|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Dec 28, 2012 15:00:42 GMT -5
Evil defined is not exclusive to humans. The definition contains a set of characteristics. Animals exhibit those characteristics, thus animals can be evil. Some people are attempting to define evil in such a way that no animal fits the bill, but what use is that? Considering the characteristics defined as evil there are animals that exhibit those characteristics. ...this is a good point...  |
|
cranberry49
Familiar Member
'Sometimes the simple things are the prettiest'
Joined: Jul 15, 2011 21:09:58 GMT -5
Posts: 734
|
Post by cranberry49 on Dec 28, 2012 15:09:38 GMT -5
Evil defined is not exclusive to humans. The definition contains a set of characteristics. Animals exhibit those characteristics, thus animals can be evil. Some people are attempting to define evil in such a way that no animal fits the bill, but what use is that? Considering the characteristics defined as evil there are animals that exhibit those characteristics. Well, to me the term 'evil' is a conscious decision made to hurt someone without regard, or empathy, for them. An animal can seem to be 'cruel' and not react with 'kindness'. But, I just don't believe that they have the 'intentions', or make a 'conscious' decision to commit , or cause, intentional harm. |
|
mrsdutt
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 12, 2012 7:39:38 GMT -5
Posts: 2,097
|
Post by mrsdutt on Dec 28, 2012 15:13:41 GMT -5
INNER said: no further forward in the matter of whether animals can be evil.
This is basic stuff. It's been said that the difference between the mammal (man) and other mammals is there is a soul in man. That man has an intellect and has been given the ability to make decisions outside of those that deal with instinct. We can make choices - either good ones or evil ones. All other animal life has been given to man to help him survive. What we do with these gifts is a choice. Animals are purely instinctive. So they are not able to contrive any evil.
EX: Someone dies from a shark bite. Was the shark being evil? No, he was looking for nourishment and made a bad choice. (They really don't like the taste of us.)
|
|
mrsdutt
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 12, 2012 7:39:38 GMT -5
Posts: 2,097
|
Post by mrsdutt on Dec 28, 2012 15:17:01 GMT -5
Ok. Obviously the soundness of the interpretation is brought into question by the fact that the only other person to comment on it thus far has come up with a different interpretation. No worries, truth is in the eye of the beholder etc. ...yeah, but the soundness of your interpretation about the soundness of my interpretation being validated by others' agreement with it requires the imposition of your daily schedule rules upon others' daily schedule rules... and since it's practically a holiday weekend, the fact that my post has had only one taker shouldn't be held against me... jmho...  Holy Tamoley. You lost me here!  |
|
cranberry49
Familiar Member
'Sometimes the simple things are the prettiest'
Joined: Jul 15, 2011 21:09:58 GMT -5
Posts: 734
|
Post by cranberry49 on Dec 28, 2012 15:23:24 GMT -5
INNER said: no further forward in the matter of whether animals can be evil. This is basic stuff. It's been said that the difference between the mammal (man) and other mammals is there is a soul in man. That man has an intellect and has been given the ability to make decisions outside of those that deal with instinct. We can make choices - either good ones or evil ones. All other animal life has been given to man to help him survive. What we do with these gifts is a choice. Animals are purely instinctive. So they are not able to contrive any evil. EX: Someone dies from a shark bite. Was the shark being evil? No, he was looking for nourishment and made a bad choice. (They really don't like the taste of us.)  |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 24, 2024 14:24:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2012 15:25:43 GMT -5
...yeah, but the soundness of your interpretation about the soundness of my interpretation being validated by others' agreement with it requires the imposition of your daily schedule rules upon others' daily schedule rules... and since it's practically a holiday weekend, the fact that my post has had only one taker shouldn't be held against me... jmho... In just 2 posts, BTDT, yours and Cranberry's, we have 2 different interpretations. Both, then, invite further examination. I can't imagine what this has to do with it being a Friday. |
