Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Animal Intelligence Isn't Rational | Gen 3:1 | Lionstrong | 20016 | ||
Welcome to the Forum, Spark: You as a non-believer cannot be expected to accept a qualitative difference between man and the rest of creation. But I was surprised at Sir Pent's answer. So, you see that we represent a diverse spectrum of opinions in the Forum! I'm sorry for the confusion, but I'm asking you to do an impossible task. I'm asking someone who doesn't believe the Bible to decide whose view is in agreement with the Bible, Sir Pent’s or mine! Now it’s clear that you agree with Sir Pent. That's not the issue. The issue is, does Sir Pent's view square with the Bible's. But I do, however, agree with Sir Pent in saying that your restrictions on our source for answers are unreasonable. Granted, that you don't believe the Bible, but where ever you get your views from, it would be unreasonable for me to demand that you not refer to them. First, I'm not trying to convince you of my position, though I would hope that you would be persuaded. Nor do I expect you to believe the Bible, though I wish you would, since it's the Word of God and therefore true. I'm trying to present a consistent position, and if you see any inconsistency or contradiction, please let me know. Fist of all, the animal in question was not in control of itself. It was under the control of Satan who spoke through it. So, even if for the sake of argument the animal could speak, it was not speaking, but Satan was. In the Biblical worldview, there are three types of personal beings, 1) the Triune Creator God; 2) heavenly beings, i.e. angels, demons, etc; and 3) men. Men are spirits who have bodies; God and heavenly beings do not. Just as men can sometimes persuade or control other men, pure spirits can have even more effect on men. In one case Jesus commanded some demons to leave a man over whom they had taken control and gave them permission to go into a herd of pigs. They did and sent the pigs on a mad rush to their deaths in a nearby lake (Matthew 8:28 and following). In another case, God used a donkey to speak to a wayward prophet (Numbers 22). Because my second point is very important, I will not go into much detail, but it is the point on which you, Sir Pent and I disagree. Sir Pent and I would use the same words regarding what Man is, but we don't agree as to what those words mean. We agree that whatever God made man to be it distinguishes him from the animal, but we don't agree what that distinction is. The words are "Man is made in the image of God." Animals are not. This is what makes man qualitatively different from animals. (Again, I’m not asking you to agree, but to see if what I say is consistent with itself and non-contradictory.) And the image of God, which man does not share with the animals, is RATIONALITY. The biblical view of animals is that they are non-rational. Ps 32:9 says, "Do not be as the horse or as the mule which have no understanding, Whose trappings include bit and bridle to hold them in check, Otherwise they will not come near to you." 2 Pet 2:12 says, "But these, like unreasoning animals, born as creatures of instinct to be captured and killed, reviling where they have no knowledge, will in the destruction of those creatures also be destroyed..." Conclusion: An animal need not have the ability to speak in order for a rational spirit to use it for the purpose of speaking. Animals are not rational and therefore incapable of rational communication. Therefore is in NOT absurd for Satan's serpent to be a brute. Thanks for your interest and attention. Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
2 | Animal Intelligence Isn't Rational | Gen 3:1 | Sir Pent | 20063 | ||
Clarification, Scripture ....................... Dear Lionstrong, I do not think that we actually disagree with each other on this matter. Instead, I think that we are talking about two different things. You are talking about a spiritual rationality and I am speaking of a physical rationality. I assume that we both agree that both of these exist. The Bible clearly seperates Godly wisdom from earthly wisdom (1 Corinthians 1:19-21). It also talks about how one could "see without seeing" and "hear without understanding" (Matthew 13:13). It seems clear that human reason and spiritual understanding are two distinct abilities. You seem to be making the case that only humans (due to being in the image of God) have the ability to have "spiritual understanding". I agree completely. I am making the case that animals and humans both have the ability to have earthly "reasoning" (as defined in the dictionary). I think that you would agree as well. I would mention that even in this kind of rationality, there is a matter of degree (1 Corinthians 13:11), and a human has much greater reasoning than an animal. |
||||||
3 | Animal Intelligence Isn't Rational | Gen 3:1 | Lionstrong | 20110 | ||
No, Dear Sir Pent, I think we actually disagree. I do not accept your distinction of spiritual and physical rationality. There's no such thing. Animals are non-rational (physical or otherwise). Fallen man is rational, only he uses his reason to "suppress the truth in unrighteousness," which has resulted in further darkening of his understanding (Rom. 1:18, 21) Weren't the verses I presented on the non-rationality of animals sufficient? Why do you believe that animals can think? What's your Scripture? Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
4 | Animal Intelligence Isn't Rational | Gen 3:1 | Sir Pent | 20113 | ||
Contrary View, Scripture ....................... Dear Lionstrong, Matthew 10:16 is a passage where Jesus, Himself instructs His disciples to be "shrewd as snakes" or "wise as serpents". Using these words according to their standard definitions (in the dictionary), this is saying that animals can think. Shrewd is defined as clever, which is defined as smart, which is defined as intellegent, which is defined as the ability to learn. 99 percent of people ages 5 and up would say that these are all synonomous with "thinking" and being "rational". I assume you must be using the word "rational" with some specific meaning that it ordinarily doesn't have. Perhaps if you explain how you define the word, it would help us to proceed. I don't want to be rude, but I am truly confused by your ideas on this issue. |
||||||
5 | Animal Intelligence Isn't Rational | Gen 3:1 | Lionstrong | 20119 | ||
"...And all the trees of the field will clap their hands." Isa 55:12 Dear Sir Pent, I referenced that verse (Mat 10:16) in my first post and gave my opinion. Please review it and give me your thoughts. But I think the real issue is what is man. If one agrees that what sets man apart from the animal is the image of God, AND that the image of God is rationality, then the issue of animal rationallity would be settled. My post was to make that issue explicit. Animals are not the image of God and are therefore not rational. This is in contrast to what our culture wants us to believe, namely, that there is no qualitative difference between man, machine, and animal. So, if you're not convinced by the clear and explicit Scripture I quoted about the non-rationality of animals, then we must go to the threads (or start our own) which discuss the image of God. So, Sir Pent, do you agree that it is the image of God that sets man apart from the animal? Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
6 | Animal Intelligence Isn't Rational | Gen 3:1 | Sir Pent | 20341 | ||
Contrary View, logic ............................ Dear Lionstrong, Yes, I agree that the image of God is uniquely given to humans and not to animals. However, I disagree that "the image of God is rationality." Rationality is merely the ability to think, or to process information in an orderly manner. This ability is not limited to humanity, for animals obviously do this. The image of God is much greater and all-encompassing than just pertaining to our brains. |
||||||
7 | Animal Intelligence Isn't Rational | Gen 3:1 | Lionstrong | 20451 | ||
Animals obviously do not think, Sir Pent. For if they did we'd be in trouble! At least I wouldn't wearing leather shoes! | ||||||