Five Serious Questions About the Animals & God

[Clete]

Are you sure?

I'm quite sure. Knowing that a member of their pack is gone, and even being distressed by it, isn't at all the same as knowing what death is.

 

[Clete]

Really?...
Ecclesiastes 3:21 – “Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?”

Yes, really.

Man is body, soul and spirit. This is one manner in which we are made in the image of the Triune God. This is true of no other created being.

This is just one more reason why the King James Version of the bible is very obviously not an inspired translation into English nor is it even the best translation that we currently have. The word in Hebrew for "spirit" is the same word for "breath". It is the context that determines which is being spoken of, as the New King James makes clear...

Ecclesiastes 3:18 I said in my heart, “Concerning the condition of the sons of men, God tests them, that they may see that they themselves are like animals.” 19 For what happens to the sons of men also happens to animals; one thing befalls them: as one dies, so dies the other. Surely, they all have one breath; man has no advantage over animals, for all is vanity. 20 All go to one place: all are from the dust, and all return to dust. 21 Who knows the spirit of the sons of men, which goes upward, and the spirit of the animal, which goes down to the earth? 22 So I perceived that nothing is better than that a man should rejoice in his own works, for that is his heritage. For who can bring him to see what will happen after him?​

The word translated "breath" in verse 19 and "spirit" in verse 21 is the exact same word...

Strong's H7307

Animals are alive physically as we are, and so have breath as we have breath, but this passage is not even talking about that eternal part of man that we call our spirit, it is speaking in physical terms and thus is referring to breath, as in the operation of physical lungs.

Further, Ecclesiastes is a book written by the back-slidden Solomon and cannot be read the same way as Proverbs or Psalms. All is not vanity, as the back-slidden Solomon endlessly repeats throughout the book of Ecclesiastes, including in this passage. But, that is well above your skill level! Do not attempt to understand Ecclesiastes on your own. You will get it wrong just like you get nearly everything else wrong.

Lastly, there is some overlap in the way people speak about the soul and the spirit. It is sometimes confusing because the two are often used as synonyms and in some contexts they are exactly that. But when making the distinction, it is the soul that makes us who we are. Our mind, personality, character, etc and our spirit is that eternal aspect of our existence that survives our physical death. It is when our spirit separates from our physical body that we die physically and it is when our spirit is seperated from God that we are spiritually dead but in neither case do or will we ever cease to exist. Animals, on the other hand, do not have a spirit and so when their body quits functioning, there is nothing that survives and they do cease to exist. And so, contrary to back-slidden Solomon's lament, we do indeed have an advantage over the animals.


Clete

 

[Gary K]

Yes, really.

Man is body, soul and spirit. This is one manner in which we are made in the image of the Triune God. This is true of no other created being.

This is just one more reason why the King James Version of the bible is very obviously not an inspired translation into English nor is it even the best translation that we currently have. The word in Hebrew for "spirit" is the same word for "breath". It is the context that determines which is being spoken of, as the New King James makes clear...

Ecclesiastes 3:18 I said in my heart, “Concerning the condition of the sons of men, God tests them, that they may see that they themselves are like animals.” 19 For what happens to the sons of men also happens to animals; one thing befalls them: as one dies, so dies the other. Surely, they all have one breath; man has no advantage over animals, for all is vanity. 20 All go to one place: all are from the dust, and all return to dust. 21 Who knows the spirit of the sons of men, which goes upward, and the spirit of the animal, which goes down to the earth? 22 So I perceived that nothing is better than that a man should rejoice in his own works, for that is his heritage. For who can bring him to see what will happen after him?​

The word translated "breath" in verse 19 and "spirit" in verse 21 is the exact same word...

Strong's H7307

Animals are alive physically as we are, and so have breath as we have breath, but this passage is not even talking about that eternal part of man that we call our spirit, it is speaking in physical terms and thus is referring to breath, as in the operation of physical lungs.

Further, Ecclesiastes is a book written by the back-slidden Solomon and cannot be read the same way as Proverbs or Psalms. All is not vanity, as the back-slidden Solomon endlessly repeats throughout the book of Ecclesiastes, including in this passage. But, that is well above your skill level! Do not attempt to understand Ecclesiastes on your own. You will get it wrong just like you get nearly everything else wrong.

