Original Sin and Rats

This will probably seem kind of a strange and theoretical question to the non-Christians, but since many people here seem to think a lot of faith, and some of you seem to have at least some theological training, I'm hoping for an interesting discussion. I'll apologize in advance if this bores anyone.


Given that the Rats were raised to intelligence by Humans, do they then participate in Original Sin? Is salvation through Christ then valid for the Rats? What about Mrs. Brisby, who lacks the enlightenment of the Rats?

That's an interesting question, one I've wondered about myself for quite a while, it touches on so many sensitive subjects, and brings about so many chicken-or-the-egg questions of moral responsibility and whatnot, but I have different feelings about the way I apply my religious and spiritual beliefs towards animals than most would. Most "Christians" around me tell me that animals don't even have souls, and are merely mechanical instinctual machines created by God solely for humans to exploit and use as we please, this is of course a foolish and blindly anthropocentric way of thinking.

I believe myself that animals, as they are, unlike humans, are free from sin, and Christ did not die to save them, because they never needed to be saved, they have always been closer to God than man, and never fell short of him through sinful ways, and are more obedient to him. Heaven is granted without question to all animals.

For more on this touchy subject of animals and God check out these great resources:

http://tedeboy.tripod.com/drmichaelwfox/id40.html


Allright, this sight might look kind of cornball at first, but look further into it, it's a huge site, and you'll find a lot of helpful information, I even recommend emailing Frank and Mary Hoffman, they'll respond to any question you may have on this subject and are very helpful and supportive. There's also some poetry and discussions and stuff from me on this subject scattered throughout the website, so check it out:

http://www.all-creatures.org/index.html




However, If rats or any other nonhuman species were to become intelligent and adopted the ways of civilization, who knows, I'd say once they had the power and ability of mind to choose sin, they'd jump at the opportunity and adopt man's sinful ways as well, and be fully responsible for their actions, falling short of God's purpose in them. Rat Jesus? .....not even going to go there.........

Well, one thing I've been taught (and that I've studied) concerns the major difference in the three/four areas of our being. Now THIS may seem off-topic, but it's what I need as background for my answer to this intriguing thread. :wink:

1) The first part of our being (not in order of chronology or significance) is our body. Our body, or an animal's body, or any physical organic body is a temple for the other parts of us. It's on the outside, and it is entirely temporal; the least important part of our being, even though it is VERY important, and Scripture expounds endlessly on how God ants us to care for our bodies (one of the biggest reasons the Old Testament is applicable to today in its majority). (I'm gonna hang myself by not having all the Scripture to support this at the moment, but if anyone requests it I can provide it impromptu with notice, if that's not oxy-moronic).

2) The second part of our being (by now you should be imagining a series of circles within each other with the body being the outer circle) is our soul, which consists of our mind, will and emotions. Animals do have souls. The problem with not thinking animals have souls stemms from a misunderstanding of these parts of a person. Every creature has a soul. Each one can feel fear, choose to disobey/to rebel, to go against its nature and to make judgments based on the experience and instinct it has, either gathered or inborn. This is the second most important part of our being, remaining second to... >>

3) The third part of our being, which is the spirit (bingo). Our spirit is what sets us apart from every other creature in existence. The spirit is the single most important part of our being, unparalelled, so set apart as to be distinctly the part of our being with which God is most concerned, and I'll tell you why. Our spirit is what gives us our connection with God. We are each born with a spirit, and with that spirit we do a number of things. Angels are entirely spiritual with no physical bodies of their own; only the ability to manifest. In Isaiah they are given characteristics to define them from the prophet's perspective, and even Isaac wrestled with an angel/God/Michael when he demanded a blessing from Him and was given the name Israel, but their bodies are spiritual with only the ability to manifest themselves in physical bodies. In Romans 6 we are told about being dead to sin in reference to receiving an exchange os spirits. When we become Christians, the old sin-nature and spirit are replaced by the presence of God's Spirit, the Holy Spirit. With Him, we have our mediator and God's voice in our ear. THIS is what sets us apart from animals. Oh, yeah, I almost forgot that this is where our consicence resides; the Spirit telling us what is wrong from what is right through our perception.

4) The fourth part of our being, being unique from the others and not necessarily in the series of circles, is our heart. David refers constantly to the heart in the Psalms, Paul refers to it in Romans, Christ preached about the heart of man. The heart is us. In the New Testament it is referred to as the "old man," that part of us that consists of our own spirit and all the desires and weaknesses toward sin that we have.