|
mrsdutt
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 12, 2012 7:39:38 GMT -5
Posts: 2,097
|
Post by mrsdutt on Dec 28, 2012 15:25:46 GMT -5
I'm afraid, Shoobs, morality is dead. Too many people out there with no empathy for each other. (modified on shooby's request, but I still feel no differently lol) Morality is not dead. There are plenty of moral people around. The immoral ones are just louder than the rest. |
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Dec 28, 2012 15:31:48 GMT -5
...yeah, but the soundness of your interpretation about the soundness of my interpretation being validated by others' agreement with it requires the imposition of your daily schedule rules upon others' daily schedule rules... and since it's practically a holiday weekend, the fact that my post has had only one taker shouldn't be held against me... jmho... In just 2 posts, BTDT, yours and Cranberry's, we have 2 different interpretations. Both, then, invite further examination. I can't imagine what this has to do with it being a Friday. ...well, you pointed out that my interpretation is questionable because it was opposed... the implication being that it becomes more valid with more agreement... and since it's Friday, we don't have as many posters... so, weekend/work schedules apply... ...or did I miss something?  eta: from what I read, cranberry and I interpret the Satan/serpent story similarly, anyway... |
|
mrsdutt
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 12, 2012 7:39:38 GMT -5
Posts: 2,097
|
Post by mrsdutt on Dec 28, 2012 15:35:45 GMT -5
Don't be silly, a snake can't wear a dress. A snake wears a slinky sequenced dress! ;D |
|
cranberry49
Familiar Member
'Sometimes the simple things are the prettiest'
Joined: Jul 15, 2011 21:09:58 GMT -5
Posts: 734
|
Post by cranberry49 on Dec 28, 2012 15:37:11 GMT -5
In just 2 posts, BTDT, yours and Cranberry's, we have 2 different interpretations. Both, then, invite further examination. I can't imagine what this has to do with it being a Friday. ...well, you pointed out that my interpretation is questionable because it was opposed... the implication being that it becomes more valid with more agreement... and since it's Friday, we don't have as many posters... so, weekend/work schedules apply... ...or did I miss something? eta: from what I read, cranberry and I interpret the Satan/serpent story similarly, anyway... Yes, we do! We are just using different words!  |
|
Reckless Roselia
Senior Member
Beauty is in the soul of the beholder!
Joined: Jul 12, 2012 6:53:30 GMT -5
Posts: 2,465 
|
Post by Reckless Roselia on Dec 28, 2012 15:43:51 GMT -5
Medusa, the snake-haired lady was surely scary if not evil.   |
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448 
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 28, 2012 15:45:55 GMT -5
Unless you intend on changing your behaviour towards animals based on the answer, I don't see this as a particularly worthwhile debate topic.
A literal interpretation holds that Satan took the form of a serpent, which also came to represent him symbolically. The purely symbolic interpretation (i.e. "the serpent of old") is nicely summarized by cranberry in #392.
Given a literal interpretation, Genesis 3:14-15 indicates that what we know to be a 'serpent' presently is very different from the form of the creature that addressed Eve. It was stripped of its glory (praiseworthy attributes), cast down to Earth, and set in emnity against man. (As it says, man will be 'bruising [its] head'—blundering over it, accidentally crushing it underfoot, etc.—and the snake will 'bruise [man's] heel'—biting and striking out at man's lower quarters.)
And let's face it: anywhere in the world you go, you'll find snakes. And anywhere in the world you go, they don't get along well with humans and humans don't get along well with them.
The process of being stripped of glory and cast down to Earth to be set in emnity against men is of course a microcosm of Satan's heavenly fall from grace. As far as humankind is concerned, it defines what Satan is. An incredible, beautiful, glorious being cast down and set among us, full of hatred and emnity; an accuser (which is the literal definition of 'Satan'), a tempter (a 'devil' simply means a 'tempter'), and the present lord of this Earth.
