heaven experience, His parables would have said this. Can you provide a parable for this? No? Why do you think that is?

You certainly appear to me to be domatic.  I have only provided direct scripture which clearly addresses whether animals have or are souls, and whether they possibly will be glorified in the end.  There is direct scripture here, unlike the totally inderect interpretation that you offer in Job.  You have not once addressed the use of the same Hebrew words for Adam and all animals.  I ask that you kindly address this.  Now, my dogma is derived from the direct words of scripture.  Now I may be wrong on this, but someone needs to address these words.  Living nephesh for animals and man.  That's all you need to address.


What is it when you kill a living soul? So everyone in the Old Testament committed murder when they Sacrificed animals for sin atonement. Because when the soul separates from the flesh, it means death. When it's done by the hand of another, it can be considered murder.

Ikester wrote "The Bible does not say that Christ died on the cross to save the souls of animals, does it?"

Then I responded:
Well, I beleive it does. Not in the sense that they were sinning against God, but they were a part of God's curses on His creation.....then I quoted Romans 8.


Did not an animal (snake) sin before man when it lied to Eve? Your logic does not work. All I see is that you "want" it to be true, so you will find and adhere to what ever you can to support it.

I responded that animals are redeemed as all of God's creation is redeemed in the end.  Except of course those who are made in His image and reject Him as their Father.


And no parables of animals from earth in Heaven or Hell.

OK.  Did I call that far-fetched?  Did I say you had blinders on?  I said it was "quite an interpretation" which it is.
Why is it far-fetched?  (are you being dogmatic?) I am just going on what the words say.  Not what I think they say.  You haven't yet addressed what Romans 8 says.  Instead you hand waive it away claiming that "The Bible simply does not speak to animal "salvation".  Well I have provided those verses for you which they do say.....

Rom 8:21  Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

and

Rom 8:22  For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
Rom 8:23  And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.


You leave out the verses that follow, which means you interpretation is taken out of context to what you want it to be, not what it actually says:

24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?
25 But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.
26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

If you are implying that the whole creation is being spoke of, and I know you are. Then the rest applies also.

1) How does an animal have hope so they can be saved?
2) How does an animal hope for something it cannot see?
3) How does an animal have infirmities?

Now I ask that you address these far-fetched words of God.

And then you have the audacity to claim that Rom 8 makes sense in light of the milenium which isn't even mentioned in Isaiah?  And you claim I make a non-sequitor regarding your strawmen about animal hell?

Fred, we can disagree, but I won't call you far fetched or blinded.  But so far, I will say that you and Ikester have both been unwilling to address the living nephesh of animals and the actual words of Roman 8.  So the ball is in your court.

View Post


When you can provide parables or verses that say animals from earth end up in Heaven, then you win the debate. Otherwise it is nothing but something you want so bad, that you are willing to fill in the blanks to make it so. And you are willing to separate yourself from members in this ministry to make it so by taking up to much pride. God's truth humbles, it does not separate and neither does it feed pride.

Example: You say nephesh means living soul --- And because of this you make an argument for animals from earth going to Heaven---Yet you cannot provide one verse or parable that confirms animals from earth end up in Heaven.

You are falling short of providing the evidence needed to prove your point. God's word is exact, it is not a fill in the blank book.

One thing I know about researching in God's word. What ever is meant is always backed up somewhere else. Saying that supposed animals souls equals animals going to Heaven even though the Bible does not make that clear. Would be like trying to make the verses below sound like something else.

Genesis 9:21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.
24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

Now atheists and some Christians like to use those verses to say Ham had s@x with Noah. Now, can you prove that Ham had s@x with Noah if you believe that? Or like animals going to Heaven, can you only go part way in proving it?

#84 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 30 January 2011 - 07:01 AM

Nice conclusion.  :D

http://www.bluelette...m?strongs=H7307

Ecclesiastes 3:19: For that which befalleth4745 the sons1121 of men120 befalleth4745 beasts929; even one thing259 befalleth4745 them: as the one dieth4194, so dieth4194 the other2088; yea, they have all one259 breath7307; so that a man120 hath no preeminence4195 above a beast929: for all [is] vanity1892.

Psa 146:4 His breath7307 goeth forth3318 , he returneth7725 to his earth127; in that very day3117 his thoughts6250 perish6 .

This indicates that the Hebrew word for spirit is the same for animals and men. So where again do we get the idea that men have a spirit and animals don't?