Here's where we can split hairs. Let's go back to Genesis. Animals were not given to man by God to exploit. They were placed on this Earth by God as His creation over which He put man. Throughout the Bible we are given text after text after text referring to being good stewards of what God has given us. The cultivation of the fields, the flocks, the creatures of the earth and the earth itself. It is all in an entirely physical realm that we have been placed in as keepers.

Now, I'm not at all sure about animals being closer to God than man. Man was made by God in His image, not the other way around, and not animals in God's image. Before creation took place (look in... Daniel? Isaiah, too... I'll have to double-check) God spoke to Christ and said, "Let us make man in Our image." It was very clear after He endowed Adam with his purpose that the animals were underneath Adam, and even after he and Eve sinned against God and began a chain of innescapable imperfection and life of sin, God STILL seeks after His creation that He calls man, and we are STILL in stewardship over the creatures of this earth.

I'm also not sure about animals being perfect. Perfection usually refers to the spirit, and since animals have no spirits, they cannot be perfect in that regard. Perfection could also refer to the soul, but as we all know, every creature has bad emotions and is selfish, etc., so nothing is perfect in soul. Lastly, they are definitely not perfect in body; otherwise, they would never die. We know from Scripture that God did not make any bad thing, but we also know that man's choices have had severe consequences on every thing on earth, organic and mineral and stone alike. Read in the gospels where Christ walked up to the fig tree to get fruit and saw no fruit on it. What did He do? He cursed it, and it withered and died. He cursed it because it was unproductive, imperfect, and it failed to fulfill the purpose He as the Creator had set upon it. He naturally made some animals more aggressive than others. I live on a farm/ranch in the Texas country; one thing I can most certainly vouch for is that the ideology that creatures only attack when threatened is incredulously preposterous. I have yet to meet a single creature that did not attack someone unprovoked and with no reason. Now, tell me that God designed the creations He pleaced under us to harm His most precious creation. It's simply not logical. When Daniel was thrown into the lion's den, we are told that God shut their mouths so they would not harm Daniel. Had He let them act in their will, according to nature, they would have brutally murdered one of the greatest prophets in the Scripture. If He smote a fig tree for not bearing fruit, I'll bet He wouldn't hesitate to smite a creature for murdering one of His creations. Granted, He has actually used them for that purpose, too. When Elisha was being taunted by a band of 40 youth because of his baldness, God called out... either two lionesses or two bears and commanded them to murder and destroy every single of those youths. When one of His prophets in the OT knew he was not supposed to dine with a particular person and that person told him that the Holy Spirit had permitted it, when he did not check with God through Prayer (already knowing God's will), God called out a lion to devour both the prophet and the messenger. Will it be held against those creatures? I think not. They wre acting in His will. Animals are only perfectly obedient to God because He controls them because they have no choice as we do. But understanding the hierarchy of creation, and knowing that animals have only souls and not spirits to communicate intimately with God, I could never believe that they are near perfect our bound individually for a heaven that they would never understand. I believe there will be animals there. In the Millenial Reign here on earth, we are told that animals will walk to the slaughter to provide for man's need for food without man having to hunt them. They're still around then when God resides in Israel, why wouldnt they be in heaven after that?


NOW!!! To answer the question... :wink: :? :wink:

In a fictional realm, anything is possible. Were this to happen in real life, I don't believe original sin would apply to them at all. They weren't made to commune with God, and they don't have that spirit, and their intelligence, however increased, would be hampered without that conscience that we have, and they would only be so effective with their intelligence, as they would still be making judgments based on impulse and needs-based rationale (at least, that's what I think).

So, cool discussion. Do I get me certificate? I think I just about wrote a dissertation. :wink:

What makes you think animals don't have spirits, and can't communicate with God? I don't think animals are "seperate" from God in spirituality or communion at all. Evolutionarily, it doesn't make sense. Many other animals are too similar to us, in emotional capability and even in reasoning and cognitive ability, there's no reason why animals wouldn't be capable of resonance with their creator. Also, for all we know, animals could be emodiments of angels, or vice versa. We can't read their minds, so there's no way of proving otherwise. I'll bet our dogs pray for us all the time.

Here's that really cool sermon by Michael W. Fox that I really like, it might help:

Atoms, Wolves, Stars and Us

by Dr. Michael W. Fox

In the beginning, to paraphrase the Book of St John (Ch. 1: Verse 1), there was the word (or logos), manifest as pure, undifferentiated energy or light. From the primordial "chaos" as theoretical physicists have termed this undifferentiated energy, arising from absolute non-being (the "voidness" of Mahayana Buddhism) all existential beings are derived and manifest. Hence, Meister Eckhart saw that "Every creature is a word of God."