Lastly, there is some overlap in the way people speak about the soul and the spirit. It is sometimes confusing because the two are often used as synonyms and in some contexts they are exactly that. But when making the distinction, it is the soul that makes us who we are. Our mind, personality, character, etc and our spirit is that eternal aspect of our existence that survives our physical death. It is when our spirit separates from our physical body that we die physically and it is when our spirit is seperated from God that we are spiritually dead but in neither case do or will we ever cease to exist. Animals, on the other hand, do not have a spirit and so when their body quits functioning, there is nothing that survives and they do cease to exist. And so, contrary to back-slidden Solomon's lament, we do indeed have an advantage over the animals.


Clete

How, and where, do you get the idea that Solomon wrote books of the Bible while backslidden? No backsliddeen person could ever be considered inspired and have their writings included in the canon.

 

[JudgeRightly]

How, and where, do you get the idea that Solomon wrote books of the Bible while backslidden?

Because of what the book says, and because of the evidence.

Where do you get the idea that Solomon did NOT write it later in his life, after turning away from God?

No backslidden person could ever be considered inspired and have their writings included in the canon.

Because you say so?

 

[Gary K]

Because of what the book says, and because of the evidence.

Where do you get the idea that Solomon did NOT write it later in his life, after turning away from God?



Because you say so?

Your first question is agreeing with me.

Not because I say so but because those who created the canon agree with me.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Your first question is agreeing with me.

You asked:

"How, and where, do you get the idea that Solomon wrote books of the Bible while backslidden?"

The answer is "Because of what the book says, and because of the evidence."

That's not agreeing with you.

That's telling you the truth.

Not because I say so but because those who created the canon agree with me.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

As Clete pointed out, all is not, in fact, vanity.

Yet that's what Solomon claims throughout the book.

Would you like to argue that all is vanity? Or recognize that something else is going on?

 

[Gary K]

You asked:

"How, and where, do you get the idea that Solomon wrote books of the Bible while backslidden?"

The answer is "Because of what the book says, and because of the evidence."

That's not agreeing with you.

That's telling you the truth.



Saying it doesn't make it so.

As Clete pointed out, all is not, in fact, vanity.

Yet that's what Solomon claims throughout the book.

Would you like to argue that all is vanity? Or recognize that something else is going on?

Let's look at the context in which Solomon says all is vanity.

Ecc 1:1 The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem.
Ecc 1:2 Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.
Ecc 1:3 What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun?
Ecc 1:4 One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.

So what he is saying is that a person can work their entire life building a fortune and when he dies it's all gone. He gets no more good out of it and may well leave it to a child who will squander it.

Here is dictionary definition of vanity.

the quality of being worthless or futile.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Man is body, soul and spirit.

True.

This is one manner in which we are made in the image of the Triune God.

For some Trinity believers.

This is true of no other created being.

Made up.

This is just one more reason why the King James Version of the bible is very obviously not an inspired translation into English nor is it even the best translation that we currently have. The word in Hebrew for "spirit" is the same word for "breath". It is the context that determines which is being spoken of, as the New King James makes clear...

Ecclesiastes 3:18 I said in my heart, “Concerning the condition of the sons of men, God tests them, that they may see that they themselves are like animals.” 19 For what happens to the sons of men also happens to animals; one thing befalls them: as one dies, so dies the other. Surely, they all have one breath; man has no advantage over animals, for all is vanity. 20 All go to one place: all are from the dust, and all return to dust. 21 Who knows the spirit of the sons of men, which goes upward, and the spirit of the animal, which goes down to the earth? 22 So I perceived that nothing is better than that a man should rejoice in his own works, for that is his heritage. For who can bring him to see what will happen after him?
The word translated "breath" in verse 19 and "spirit" in verse 21 is the exact same word...

Strong's H7307

Animals are alive physically as we are, and so have breath as we have breath, but this passage is not even talking about that eternal part of man that we call our spirit, it is speaking in physical terms and thus is referring to breath, as in the operation of physical lungs.

So, you interpret the bible from a carnal point of view.
Got it.

Further, Ecclesiastes is a book written by the back-slidden Solomon and cannot be read the same way as Proverbs or Psalms. All is not vanity, as the back-slidden Solomon endlessly repeats throughout the book of Ecclesiastes, including in this passage. But, that is well above your skill level! Do not attempt to understand Ecclesiastes on your own. You will get it wrong just like you get nearly everything else wrong.

Nice try but projecting your inability on to me runs off like acid rain runs off a duck's back.

