The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Waking Fido, Fifi, and maybe even Felix

Hmm . . . very, very interesting discussion. You’ve made some good points, James, which I’ll have to cogitate on. That said, let me clarify a little bit, since it seems I didn’t express myself all that well earlier (not so very unusual! :laughing:) I question whether flies (just for example) will be resurrected. I do NOT question whether there will be flies and all sorts of interesting life forms very strange to us in the renewed creation. I kind of think the idea of evolution was for creatures to become refined and yes intelligent enough to sustain consciousness. Again, this is just me hypothesizing and I honestly haven’t got anything but my own thoughts to go on, so I’m not being dogmatic – just honest, best I know how.

It seems to me that a creature (not a species, mind – an individual creature) that has anything approaching consciousness, or that would have had consciousness if it had lived longer, however sleepy a consciousness that might be, would have to be resurrected and lovingly tended and mentored into the fulness of its potential (which in God, would likely be a great deal more than we could dream possible). A species that hasn’t reached the level of development which would allow it to achieve any kind of consciousness would I think more likely be preserved AS a species rather than as individual persons (because if the individuals WERE persons (and maybe they are), they would have to be preserved individually as above). The species would then be lovingly tended by Adam’s sons and daughters to begin to reach its full potential (I say begin – because how could there be a finish-line on development?) without the suffering and agonies necessary to evolution as we know it.

So, as we tend to our pets and teach them to live in peace with one another and with strangers as well, the best we can, we would also be responsible for the least of these. Anyway, as I said, that’s just me daydreaming. What do you-all think?

REGARDING SOULS: Just a note. It’s my understanding that the Jewish perception of the soul is that it is the life. If a creature has life, then that creature IS a soul. That’s the way animals are referred to in the OT if you look. The same word for animals and humans:

I really love this thread, I must say. :smiley:

Great thoughts and ideas from so many of you. I do wonder if the “lower” creatures who may be more like living chemical reactions than “beings” of any sort will have an afterlife? I really can’t say… One thing I will say is that unlike some who decry the “waste” in evolution and the evolutional “dead ends”, I do not believe for a second that God would use these creatures merely as a means to an end. (Which is usually assumed to be humans.)

I believe God loves and appreciates every individual creature which lives (and dies) and finds joy in its existence. The argument of this “waste” in evolution against a loving God is a non-starter in my opinion.

I think there is a lot of great thought here, James. :smiley: Certainly evolution as well as behavior would be altered in the absence of fear and want. There are a lot of possible ways the physical needs of carnivores could be met in another world (assuming there are nutritional needs) and I mentioned the concept of “zombie” insects in reference to the giant ichneumon wasp.

I know this idea is a bit out there, but I wonder also about the possibility of self-sacrifice of creatures to supply the nutrition of others. If you’ve read GMac’s The Golden Key, you might recall the feathered flying fish whose greatest desire was to fly into a pot and be cooked as sustenance. Of course they were also resurrected as something more glorious. As the Wise Woman in this story says:

It’s worth pondering and I wonder if something like this might be the way of things not only in “fairyland” but in the Kingdom of Heaven? It’s always worth thinking deeply about GMac’s ideas, I think.

Edit: Thought I’d add a link to this about a fox and a hound in Norway. Perhaps a glimpse of the Kingdom of Heaven? huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/04/fox-and-hound-fur-industry_n_4386532.html

Ditto. :smiley:

Cindy, I had no idea that early Jewish texts did not differentiate between ‘soul’ and ‘life.’ From a logical sense, why would anyone differentiate in the first place? How does it make more sense to claim, as do today’s theologians, that we exist in two parts–‘soul’ and ‘spirit’–rather than one complete form? :confused:

Of course, your note reminded me of the saying often attributed to C.S. Lewis that “You don’t have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body.” In typical Kate fashion, I’m going to go off track for a moment here. (Okay, it’s semi-related, but y’all have been warned! :smiley: )

Apparently, Lewis never said the above quote. You can find it from sources dating before Lewis, including a 1901 YMCA training manual and the 1929 book, Magnificent Obsession, among other places. So where did this idea come from? None other than the mighty GMac!

