Balaam's Ass

[jo]

I was going to make a comment there about not wanting to run into my hamburger at the end of time and then I realised that that might seem as though I was trying to derail a serious subject. I am not, but it's a genuine point for me: we have, for thousands of years , treated animals as food and beasts of burden and the idea that they might have souls is, in that context, rather disturbing.

I always thought that it was the angel speaking and not the ass, but then I don't know much about it.

[gunther]

[A#minor]

[jo]

Okay, this is very weird .. my reply is now showing as the top of the forum and Gunther's question below it!

[john]

Ack! A poltergeist!

[jo]

[gunther]

[CoinOperatedChristian]

[john]

[jo]

[Constipatedcat]

[jo]

[A#minor]

If animals and plants have souls, then it would be murder to kill them and practically cannibalism to eat them. So why did God commit the first "murder" when he killed animals to give Adam and Eve skins to wear and cover their nakedness? and why would God command them to make animal sacrifices?

CoinOperatedChristian, I believe you meant to quote Romans 8:19-23.
Just because it says that all creation groans under the curse and looks forward to the coming of Christ's kingdom, does not necessarily mean that animals and plants will join in that kingdom.
After all, Christ said that the rocks could cry out His praises if men were silent; does that mean that rocks have souls?
The words "all creation" would include planets and stars; does that mean that they also have souls?

Of course, God's creation ( including mankind) is waiting for 'deliverance from the bondage of corruption'. But since the material world will be destroyed by fire at the end, and a new world created; I don't see how the present animals and plants, etc.. could share in the new world. They will be re-created as well.

Also remember that the word "creature" does not only refer to animals, but sometimes to humans as well, meaning simply something that has been created. Ex: We are 'new creatures' in Christ. So the creature and creation refered to in Romans could just be all mankind, or it could be all of creation. Same difference really. The focus is on God at any rate.

Just some thoughts.

[A#minor]

Ah, I've been reading a commentary on Romans by Charles Hodge, and I found this great bit which I just have to share.

"With believers, the whole creation, in this sense, is represented as being burdened, and longing for deliverance. ... As the object of the apostle is to impress upon believeres the greatness of the glory of which they are to be the subjects, he represents the whole creation as longing for its manifestation. There is nothing in this unnatural, unusual, or unscriptural. On the contrary, it is in the highest degree beautiful and effective, and at the same time in strict accordance with the manner of the sacred writers. How common is it to represent the whole creation as a sentient being, rejoicing in God's favour, trembling at his anger, speaking aloud his praise, &c. How often too is it represented as sympathizing in the joy of the people of God! "The mountains and hills shall break forth before you into singing, and all the trees of the fields shall clap their hands." Isa. lv. 12. ..."

Isn't that beautiful?

[gunther]

I was wondering how the rocks could cry out. If plants might have souls, perhaps rocks? Is there hope for my pet rock?