View Post

Your conclusion was a good morale booster, but really... Yes this question is important. The doctrine of immortality of the soul is the very thing that many atheist and agnostic people point to as the reason for their disbelief. They will not serve a God who invokes eternal torment as a punishment. In their minds, perfect justice does not line up with a choice between heaven and hell. There must be some in between. The OP is struggling with the same thing. The Church has struggled with this and has thus added other places, like purgatory into the mix. God's name is being besmirched by this doctrine. Besmirching God's name? I would say that is awfully important. Is everyone who carries on the besmirching of God's name condemned? No... that is not perfect justice either is it? Some are more responsible than others. Some do it in unwillful ignorance, etc.

(from what I recall earlier I thought Dave already did a good job addressing the whole animal body/soul thing).

Now here's one last ditch effort to show you why your interpretation of Romans 8 proving animals will share eternity with us in heaven is a non-sequitur.

View Post

In the original language of the scriptures, the words for spirit and soul are used the same for animals and men. So where again do we get the idea that men have a spirit and animals don't? And then... where do we get the idea that soul and spirit automatically equal heaven or hell? Did Dave use scriptures or his thoughts and doctrine?

Does the Bible say anywhere that there are certain souls that don't need to be saved?

View Post

Where does it say that all souls will be saved? Where does it say that killing any soul is murder?

No one has attempted to answer my questions. They are ignored while we focus on this bunny trail of animals in heaven.

#85 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 30 January 2011 - 03:47 PM

Where does it say that all souls will be saved? Where does it say that killing any soul is murder.

No one has attempted to answer my questions. They are ignored while we focus on this bunny trail of animals in heaven.

View Post


James 5:20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

mt 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

mt 19:18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,

1pet 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

Now if animals have souls, why does the Bible only count the souls of Humans as being saved and not the souls of animals (if they were to have souls). Maybe God cannot count that high?

#86 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 30 January 2011 - 04:03 PM

Now if animals have souls, why does the Bible only count the souls of Humans as being saved and not the souls of animals (if they were to have souls). Maybe God cannot count that high?

View Post

Ah, what a good point.

I am waiting for a copy of the Greek Septuagint. From just one search it does appear that the Greek Septuagint may use more than one word for translating the Hebrew term ruach. It will be interesting to find out for sure.

#87 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 31 January 2011 - 07:39 AM

Performedge,  I intend this to hopefully be my last word on this particular topic with you, then let the reader decide. I don't want either of us to waste much more time on this. Before this I will take a moment to comment on why I personally find it almost fruitless to debate you. If you have read most of my posts over time, you'll know I very seldom invoke strawman or other debate hot-buttons with other Christians. I honestly do not think you ever use them on purpose, but in what I think has been our first encounter of any real significance, they have been so common and widespread it makes it very difficult to get a point across to you. It causes your opponent to waste gobs of time hacking through the straw. In this latest salvo from the barnyard, now I have to clarify what "believer" is, when I assure you 95% of the Christians on this board knew plain well what I was referring to!

View Post



Well Fred, it's been a pleasure. I would hate to see you drop out. I know you generally don't like to use strawmen. We all do by mistake sometimes. But I personally believe I have not introduced any while you have. Your whole "uh der uh" conversation was a strawman with a non-sequitor in it. Of course it has a non-sequitor! Animals can't believe and trust in Jesus. Sure. But that was your conversation, not mine. On the other hand I used your strawman to show that if you sustituted grace for belief, then the non-sequitor goes away. That is my argument. Creation and creatures can be shown grace without belief or understanding about Jesus simply by God choosing to do so. The same would apply to babies that die prior to understanding, severely retarded people, and maybe many other examples that I can't think of right now. Now this is not universalism! God is quite clear in Rom 8 that certain people are under condemnation, and they will die! (second death).

I would then have to hack through the straw of your radical version of what "dogmatic" means, I'll simply take the first item listed in Webster's online. From this plain definition, you certainly seem to fit the definition for dogmatic on this view, that's the perception you have given whether you meant to or not.


Well I am certainly confused here. The whole concept of dogma and dogmatism comes from religion. It is a matter of defining what concepts are allowed in or out of that particular religion. When one, in a religious sense, is being dogmatic, he is saying that if you don't believe this or that way, then you are out. You moderator has used this tone of dogmatism with me without rebuke. But I did rebuke his hypocrisy. Within that rebuke I said

Ike there's a big difference between having a biblical discussion on a subject in humility as you falsely espouse and having a discussion where your disagreement becomes "adding to God's word" or "Pagan" and now "prideful". Maybe no one has ever challenged you on this before, but In Christ Jesus's Name I ask that you humbly go back and look at your posts.