In a 1892 copy of the British Friend (yay Quakers!), the idea of individuals being souls is finally attributed to good ol’ George:

You can find an old copy of the Friends newsletter here:

books.google.com/books?id=vDMrAAAAYAAJ&dq=george%20macdonald%201892%20british%20friend&pg=PA157#v=onepage&q&f=false

My point of my divergence: Is there any subject GMac hasn’t already settled? :smiley:

However… I don’t agree with GMac here. :open_mouth: Killing for food is a result of the Fall, right? It reflects our debased nature, so surely it is not the “highest end” of an animal’s condition? Couldn’t we humans at least take one step closer toward the kingdom of Isaiah by returning to pre-Fall conditions? (Now, this little rant is completely hypocritical on my part, because I eat meat–and for goodness sakes, I work at a McDonald’s!) Nonetheless, my omnivorousness is something I’ve always really hated about myself, and I want to stop it like an alcoholic wishes to stop drinking, really.

I don’t want to dismiss GMac, who has rocked my brain more times than I can count, but if he were alive today, I’d definitely ask for some clarification about this statement.

And I loved the fox and the hound story, Steve. If I haven’t made it clear yet in my posts here, I’m a sucker for anything fluffy. :wink:

Hi Kate. :smiley:

Glad you enjoyed the fox and the hound story. I have a neighbor who send emails pretty frequently, most are jokes (usually pretty funny) and often ant-Obama stuff :wink: , but sometimes things like this which really make me think. This type of “inter-species” relationship, always invoving a domesticated animal of some sort really makes me wonder about this idea of humans “awakening” the higher nature in animals. I saw one about a dog and a deer that was very interesting as well as unlike the fox and the hound, a deer and a dog are not closely related.

Very interesting about GMac and the soul thing. Fascinating how the saying originated with him and was continued unattributed (or incorrectly attributed.) I think GMac was definitely a soul/body dualist which some on this site disagree with (though I still hold to it). Might be worth discussing more at some point…

I said the idea was a bit “out there” and so it is, but it’s worth exploring a bit. First off, animals have been eating each other for millennia before humans even existed, so attributing this to the fall of “Adam” is a bit of a reach. Some attribute it to the fall of Angels and their work corrupting creation but there are philosophical problems with that as well as a general implausibility which I’ve pointed out elsewhere.

That being said, I think that our current attitude towards human carnivorism is way off the mark. We see animals as “things” and “use” them as things to satisfy our own desires for the most part. Perhaps the worst thing about this attitude is the callousness towards the fear animals feel, and I think people like Temple Grandin (portrayed in a wonderful film by Claire Danes) who work to make the treatment of these animals destined for our food supply more ethical and “humane” is wonderful. I think the Native American repect for the animals they killed and ate is much closer to the “right” approach…a sacramental view towards these creatures and our food. Do I do this? Well not usually, but this thread will probably will help me in this endeavor. :wink:

Finally, what of GMac’s thoughts in the* Golden Key*? These are certainly creatures far different than those we usually eat— with consciousness and self-awareness that a chicken or cow probably doesn’t have. Is this self-sacrificial idea something that will cease to exist in the next life or is it a theme that is important to God which we (and other creatures) will need to learn to continually embrace? I, for one, think that self-sacrifice is an aspect of love that will always be needed and see no reason why God would “put it on the shelf”. With that in mind, I see something like these fish and their “self”-giving being completely consistent with God’s ideals.

Just my thoughts and I welcome everyone else’s. :smiley:

I loved the fox and hound pics, Steve. So sweet and as Kate says, so fluffy! :wink: But I do enjoy snakes too even though they’re not fluffy. Not so keen on fluffy spiders though, but that’s no doubt due to my unfortunate social conditioning.

I’ve encountered the self-sacrifice of animals for food theme before, in secular SF, and it’s an interesting thought. I have to admit it kind of turns me off to think of eating something that’s sufficiently advanced to be capable of offering itself to me as food. Hmm . . . interestingly I just finished listening to The Golden Key from that audiobook site that someone posted today. It meant a lot more to me now, knowing more about what GMac teaches. Last time I read that I was still a conditionalist.