It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the events were entirely real, as God uses physical antetypes for many spiritual concepts. The symbolism of Genesis conjures up memorable lessons and characters, and it's quite possible that the scripture describes physical truth as well as symbolic truth. It would be nothing for God or the sons of God, subject to His will, to make an animal talk (or give one the appearance of talking, etc.). In a sense, all of our physical reality is just a symbol, designed (among other reasons) as a means to convey certain lessons within the limitations of our own perceptions.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 24, 2024 14:24:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2012 16:28:46 GMT -5
This is basic stuff. It's been said that the difference between the mammal (man) and other mammals is there is a soul in man. That man has an intellect and has been given the ability to make decisions outside of those that deal with instinct. We can make choices - either good ones or evil ones. All other animal life has been given to man to help him survive. What we do with these gifts is a choice. Animals are purely instinctive. So they are not able to contrive any evil. I'm surprised to learn that only humans have souls. Apart from that, it seems you are content to repeat in different words what Virgil already stated to begin with, therefore I will be content merely to direct you politely towards my earlier response to him. ...well, you pointed out that my interpretation is questionable because it was opposed... the implication being that it becomes more valid with more agreement... I don't think that is the implication. An alternative presents us with a platform from which to question other views. Nothing to do with popularity or day of the week. Unless you intend on changing your behaviour towards animals based on the answer, I don't see this as a particularly worthwhile debate topic. It's the elusive prospect of an explanation rather than a debate that appeals to me. We've had suggestions that people can be considered evil, their acts, their intentions etc., it's even been suggested that natural occurrences can be considered evil. Seems reasonable to enquire about animals too, and since some of us believe in the evil snake I thought it worthy of mention. Many thanks for another thought-provoking response. K+ |
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 28, 2012 16:39:49 GMT -5
I suppose my response should have been: If you place no moral authority in scripture (on which I based my original response in Reply #306), then I can't even define 'evil' for you, let alone conjecture on whether animals are evil. As far as I'm concerned, 'evil' can't even exist in a world with no absolute moral law.  back for the discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Dec 28, 2012 16:43:48 GMT -5
...meanwhile, I'm still sitting at 125...  |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 24, 2024 14:24:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2012 16:44:40 GMT -5
I suppose my response should have been: If you place no moral authority in scripture (on which I based my original response in Reply #306), then I can't even define 'evil' for you, let alone conjecture on whether animals are evil. As far as I'm concerned, 'evil' can't even exist in a world with no absolute moral law. back for the discussion. Oh virgil, virgil, virgil... Atheists can and do act morally. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 24, 2024 14:24:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2012 16:46:48 GMT -5
If there is no morality and we are just chemically responding blobs, then atheists cannot act 'morally' if such a thing does not exist. No?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 24, 2024 14:24:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2012 16:49:44 GMT -5
If there is no morality and we are just chemically responding blobs, then atheists cannot act 'morally' if such a thing does not exist. No? Morals exist. What defines them is the issue. You do not need secular interests to have morals. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 24, 2024 14:24:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2012 16:51:31 GMT -5
I do know some believers and unbelievers who say morals don't exist.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 28, 2012 16:53:56 GMT -5
|
|
cranberry49
Familiar Member
'Sometimes the simple things are the prettiest'
Joined: Jul 15, 2011 21:09:58 GMT -5
Posts: 734
|
Post by cranberry49 on Dec 28, 2012 16:55:40 GMT -5