Yes, you and I can disagree about whether an animal is a soul or not or whether they end up in heaven. It is meaningless to anyone's salvation. But adding or taking away from God's word is a very serious matter with serious consequences especially when you haven't shown any additions or subtractions, you have just made the accusation.

That's what I have taken offense to Ike. Not our disagreement.


Now, I don't know how you interpret things, but I long before you expressed that I wasn't dogmatic on this issue. I've had many inflamatory adjectives thrown my way in this debate, and now I have to add "radical" as it relates to dogmatism.

  On the other hand, I have gone out of my way on several occasions to make it clear that the Bible does not provide a clear answer to this question, but oh by the way here is a clue to consider.


I would say on the same hand. However, I have provided many clues which are all scriptural. And so have some others.

Finally, while on the topic of debate style, I don't expect my opponent to have the time to address every little point I make, and thus why I will sometimes emphasize certain questions I would like a response to. Previously, you had only singled out Romans 8 for me to comment on, now you are complaining that I'm not dealing with the other verses you brought up. I'm not going to because I don't have time, and besides if I can't get you to see your faulty application of Romans 8, why should I continue (from what I recall earlier I thought Dave already did a good job addressing the whole animal body/soul thing).


Well I think it was you who chose to single out Rom 8. The first topic was do animals have or are souls? Then do they have spirits? Then do they end up in heaven? These three are all tied together in my mind. The verses referring to animal souls and spirits are foundational to a proper understanding of Romans 8 in my argument. I've asked you many times to address these verses, not just once. You continue to say I have a fauty view of Romans 8, but the fault is only in your strawman. Why don't you deal with my words and my argument that if God wants to extend His grace to animals in the end, then so be it? That's what I think Romans 8 says.


Now here's one last ditch effort to show you why your interpretation of Romans 8 proving animals will share eternity with us in heaven is a non-sequitur.


Ok, but I make no promises that I will agree with your so-called non-sequitor.


I think most Christians would agree that a straightforward  interpretation of Romans 8:21-22 is that it represents the lifting of the curse. Does the lifting of the curse have anything at all to say about those who are saved and those who are not? It doesn't.


With this I agree. However, in context, Romans 8 does clearly address the saved and unsaved.

They are tied together yet distinct from each other, similar to winning a football game and the celebration parade are connected yet separate events.


I think this is a good analogy, and I agree! There is distinction in Romans 8.


The lifting of the curse doesn't speak to whether or not former dead persons will be restored to heaven, yet when you use Romans 8 in a parallel animal universe, it suddenly does speak to whether or not past dead animals will be in heaven. That's faulty logic my friend.  At this I leave it to the reader to decide.


Herein is where we disgree. Romans 8 as a whole deals with three groups of "things". It deals with and defines a group of people who live in the Spirit. This group is saved by God's grace. Then there is a group of people who live by the flesh. They are under condemnation, and will receive death. Then there is the creation/creature. The creation/creature will be restored to the same libery that those who are saved by grace have. All distinct as you said. The non-sequitor only exists when the distinctions are removed. The lifting of the curse in Romans 8:21-22, I believe, does speak to the past as well as the present, because it is the "whole" creation that is being addressed. When addressing people, you are correct, that the "whole" of people in history is not addressed. They are distinct from the creature/creation. So it does follow.

Now Fred, I will say, as I have already said. This is a debate on a biblical topic of great interest to many. None of it is a matter of salvation. I have not made it such. People can believe as they wish. But I believe this way, and I should give the reasons why I be.

#88 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 31 January 2011 - 09:45 PM