Lastly, there is some overlap in the way people speak about the soul and the spirit. It is sometimes confusing because the two are often used as synonyms and in some contexts they are exactly that. But when making the distinction, it is the soul that makes us who we are. Our mind, personality, character, etc and our spirit is that eternal aspect of our existence that survives our physical death. It is when our spirit separates from our physical body that we die physically and it is when our spirit is seperated from God that we are spiritually dead but in neither case do or will we ever cease to exist. Animals, on the other hand, do not have a spirit and so when their body quits functioning, there is nothing that survives and they do cease to exist. And so, contrary to back-slidden Solomon's lament, we do indeed have an advantage over the animals.

People being confused about what is soul and what is spirit is in no wise proof that animals don't have a spirit.
Your lament against Solomon's wisdom is duly noted.

 

[Clete]

How, and where, do you get the idea that Solomon wrote books of the Bible while backslidden?

I get the idea from reading the text, primarily.

No backsliden person could ever be considered inspired and have their writings included in the canon.

I sort of understand this sentiment, given the abysmal state of biblical teaching in the typical Christian church, especially here in America, but this idea of yours is just utterly incorrect. God did not read various people's writings and think, "Oh! That's really good stuff! I'm going to include that in this book I'm putting together." That isn't what "inspired" means. The things that are in the bible are there specifically and only because God wanted it to be there. He directly and specifically inspired every word and had good reason for including things such as the book of Ecclesiastes. Whether or not you think the human author was qualified, doesn't come into it. The mere fact that Solomon was King of Israel would qualify him to be a biblical author, if any such qualifications were necessary to begin with. God is no respecter of persons and He has the absolute right and authority to call anyone He desires to perform whatever ministry He wanted done, whether they were a king or a priest or just some average fisherman, shop keeper, farmer or house wife.

Moses, a murderer, was nearly killed by God Himself for having failed to circumcise his son and then later died with the nation of Israel in the desert without stepping foot into the Promised Land because he failed to follow God's instructions to the letter. Jonah had to spend three days inside a fish's belly to get convinced to do something as simple as tell Nineveh that they were going to get destroyed and then was angry at God because God didn't do what He threatened to do when Nineveh repented. David was a murderous adulterer and wrote most of the Psalms. Peter denied Christ three times. Thomas refused to believe Christ had risen without first person, physical proof. Paul stood by in approval at the stoning of Stephen and reports to us, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that he is the "chief sinner"!

In short, if God didn't work through, around and in spite of evil men, He wouldn't work through men at all.

If you want to understand the book of Ecclesiastes for the very first time, I strongly recommend the following bible study. It's the best you'll ever find. It's pretty amazing when you can just read the bible and understand it as you read it without having to figure out some goofy way to "interpret" what you're reading so that it conforms to whatever it is you think its supposed to be saying.

Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs

 

[Gary K]

I get the idea from reading the text, primarily.


I sort of understand this sentiment, given the abysmal state of biblical teaching in the typical Christian church, especially here in America, but this idea of yours is just utterly incorrect. God did not read various people's writings and think, "Oh! That's really good stuff! I'm going to include that in this book I'm putting together." That isn't what "inspired" means. The things that are in the bible are there specifically and only because God wanted it to be there. He directly and specifically inspired every word and had good reason for including things such as the book of Ecclesiastes. Whether or not you think the human author was qualified, doesn't come into it. The mere fact that Solomon was King of Israel would qualify him to be a biblical author, if any such qualifications were necessary to begin with. God is no respecter of persons and He has the absolute right and authority to call anyone He desires to perform whatever ministry He wanted done, whether they were a king or a priest or just some average fisherman, shop keeper, farmer or house wife.

Moses, a murderer, was nearly killed by God Himself for having failed to circumcise his son and then later died with the nation of Israel in the desert without stepping foot into the Promised Land because he failed to follow God's instructions to the letter. Jonah had to spend three days inside a fish's belly to get convinced to do something as simple as tell Nineveh that they were going to get destroyed and then was angry at God because God didn't do what He threatened to do when Nineveh repented. David was a murderous adulterer and wrote most of the Psalms. Peter denied Christ three times. Thomas refused to believe Christ had risen without first person, physical proof. Paul stood by in approval at the stoning of Stephen and reports to us, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that he is the "chief sinner"!

In short, if God didn't work through, around and in spite of evil men, He wouldn't work through men at all.

If you want to understand the book of Ecclesiastes for the very first time, I strongly recommend the following bible study. It's the best you'll ever find. It's pretty amazing when you can just read the bible and understand it as you read it without having to figure out some goofy way to "interpret" what you're reading so that it conforms to whatever it is you think its supposed to be saying.

Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs

Sorry, Clete. I reject dispensationalism as unBiblical. It leads to too many beliefs that a person must completely ignore to maintain the belief system. Here is an example or two.