From a Taoist perspective, the tao (or logos) is the non-dualistic source of all manifest phenomena that share the common features of duality, (yin and yang) as in light (wave and particle) and life (body and spirit), and of affinity.

The affinity of body and spirit mirrors the affinity of logos and eros, and of Creator and Creature. In the realm of our sentient world this affinity is the love (agape) that unites our soul with others and with the oversoul in whom we have our being in the light and life eternal, and to which our spirits return when we leave our physical bodies that return to the earth (or matrix).

The spiritual connections that we make in this life through our love and compassion for each other and for other sentient beings transcend time and space, many continuing after death and into the next life, and many being already established in past lives. As Tibetan Buddism teaches, we should show loving kindness to all creatures because every species was once or will be our Mother.

These spiritual connections enable us to commune with our ancestors and with our deceased loved ones across time and space. As converging paths to the universal center of Light and Love, they become the bidirectional rays merging with and emanating from the divine heart of the logos.

As we become aware of these sacred connections, we begin to see that we are part of a vast nexus of creative manifestation and transformation; and we begin to understand that through our actions and beliefs, through our shared sorrows and joys, our lives can become one of celebration. But first, we must be prepared to suffer -- even be prepared to have our hearts broken -- so that we may become open to the sentient world. Only when we cry for others and not for ourselves do we also love from the heart of understanding, and embrace fully, the sanctity of life, whatever form divine conception may choose to take in kindness and reverence.

Today, molecular scientists are decoding the word of God as manifest in the atomic structure of material objects, and in the genetic codes of living subjects. Indeed, the double helix of the DNA molecule is evident in the genetic structure of all life, and is like a fingerprint of the Creator on all living beings.

The atomic structure and relationships of energy particles within matter -- in carbon, silicon, nitrogen and water, mirror the creative wisdom and great mystery of the Creator: God. The relationships of these energy particles of light creating and maintaining the matrix of the material realm, mirror the relationships of those elements and beings that create and maintain ecosystems, the biosphere and the cosmosphere. The Word, the Wisdom, and the Will of God is in all things, in "All things bright and beautiful, all creatures great and small. The good Lord made them all." That was the first song I learned as a child in an English Methodist primary school. At that impressionable age of four years and one month, I saw all things as bright and beautiful, especially little creatures. All is energy and light, manifesting the infinite dimensions and matrices of divine conception and creation in every tree, mouse, wolf, beetle, and running deer.

Through quantum physics and ecology, we have learned more about these dimensions and matrices of life transforming energy, most notably that everything is interconnected and interdependent. We are also learning that when we harm the ethos (intrinsic nature) and telos (function or purpose) of any being, or its connections, as when we displace any photon from its path, gene from its genome, or tiger from the jungle, suffering and destruction result. The ethos or spirit, and telos, or life purpose, of every being, wolf and tree, salamander and swamp, are as vital to the maintenance of the Tree of Life - the matrix of the biosphere - as every co-inhering particle is to the structural stability and integrity of matter. Grave are the consequences, and great the suffering, when we unwittingly or willfully, be it out of ignorance, arrogance or greed, disturb the nature or spirit and relational integrity of atoms, genes, wolves, and stars.

We can be noble, as the old Serbian saying goes, not because of our power over life, but because we know we are made in part of stardust. We should be humble too, because we are also part manure!

The sacred cannot be known until it is felt. It cannot be shown until it is lived. The sacred cannot be defined, confined, or refined by words alone. But it can be heard in the songs and mantras of the frogs and birds and stars, and witnessed in the wonder of Earth-born things. Speaking to us in many tongues, the birds teach us the language of the heart, so that when we enter the forest, we will feel at home. Like the seasons and the days, their songs change. They speak so clearly to us at dawn, and through the day, a few into the night. Some will tell us they see a leopard or a snake in a tree. The language of the birds is the language of the heart, the universal language of all beings. The enchantment of bird song is the chant of one heart. Until we revere what we hear, we should not revere what we believe. Animals are superior to us because they are more obedient to their Creator than we. We do well when we sing like the frogs of spring. Frog is one song of God. What is your song?

Those who see animals through the heart's eye, also see themselves in other beings, because they are empathic. They see angels in animals and animals in angels. Those who see through the heart's eye connect with the God within all being: with the God in Nature and all wild things. To be wild is to be authentic. When we are authentic, we are free. It is one's nature. All peacemakers are therefore wild. Peace comes to a civilization from within, expressed without as reverence for Nature and all life.

All that we have is each other. What more do we need? When our hearts are open, we are filled and fulfilled. The language of the heart enables us to heal, to cherish and to celebrate our God - natures. We are of God and in God. Like all beings we are therefore divine.