Well Fred, it's been a pleasure.  I would hate to see you drop out.  I know you generally don't like to use strawmen.  We all do by mistake sometimes.  But I personally believe I have not introduced any while you have.  Your whole "uh der uh" conversation was a strawman with a non-sequitor in it.  Of course it has a non-sequitor!  Animals can't believe and trust in Jesus.  Sure.  But that was your conversation, not mine.  On the other hand I used your strawman to show that if you sustituted grace for belief, then the non-sequitor goes away.  That is my argument.  Creation and creatures can be shown grace without belief or understanding about Jesus simply by God choosing to do so.  The same would apply to babies that die prior to understanding,  severely retarded people, and maybe many other examples that I can't think of right now.  Now this is not universalism!  God is quite clear in Rom 8 that certain people are under condemnation, and they will die! (second death).
Well I am certainly confused here.  The whole concept of dogma and dogmatism comes from religion.  It is a matter of defining what concepts are allowed in or out of that particular religion.  When one, in a religious sense, is being dogmatic, he is saying that if you don't believe this or that way, then you are out.  You moderator has used this tone of dogmatism with me without rebuke.  But I did rebuke his hypocrisy.  Within that rebuke I said
Now, I don't know how you interpret things, but I long before you expressed that I wasn't dogmatic on this issue.  I've had many inflamatory adjectives thrown my way in this debate, and now I have to add "radical" as it relates to dogmatism. 
I would say on the same hand.  However, I have provided many clues which are all scriptural.  And so have some others. 
Well I think it was you who chose to single out Rom 8.  The first topic was do animals have or are souls?  Then do they have spirits?  Then do they end up in heaven?  These three are all tied together in my mind. The verses referring to animal souls and spirits are foundational to a proper understanding of Romans 8 in my argument.  I've asked you many times to address these verses, not just once.  You continue to say I have a fauty view of Romans 8, but the fault is only in your strawman.  Why don't you deal with my words and my argument that if God wants to extend His grace to animals in the end, then so be it?  That's what I think Romans 8 says.
Ok, but I make no promises that I will agree with your so-called non-sequitor.
With this I agree.  However, in context, Romans 8 does clearly address the saved and unsaved.
I think this is a good analogy, and I agree!  There is distinction in Romans 8.
Herein is where we disgree.  Romans 8 as a whole deals with three groups of "things".  It deals with and defines a group of people who live in the Spirit.  This group is saved by God's grace.  Then there is a group of people who live by the flesh.  They are under condemnation, and will receive death.  Then there is the creation/creature.  The creation/creature will be restored to the same libery that those who are saved by grace have.  All distinct as you said.  The non-sequitor only exists when the distinctions are removed.  The lifting of the curse in Romans 8:21-22, I believe, does speak to the past as well as the present, because it is the "whole" creation that is being addressed.  When addressing people, you are correct, that the "whole" of people in history is not addressed.  They are distinct from the creature/creation.  So it does follow.

Now Fred, I will say, as I have already said.  This is a debate on a biblical topic of great interest to many.  None of it is a matter of salvation.  I have not made it such.  People can believe as they wish.  But I believe this way,  and I should give the reasons why I be.

View Post


I see you are avoiding my post here:

1pet 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

Now if animals have souls, why does the Bible only count the souls of Humans as being saved and not the souls of animals (if they were to have souls). Maybe God cannot count that high?


Maybe to answer the question makes you face reality?

#89 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 31 January 2011 - 10:14 PM

By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.


When used in context (preceding verse), we know that this particular reference to souls, is specifically regarding humans.

#90 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 01 February 2011 - 08:21 AM

1) How do you save an animal?

View Post

Isaac, I am going to patiently answer all of your questions, becuase you are demanding an answer. But if I do, then I ask hat you respond to my answers with your agreement or disagreement.

An animal is "saved" the same way a person is saved. God offers you eternal life by His grace. It is by His grace that you are saved, not by anything you have done. You deserve death. But for some reason, He wants to give you life. I have no clue why He wants you or me in heaven with Him. I think it has something to do with His infinite love. Now, why does He want the creature itself also to be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God? Well, why did he want them when He created them? I think He chooses this promise, because of the same grace He chooses you and I.

2) It was a snake that "lied" to Eve, so if they have souls. How do they repent?


Why did you put "lied" in quotation marks? I think you know why, because you did it. When you answer this, I will answer your question.

3) The snake sinned before Adam and Eve, why was not the fall of man laid upon the sin of a snake?


The snake sinned? When? What commandment of God is recorded that he broke? I think you are confused here:

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

I hope you see the consequenses of your argument. Eve sinned first, not Adam. Your argument makes God a liar.

4) Do you think the the snake was a metaphor? How do you curse a metaphor to crawl on it's belly?


No, I think the snake was real and not a metaphor.

5) What makes animals souls different to the point that they are not responsible for their sins but yet we are? Are they above us in the creation?


Seems to me, they all face the same curse of death we do. Are two year olds responsible for their sins? Are severely retarded people. Are aborted babies?