Your thoughts about appreciating the animals that feed us are an important point, I think. The idea of using animals for food has been growing less and less attractive to me in the last couple of years. One thing was seeing a chicken hauler on the interstate hwy last year. . . :frowning: Wings and feet and heads flopping out all over the place, and this was BEFORE slaughtering. We are buying from the Hutterites now. And passing by the pig farms has definitely made me rethink eating pork – the poor things living in those conditions – and the poor people working there, too! Pigs don’t smell like that if they’re not packed together like Jenga cubes. The industrialization of farm animals is not something we ought to be okay with, imo. It’s not taking care of the garden, so to speak.

Must rush off to work in a few minutes (to my hypocritical spot passing out burgers), but just a few thoughts.

Well put, Cindy-- This is what primarily concerns me, too. When I mentioned meat eating being related to the Fall of Adam, I did not mean it in a literal sense but rather that flesh eating reflects our imperfect world-- a tainted garden, so to speak. If it didn’t reflect worldly imperfection, why does Genesis mention it as something specifically occurring after humans disrupt God’s order to things?

Interesting thoughts, all.:slight_smile:

~ Kate

i edited what you quoted above to replace spiders eating their prey with eating their mates! maybe my intention was obvious, but just in case :laughing:
actually, i heard a story of some odd behaviour in a co-habiting pair of Hysterocrates sp. gigas (commonly known as ack, i forget…basically they are large, elegant dark grey tarantulas from Africa with velvety thick hair on their back legs…quite venomous, but have interesting social tolerance for each other) where a male who was close to death seemed to rub himself against the female’s fangs until she took him. It looked (to a human) like offering himself up for her good, and the good of the young (i forget if they had been laid as eggs yet, but some spiders do feed their young). So it appears that self-sacrifice even exists in that world. This is why it’s so hard for me to believe that these creatures are in any way simple or primitive. They are simply different.

As to living chemical reactions…i challenge you to prove that’s not what we are ourselves! :laughing: Yes, we ourselves know we’re more than that…but why do we think this is unique to us and to other creatures that have some similarities to us (though obviously our Presbyterian friends obviously don’t extend it to other creatures :laughing: )

Interesting about GMac, but i suggest he was “throwing an idea out there”, and that it wasn’t one of his best (if he expects it to be literally true), though it IS imaginative, and can serve an analogous purpose. Saying that…maybe it could be true in heaven. Just as eating fruit aids a tree’s reproduction, maybe being consumed could free an animal to evolve or metamorph into something new. It’s certainly an idea! But i still think maybe not the most compelling.

Just catching up, but i agree Steve about that theme of self-sacrifice…that might actually mean GMac is onto something there. Personally i’m not sure how “the fall” works into evolution yet, though i know the latter to be true, and the former to be true in a spiritual sense at least…so they must meet up somehow. God does care about each of His creatures, and it could be that just as animals today have ecosystems, maybe there are ecosystems in time as well, so we might have to travel through heaven somewhere to find dinosaurs, and travel again to find dodos, and travel again to find trilobytes, etc.

Cindy, great way of putting it, about taking care of the garden. The way we treat animals as things is sickening and sad :frowning: They are God’s children too.

The fox and hound (and pics of unusual animal friendships at the bottom) is truly a view of heaven, IMO.

Here’s something i randomly found too:
damn.com/p/man-attempts-to-hug-a-wild-lion-what-happens-next-stunned-me/

Hi James, :smiley:

I don’t think he did mean it to be true in the sense of carnivorism in an afterlife. There are probably many meanings for these creatures of GMac’s including echoes of the eucharist/holy communion, self-sacrifice, death and rebirth all of which are much more evident meanings than actually giving one’s body to be eaten for nutrition. I just thought it would be interesting to push the idea a bit and see if it was plausible in the carnivorism sense. I’m still not sure but it is interesting to ponder. :wink:

Indeed!
But i’m banking on the idea of burger trees :wink:

I think it’s very possible for us to be satisfied with truly wonderful fruits and vegetables, grains, roots, seeds, etc. Why not after all? It’s certainly a healthier way to eat. As for the lions, I don’t know. Fish? As in Madagascar?

Here’s the “lion whisperer” again, because this is too cool for anyone to miss! Thanks for posting the link, James!

Fish are animals too, so no gnawing on the fishies Mr Lion!

Thanks for embedding it, Cindy!