1Co 1:30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

Eze 36:25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
Eze 36:26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
Eze 36:27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

I believe that promises of God and do not reject them no matter which testament they come from.

Now to hopefully take some of the sting out of my declaration. I'm glad to read that you have found your way through your prejudices to accept that the vaccines are evil. I didn't know if you ever could/would come to that conclusion. I also believe that God protects His people from harm the vaccines cause when they take them ignorantly when decieved by all the propaganda.

 

[Clete]

Sorry, Clete. I reject dispensationalism as unBiblical. It leads to too many beliefs that a person must completely ignore to maintain the belief system. Here is an example or two.

Nonsense.

The understanding of Ecclesiastes as exactly NOTHING whatsoever to do with dispensationalism!

Never mind, okay! I'd rather you not know. Just stick with whatever the hell it is you want to believe.

I believe that promises of God and do not reject them no matter which testament they come from.

Stupidity. Literally the exact opposite of how good doctrine is done. Totally 180° out of phase with anything that approaches profitable study of anything, much less the bible.

Now to hopefully take some of the sting out of my declaration.

As if I care about what you believe.

I'm glad to read that you have found your way through your prejudices to accept that the vaccines are evil. I didn't know if you ever could/would come to that conclusion.

What are you talking about?

I also believe that God protects His people from harm the vaccines cause when they take them ignorantly when decieved by all the propaganda.

Well, that's pretty much the stupidest sentence that I can comprehend the meaning of. I mean -WOW!

So you believe that having been harmed by the vaccine is proof that a person is / was not one of "God's people" (whatever in the world you might mean by that title). God only knows what you think of the 100s of millions of people who failed to get protected by God from the virus itself!

What in the world are you even doing here? You might actually be the single stupidest person who has ever made a post on this website! Do you make ANY attempt AT ALL to think through the things you say before you say them? Do you give even two seconds of thought to any of the idiotic ideas that you let govern your mind?

Clearly not!

 

[JudgeRightly]

Let's look at the context in which Solomon says all is vanity.



So what he is saying is that a person can work their entire life building a fortune and when he dies it's all gone. He gets no more good out of it and may well leave it to a child who will squander it.

Here is dictionary definition of vanity.

Yes. And?

 

[Gary K]

Yes. And?

Yes, and what?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Yes, and what?

What's your point?

There is plenty in life that is NOT vanity that falls within what Solomon describes.

 

[Gary K]

Nonsense.

The understanding of Ecclesiastes as exactly NOTHING whatsoever to do with dispensationalism!

Never mind, okay! I'd rather you not know. Just stick with whatever the hell it is you want to believe.


Stupidity. Literally the exact opposite of how good doctrine is done. Totally 180° out of phase with anything that approaches profitable study of anything, much less the bible.


As if I care about what you believe.


What are you talking about?


Well, that's pretty much the stupidest sentence that I can comprehend the meaning of. I mean -WOW!

So you believe that having been harmed by the vaccine is proof that a person is / was not one of "God's people" (whatever in the world you might mean by that title). God only knows what you think of the 100s of millions of people who failed to get protected by God from the virus itself!

What in the world are you even doing here? You might actually be the single stupidest person who has ever made a post on this website! Do you make ANY attempt AT ALL to think through the things you say before you say them? Do you give even two seconds of thought to any of the idiotic ideas that you let govern your mind?

Clearly not!

What am I talking about? You used to refuse to speak to me about vaccines as you bought into the media hype about them.

As to God not protecting his enemies and those who knowingly took the vaccines, why would He? It's like committing suicide to take them knowing they will eventually kill a person? God is supposed to protect them from that? It's like putting a gun to your own head and puillimg the trigger. Does God stop anyone from doing that?

 

[Gary K]

What's your point?

There is plenty in life that is NOT vanity that falls within what Solomon describes.

Show me from scripture.

 

[Rebel for truth]

Haven't you seen animals that grieve and mourn because of those who have died?

Heaven is celibate.

Do you think the knowledge of good and evil Adam and Eve acquired is the same knowledge we have written in our hearts today? Or was the knowledge of good and evil from the tree, different from the knowledge of good and evil which is written in our hearts? And if it is different, in what way is it different?

So retaliation counts as knowing good and evil. If an animal retaliates, then that's considered knowing good from evil, meaning that when an animal retaliates, it's saying to the animal it's attacking, This animal did evil.