6) Since the snake sinned before man, why did not a snake die for our sins?


I don't know, why wasn't Jesus a woman? See what problems, your argument creates.

7) Why was not a snake an old testament sin atonement since the snake made man sin?


An atonement was a substitute. Metaphorically, a snake wouldn't be a sustitute, now would it? Jesus wouldn't be either if He had sin.

Now I submit this excert from a book on the Temple giving the Jewish understanding of animal sacrifice. An understanding that I hope you will grow to understand....

New Testament View of Sacrifice agrees with the Synagogue

It is deeply interesting to know that the New Testament view of sacrifices is entirely in accordance with that of the ancient Synagogue. At the threshold we here meet the principle: ‘There is no atonement except by blood.’ In accordance with this we quote the following from Jewish interpreters. Rashi says: ‘The soul of every creature is bound up in its blood; therefore I gave it to atone for the soul of man—that one soul should come and atone for the other.’ Similarly Aben Ezra writes: ‘One soul is a substitute for the other.’ And Moses ben Nachmann: ‘I gave the soul for you on the altar, that the soul of the animal should be an atonement for the soul of the man.’ These quotations might be almost indefinitely multiplied. Another phase of Scriptural truth appears in such Rabbinical statements as that by the imposition of hands: ‘The offerer, as it were, puts away his sins from himself, and transfers them upon the living animal;’ and that, ‘as often as any one sins with his soul, whether from haste or malice, he puts away his sin from himself, and places it upon the head of his sacrifice, and it is an atonement for him.’ Hence, also, the principle laid down by Abarbanel, that, ‘after the prayer of confession (connected with the imposition of hands) the sins of the children of Israel lay on the sacrifice (of the Day of Atonement).’ This, according to Maimonides, explains why every one who had anything to do with the sacrifice of the red heifer or the goat on the Day of Atonement, or similar offerings, was rendered unclean; since these animals were regarded as actually sin-bearing. In fact, according to Rabbinical expression, the sin-bearing animal is on that ground expressly designated as something to be rejected and abominable. The Christian reader will here be reminded of the Scriptural statement: ‘For He has made Him to be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.’
There is yet one other phase on which the Synagogue lays stress. It is best expressed in the following quotation, to which many similar might be added: ‘Properly speaking, the blood of the sinner should have been shed, and his body burned, as those of the sacrifices. But the Holy One—blessed be He!—accepted our sacrifice from us as redemption and atonement. Behold the full grace which Jehovah—blessed be He!—has shown to man! In His compassion and in the fulness of His grace He accepted the soul of the animal instead of his soul, that through it there might be an atonement.’ Hence also the principle, so important as an answer to the question, Whether the Israelites of old had understood the meaning of sacrifices? ‘He that brought a sacrifice required to come to the knowledge that that sacrifice was his redemption.’

Edersheim, A. (2003). The Temple, its ministry and services as they were at the time of Jesus Christ. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.


The concept of animal souls is not unique, bizarre, radical, pagan, etc. It's jewish.

If you cannot answer the questions above, the fact you claim is not viable.


But I did answer them, so it is alive and well so far! :rolleyes:

Does the Bible say anywhere that there are certain souls that don't need to be saved?


Does the Bible say anywhere that any souls need to be saved?

#91 JoshuaJacob

JoshuaJacob

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ponchatoula, Louisiana
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ponchatoula, Louisiana

Posted 01 February 2011 - 02:07 PM

Actually Satan used the snake and deceived Eve. Are We suppose to believe that God created talking animals? God cursed the snake because it allowed the great deceiver, Satan, to use it. Wouldn't it be more logical to think that Satan talked through the snake then actually saying the snake was talking on its own?

Revelation 20:2
And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years;

#92 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 01 February 2011 - 03:43 PM

Actually Satan used the snake and deceived Eve. Are We suppose to believe that God created talking animals? God cursed the snake because it allowed the great deceiver, Satan, to use it. Wouldn't it be more logical to think that Satan talked through the snake then actually saying the snake was talking on its  own?

Revelation 20:2
And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years;

View Post


That's my way of viewing it.

Rhetorical question....Did the swine sin when Jesus sent the demons into the herd and they ran over the cliff? By the way, would that be animals with spirits inside them? HMMMMMMMM?

