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

From: <>
Date: Mon May 14 2007 - 15:07:33 EDT

Ok yes Thomas is primarily a philosophical claim. But
with Calvin, for example, dualism is primarily
theological. In Institutes he says: "Indeed, from
Scripture we have already taught that the soul is an
incorporeal susbtance; now we must add that, although
properly it is not spatially limite, still, set in the
body, it dwells there as in house;..."

And he clearly believes in a conscious intermediate
existence between death and resurrection, perhaps this is
seen most clearly in his tract "Psychopannychia".

My last sentence I am just saying that in God's ultimate
creation, sub-human creation will consist of new
creations, not resurrections of previously living beings.

  On Mon, 14 May 2007 15:33:03 -0400
  "George Murphy" <> wrote:
> 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
> Shalom
> George
> ----- Original Message -----
>From: <>
> To: "George Murphy" <>;
><>; "Carol or John Burgeson"
> 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
> 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,
> 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" <> 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
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carol or John
>>Burgeson" <>
>> To: <>
>> 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
>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the
> To unsubscribe, send a message to
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon May 14 16:11:00 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 14 2007 - 16:11:02 EDT