Is it right? It certainly acts like it thinks it's right, but is it? Isn't it in their DNA? How can we train an animal differently from its encoded moral DNA? And what if we find an animal that doesn't retaliate when all its other relatives do?

An animal that doesn't retaliate when all of its brothers and cousins does retaliate, is suspicious. So we can't base anything on what suspicious animals do when we're describing their species. There's something wrong with the suspicious ones. We just mentally set them aside.

And animals retaliate to certain things. They are acting on their conscience. When there's an intruder a dog will retaliate by barking. "There's something wrong here." It's the suspicious dog who does nothing while its owner is robbed blind. We don't say about all dogs that they're all suspicious, just because some dogs are suspicious. Mostly, mainly, generally, dogs are not suspicious.

What about man? How does he do when it comes to morals? Is he suspicious, like the silent dog? Or does he bark when morals are broken, like the good, useful guard dog?

Retaliating is a moral activity.

But do they have thought? Arguably, crows do. They plan. They also retaliate, so crows aren't suspicious either.

God's morality is not man-made.

I have heard of animals reacting to loss - that doesn't mean they know what death is. It shows they are reacting because there is no longer movement in that body.

God wrote his laws in our hearts long after Adam and Eve.

Retaliation in the animal kingdom does not count as an animal knowing the difference good and evil - how could it?

It's written in their DNA - knowledge of good and evil is not written in their DNA.
Animals act unless trained to whatever their instincts are.

And I'm I'm not going any further - I disagree with everything you said.
Those scientifically man is considered an animal man's knowledge and ability for succeeds them. Retaliation is an act of man. You feel a dog barking is an act of retaliation.

I never said God's morality was man-made..........God breathed the breath of life into man and no other living creature of earth........... The spirit of God resides in man and no other living creature of earth..........
God's morality is inside of man not animals but if you believe animals know the difference between Good and evil and actually know what death is, that fine with me - go right ahead.

 

[Rebel for truth]

Are you sure?

Animals react to the lifelessness of a body that they know.

What Does Animal Grief Tell Us About How They Understand Death?

“How strange that this sole thing that is certain and common to all exercises almost no influence on men, and that they are the furthest from regarding themselves as the brotherhood of death!” –Nie…

lithub.com

Are any animals other than us aware of their own mortality?

It depends what is meant by "awareness", say our readers, but other animals are unlikely to suffer from existential angst

www.newscientist.com

Do Animals Understand What It Means to Die?

Primates carry their dead infants; elephants return to where relatives lay dead. To explain these behaviors, scientists have to answer questions that have vexed philosophers for millennia.

www.vice.com

There will always be those who believe that animals know what death or even know what's right and wrong _ as well as there will always be those who believe the opposite.

And quite frankly it's all assumptions none of it can be proven as an absolute.

 

[7djengo7]

As to God not protecting his enemies and those who knowingly took the vaccines, why would He? It's like committing suicide to take them knowing they will eventually kill a person? God is supposed to protect them from that? It's like putting a gun to your own head and puillimg the trigger. Does God stop anyone from doing that?

So, according to you, no one takes the shot without believing that taking it will kill him/her? Despite ubiquitous propaganda claiming the shot is life-protecting, you think nobody who has taken the shot has been motivated to do so by belief that it will protect his/her life? They, rather, have all been motivated to take it by belief that doing so will kill them, rather than protect them?

By your phrase "those who knowingly took the vaccines", what exactly are you claiming those who took the shot "knew"?

Also, why do you persist in calling the shots "vaccines"? That's what the propagandists who want people to take the shots regularly call them, whereas, if I'm not mistaken, unlike you and said propagandists, many critics against taking the shots seem to think the shots should not be called "vaccines".

 

[Gary K]

So, according to you, no one takes the shot without believing that taking it will kill him/her? Despite ubiquitous propaganda claiming the shot is life-protecting, you think nobody who has taken the shot has been motivated to do so by belief that it will protect his/her life? They, rather, have all been motivated to take it by belief that doing so will kill them, rather than protect them?

By your phrase "those who knowingly took the vaccines", what exactly are you claiming those who took the shot "knew"?

Also, why do you persist in calling the shots "vaccines"? That's what the propagandists who want people to take the shots regularly call them, whereas, if I'm not mistaken, unlike you and said propagandists, many critics against taking the shots seem to think the shots should not be called "vaccines".

Well it would be nice if you would accurately summarize what I said. I never said that no one takes takes the shot without believing it will kill them. You've been around here long enough to know now controversial those shots are. Of course there are those who take the shot not understanding what they will do to them. That was my entire point to Clete.