#93 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 02 February 2011 - 08:36 AM

Your conclusion was a good morale booster, but really... Yes this question is important. The doctrine of immortality of the soul is the very thing that many atheist and agnostic people point to as the reason for their disbelief. They will not serve a God who invokes eternal torment as a punishment. In their minds, perfect justice does not line up with a choice between heaven and hell. There must be some in between. The OP is struggling with the same thing. The Church has struggled with this and has thus added other places, like purgatory into the mix. God's name is being besmirched by this doctrine. Besmirching God's name? I would say that is awfully important. Is everyone who carries on the besmirching of God's name condemned? No... that is not perfect justice either is it? Some are more responsible than others. Some do it in unwillful ignorance, etc.

View Post


You have great questions that shouldn't be ignored. Let me first say, that I think JW theology is incorrect on many many things, but they are correct ,I believe, that the soul is not immortal. What we have to be careful with in studying the scriptures is that if one group gets one thing wrong, then I go to another group that has a whole lot more wrong.

I have been in the Christian church my whole adult life. Every church I've attended has taught me that the soul is immortal. I accepted it on faith without challenge. Then I studied the scriptures. I couldn't find it any where. In fact it is clear from the scriptures that God can destroy the soul. So that led me to an in depth study of the body/soul/spiirt. I looked at every verse in the scriptures. I looked at the original language and then I looked into the history of some of these doctrines. Now, I believe that the soul is only immortal if it eats from the tree of life and drinks from the river of life. Adam was an immortal soul in the garden until he was kicked out and couldn't eat or drink from God's sutaining life source. The curse of death was the removal of this sustanance. In the future, when those in the book of life are resurrected, we will once again be given access to these elements.

This is really the foundation of all the contoversy with my comments so far. If the soul is not immortal, then that is not the part of man that makes him in God's image. I agree. I don't think we are in God's image, because we have an immortal soul. I believe we are in God's image, because we look similar to him, and because we have logos. Words. Reasoning. Wisdom. The rest of creation doesn't have this. The rest of creation doesn't look like us. But when the word became flesh, He looked just like us. The word was in the beginning. We weren't. He was with God, and He was God. Now I hope you can see where at least, I am coming from.

I just encourage you to continue to seek His words, and not some others who falsely say He is a god.

#94 JoshuaJacob

JoshuaJacob

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ponchatoula, Louisiana
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ponchatoula, Louisiana

Posted 02 February 2011 - 11:50 AM

You have great questions that shouldn't be ignored.  Let me first say, that I think JW theology is incorrect on many many things, but they are correct ,I believe, that the soul is not immortal.  What we have to be careful with in studying the scriptures is that if one group gets one thing wrong, then I go to another group that has a whole lot more wrong.

I have been in the Christian church my whole adult life.  Every church I've attended has taught me that the soul is immortal.  I accepted it on faith without challenge.  Then I studied the scriptures.  I couldn't find it any where.  In fact it is clear from the scriptures that God can destroy the soul.  So that led me to an in depth study of the body/soul/spiirt.  I looked at every verse in the scriptures.  I looked at the original language and then I looked into the history of some of these doctrines.  Now, I believe that the soul is only immortal if it eats from the tree of life and drinks from the river of life.  Adam was an immortal soul in the garden until he was kicked out and couldn't eat or drink from God's sutaining life source.  The curse of death was the removal of this sustanance.  In the future, when those in the book of life are resurrected, we will once again be given access to these elements. 

This is really the foundation of all the contoversy with my comments so far.  If the soul is not immortal, then that is not the part of man that makes him in God's image.  I agree.  I don't think we are in God's image, because we have an immortal soul.  I believe we are in God's image, because we look similar to him, and because we have logos. Words.  Reasoning.  Wisdom. The rest of creation doesn't have this.  The rest of creation doesn't look like us.  But when the word became flesh, He looked just like us.  The word was in the beginning.  We weren't.  He was with God, and He was God.  Now I hope you can see where at least, I am coming from. 

I just encourage you to continue to seek His words, and not some others who falsely say He is a god.

View Post


I agree that the soul is not immortal but Our spirit is, which is what I believe is the image of God. When it says image I don't think it is talking about our physical form but our spiritual form, since God is a spirit. The root definition of the word religion, which comes from the Latin word religio (I think that's how You spell it) which means to tie back or re-graft. This is what happens when You are saved and go to heaven, You are tied back or re-grafted back to God, His spirit. Even if a person is not saved, are they automatically destroyed or do they spend an eternity away from God?