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Heres something interesting to read and consider, ISA: Why do christians say animals dont have souls when the bible says they do? According to the Bible, animals have souls. Texts such as Genesis 1:21,24 are often mistranslated to read "living creatures." The exact Hebrew used in reference to animals throughout the Bible is "nephesh chayah," or "living soul." This is how the phrase has been translated in Genesis 2:7 and in four hundred other places in the Old Testament. Thus, Genesis 1:30 should more accurately read: "And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to everything that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is a living soul, I have given every green herb for meat." God breathed the "breath of life" into man, and caused him to become a living soul. (Genesis 2:7) Animals have the same "breath of life" as do humans. (Genesis 7:15, 22) Numbers 16:22 refers to the Lord as "the God of spirits of all flesh." In Numbers 31:28, God commands Moses to divide up among the people the cattle, sheep, asses and human prisoners captured in battle and to give to the Lord "one soul of five hundred" of both humans and animals alike. Psalm 104 says God provides for animals and their ensoulment. answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111209121046AARqW41Also, all souls die. They are not eternal according to the bible. Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. The dead know nothing: Ecclesiastes 9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Therefore the soul is the living body and it can, and does, die. |
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Dec 28, 2012 17:02:27 GMT -5
...thanks for the K... ...and cranberry, I see what you've posted and find it interesting for additional reasons, such as semantics... (eg soul vs. spirit) ...and can these two words be fully interchangeable... |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 24, 2024 14:24:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2012 17:12:46 GMT -5
Heres something interesting to read and consider, ISA: Why do christians say animals dont have souls when the bible says they do? Ah, thank you, Cranberry. Very kind. I wonder if plants have souls. |
|
cranberry49
Familiar Member
'Sometimes the simple things are the prettiest'
Joined: Jul 15, 2011 21:09:58 GMT -5
Posts: 734
|
Post by cranberry49 on Dec 28, 2012 17:13:03 GMT -5
...thanks for the K... ...and cranberry, I see what you've posted and find it interesting for additional reasons, such as semantics... (eg soul vs. spirit) ...and can these two words be fully interchangeable... This can explain it better than I ever could, beenthere. “Soul” and “Spirit”—What Do These Terms Really Mean? WHEN you hear the terms “soul” and “spirit,” what comes to your mind? Many believe that these words mean something invisible and immortal that exists inside us. They think that at death this invisible part of a human leaves the body and lives on. Since this belief is so widespread, many are surprised to learn that it is not at all what the Bible teaches. What, then, is the soul, and what is the spirit, according to God’s Word? www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible-teach/soul-and-spirit-what-do-these-terms-really-mean/ |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 24, 2024 14:24:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2012 17:14:15 GMT -5
Heres something interesting to read and consider, ISA: Why do christians say animals dont have souls when the bible says they do? Ah, thank you, Cranberry. Very kind. I wonder if plants have souls. Venus fly traps, evil things. |
|
cranberry49
Familiar Member
'Sometimes the simple things are the prettiest'
Joined: Jul 15, 2011 21:09:58 GMT -5
Posts: 734
|
Post by cranberry49 on Dec 28, 2012 17:15:14 GMT -5
Heres something interesting to read and consider, ISA: Why do christians say animals dont have souls when the bible says they do? Ah, thank you, Cranberry. Very kind. I wonder if plants have souls. Hmmmmmm, I doubt it. I think it refers to a fleshly, living being. But, I'm not sure. |
|
trevorw2539
Junior Member
Joined: Jul 5, 2012 4:03:27 GMT -5
Posts: 147
|
Post by trevorw2539 on Dec 28, 2012 17:15:24 GMT -5
INNER said: no further forward in the matter of whether animals can be evil. This is basic stuff. It's been said that the difference between the mammal (man) and other mammals is there is a soul in man. That man has an intellect and has been given the ability to make decisions outside of those that deal with instinct. We can make choices - either good ones or evil ones. All other animal life has been given to man to help him survive. What we do with these gifts is a choice. Animals are purely instinctive. So they are not able to contrive any evil. EX: Someone dies from a shark bite. Was the shark being evil? No, he was looking for nourishment and made a bad choice. (They really don't like the taste of us.)  The story of Adam and Eve, Eden and the trees, the serpent etc are images from earlier Sumerian religion, almost identical. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 24, 2024 14:24:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2012 17:18:33 GMT -5
Venus fly traps, evil things. Hehe, that's a matter of perspective  I find flies evil. |
|
cranberry49
Familiar Member
'Sometimes the simple things are the prettiest'
Joined: Jul 15, 2011 21:09:58 GMT -5
Posts: 734
|
Post by cranberry49 on Dec 28, 2012 17:18:54 GMT -5
Ah, thank you, Cranberry. Very kind. I wonder if plants have souls. Venus fly traps, evil things. LOL! ;D |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 24, 2024 14:24:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2012 17:19:41 GMT -5
Venus fly traps, evil things. Hehe, that's a matter of perspective I find flies evil. Exactly! Flies beleive they are evil. Just ask one. |
|
