[asa] Re: [asa] O Freunde, nicht diese Töne (was Re: [asa] animals)

From: George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
Date: Mon May 14 2007 - 15:33:03 EDT

Right - I meant "primarily a philosophical claim and only secondarily a theological one."

I don't want to get very speculative about "dog heaven" or anything like that. But the statement that God plans to unite "all things" in Christ & that "all things" are to be reconciled to God through the cross suggests very strongly that the non-human parts of creation have some place in God's ultimate future. & I don't take Is.11:6-9 "literally," but it points toward something, & the imagery of animals in the peaceable kingdom can't be dismissed entirely.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean in your last sentence.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
----- Original Message -----
From: <drsyme@cablespeed.com>
To: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>; <asa@calvin.edu>; "Carol or John Burgeson" <burgytwo@juno.com>
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 2:00 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] O Freunde, nicht diese Töne (was Re: [asa] animals)

George can you clarify your second sentence, did you mean
to say "...primarily a theological claim and only
secondarily a theological one."

And what is your thought about God's intention of
creation, are animals here and now, or dead and gone, have
any place in creation ultimately? Of course I am not
questioning that animals or any other created sub-human
thing would not be part of creation ultimately, but that
are the self same creatures to be part of this creation.

On Mon, 14 May 2007 14:30:45 -0400
  "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
> Much of this stuff about animals & souls is unhelpful.
> 1st, the belief that human beings have eternal (or more
>precisely, unless you're an Origenist semi-eternal) souls
>is primarily a theological claim & only secondarily a
>theological one. (Before anyone challenges this, please
>look at Aquinas' discussion of souls in the Summa
>Theologica & assess the relative importance of Aristotle
>scripture there.) Even if we agree that human beings
>have a rational soul which is separable from the body,
>Christian hope is not for the survival of that soul but
>for the resurrection of the total
>body-soul-spirit-however you want to parse it person. &
>therefore instead of discussing the future state, if any,
>of non-human animals, the question ought to be posed in
>terms of whether or not scripture & sound theology based
>upon it give us any reason to think that such animals
>have any place in God's intention for creation.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carol or John
>Burgeson" <burgytwo@juno.com>
> To: <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 11:22 AM
> Subject: [asa] animals
>
>
>> Jack wrote: "I am sure that animals do not have eternal
>>souls, that is
>> exclusively mans"
>>
>> On what grounds is this claim made?
>>
>> Curious Burgy
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu
>>with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the
>>message.
>>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu
>with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the
>message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon May 14 15:34:01 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 14 2007 - 15:34:01 EDT