Just My opinion I guess :lol:

#95 JoshuaJacob

JoshuaJacob

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ponchatoula, Louisiana
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ponchatoula, Louisiana

Posted 02 February 2011 - 11:53 AM

The Latin word is religare

#96 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 02 February 2011 - 04:57 PM

I agree that the soul is not immortal but Our spirit is, which is what I believe is the image of God. When it says image I don't think it is talking about our physical form but our spiritual form, since God is a spirit. The root definition of the word religion, which comes from the Latin word religio (I think that's how You spell it) which means to tie back or re-graft. This is what happens when You are saved and go to heaven, You are tied back or re-grafted back to God, His spirit. Even if a person is not saved, are they automatically destroyed or do they spend an eternity away from God?

Just My opinion I guess  :lol:

View Post


Well either way you need to think about the consequences of immortality. Eternal Life. Infinite life. That is what God definitely has. His Spirit is eternal. His sSn is eternal. We all agree on this I think.

Now here is just a little logic for you. If we (our spirits or our souls) are immortal/eternal then that suggests we existed prior to our existense on earth. Eternally prior. The Mormons believe this and it is a logical consequence of this concept.

If God's image is His eternal spirit, then we have an eternal spirit. But Adam had a beginning. No if ands or buts about it. Adam was not eternal/immortal in that he didn't have prior existense. So logically the immortality/eternal part cannot be the image.

Also think about the first lie of scripture.

Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

But God said we would! That doesn't sound like eternal life does it? But Satan's lie does. Now remember, that whatever spirit you have in you before your conversion, that spirit has led you away from God. Is that spirit Godly? No! you need a new spirit!. His Spirit! His eternal Spirit!. Your spirit will war against God's spirit for most of your life, until you empty yourself.

I think it is much easier to envision that God as a Spirit has an image. Angels have images. Dead spirits have images in the scriptures. They have a look and are recognizeable. What's so difficult about that understanding? Jesus certainly looked like us. God calls us His children. Brothers of Jesus. Easy concept.

And finally think about our "gift of eternal life". Why is it a gift if we already have it?

Now to answer your question, they are thrown into the lake of fire in the end which is the second death. The body has already died, now the entire soul is destroyed (body and spirit).

#97 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 02 February 2011 - 05:43 PM

And finally think about our "gift of eternal life".  Why  is it a gift if we already have it?

View Post

John 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

1 Cor. 15:42, 44, 53 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 44It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 53For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.


Now to answer your question, they are thrown into the lake of fire in the end which is the second death.  The body has already died, now the entire soul is destroyed (body and spirit).

View Post

http://www.articlesb...l#ixzz16JITteeZ Written by: Br. Josh Sparks In 2000 he was licensed with the ALJC. Bro.Sparks Pastors the Worldwide Church of Jesus Christ.

#98 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 02 February 2011 - 06:07 PM

Isaac, I am going to patiently answer all of your questions, becuase you are demanding an answer.  But if I do, then I ask hat you respond to my answers with your agreement or disagreement.

An animal is "saved" the same way a person is saved.  God offers you eternal life by His grace.  It is by His grace that you are saved, not by anything you have done.  You deserve death.  But for some reason, He wants to give you life.  I have no clue why He wants you or me in heaven with Him.  I think it has something to do with His infinite love.  Now, why does He want the creature itself also to be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God?  Well, why did he want them when He created them?  I think He chooses this promise, because of the same grace He chooses you and I.


Show me verses please. Show me the verse where an animal gets saved.

Why did you put "lied" in quotation marks?  I think you know why, because you did it.  When you answer this, I will answer your question.
The snake sinned?  When?  What commandment of God is recorded that he broke?  I think you are confused here:

Rom 5:12  Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:


Here is the snake sinned:
God said: gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Snake said: gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

I hope you see the consequenses of your argument.  Eve sinned first, not Adam.  Your argument makes God a liar.


By defending the snake as the one who did not first lie, you are the one who makes God into a liar. Because this shows without a doubt the animals have no souls to save. If they did, this sin would have counted. But it does not because they don't.

You read what ever you like into the word of God, and believe what you like. You have shown more than once here that you won't listen or look at verses that clearly contradict what you claim is true. I would love to have all my pets in Heaven with me. But I see "no verse" that says it, and you have not provided one.

This has turned into a time wasting thread in which I am closing. Your idea has been refuted with scripture and you still cling to it. There is no point in allowing this to continue. We will have to agree to disagree.

Side note: Do not start another thread on this.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users