When we speak the language of the heart, our divine nature shines, showing the Truth we live by. That truth is the first word that we reinvent: compassion. We turn it from a noun into a verb of action, of heart-felt passion and heart-filled loving kindness toward all suffering souls. The more feeling that we have for all that feel, the more the sacred is revealed in all our relations.

We need to reinvent words and rediscover that language that is not impoverished by rationalism and instrumentalism. How else can we have dialog with our feelings, our nature, our God? With this ancient language of the heart, when we talk with Nature, we talk to God.

In my fanfics I use this situation to explain one of the things that NIMH did to the rats that made them different. NIMH had transplanted mans fallen nature into the rats. The knowledge of good and evil is what a soul is derived from, in my opinion. We're made in God's image, God is a spirit not a body, so it's what's inside and not outside that makes us what we are. The body is just a shell.

"It fused with your rodent DNA and replaced many key elements in your physiology, and gave you those articulated hands, bipedal motion, speech and higher brain functions. So let’s just end the notion of a pure animal nature free of human contamination. What we did was simply transplant human nature into you.”

The crowd again erupted in shouts and epithets, and it was all Justin and the guards could do to contain them. George wasn't deterred. “The truth is always hard to accept, but in the long run it’s always the best thing. I don’t quite understand your reluctance to accept this fact. Look at yourselves! Don’t any of you think it’s odd that many of you have extraneous facial and cranial hair? Let me ask you, when was the last time any of you ran around on all fours? When did you last groom yourself with your tongue? When was the last time any of you walked around naked in public? Any of these things would seem unthinkable now, right?”

The crowd grew silent at this, and George knew now they were listening. “I’ve wondered about your clothing. Having fur, it just seems so unnecessary. I found what I believe is the answer. In the Bible, at the point where Adam and Eve had just eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, it states: ‘Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.’ It would appear that Dr. Schultz force-fed you that knowledge.”

What makes you think animals don't have spirits, and can't communicate with God? I don't think animals are "seperate" from God in spirituality or communion at all. Evolutionarily, it doesn't make sense. Many other animals are too similar to us, in emotional capability and even in reasoning and cognitive ability, there's no reason why animals wouldn't be capable of resonance with their creator. Also, for all we know, animals could be emodiments of angels, or vice versa. We can't read their minds, so there's no way of proving otherwise. I'll bet our dogs pray for us all the time.

Well, Griz, I'm glad I incited a response. I read the sermon, and I don't have a whole lot to say, save a few questions and statements.

1) What makes me think animals don't have spirits? I thought I already covered this. God is an entirely spiritual being, and we as humans (and we ALONE) were made in His image. If we alone are made in the image of the only spiritual being besides His own angels, it stands to reason that we're the only ones with spirits. Scripture goes into more detail about this throughout when we learn, as is the theme of the whole book, about our unique relationship with God.

2) Are you a subscriber to the Bahai faith? Because that whole sermon may have been very poetic, but the guy picked and chose bits and pieces of statements and fragments of beliefs from a great many religions, many of whom are so differentiated in their beliefs that they contradict each other from the pages of their Scriptures to their life practices. The fact that it was well versed doesn't point out that the speaker/wirter was right, it just means he knows how to dissect words, often taken out of context from other religions. I'm still reeling from where he may have conjured his version of the Tree of Life. That isn't stated or implied in the "original texts" of the Bible anywhere.

3) The key is in your comment about evolution. It may not make sense from an evolutionary perspective, but most of the evolutionary theory doesn't make sense to itself. From a Christian's perspective, it's no surprise at all that it doesn't make sense from an evolutionary perspective, because the theory of evolution contradicts the presence of God. My beliefs don't fit that at all, and trying to understand it that way is like trying to interpret a German book with an English/Russian dictionary; you're wasting your time and mental energy.

4) There's another picky area. Cognitive ability in animals can only be understood so much because we cannot communicate with them in our language or theirs. We base all our understanding from observation and the fact that some creatures have very good memory. I'm kinda surprised you didn't mention DNA, but you were doing yourself a favor by excluding it if you were thinking it. For example: Apes and chimpanzees share 81-83 percent of our DNA structure, but elephants share 91% of our DNA structure and domestic cats share 96% of our DNA structure. Even trees share 68% of our DNA structure. DNA is hardly conclusive, and totally misunderstood (NOTE: DNA, not genes). Physical and mental likes and differences are so "up-in-the-air" and theoretical from a scientific perspective that leaning on it is folly at best. I've seen people argue these facts differently, but every argument came from someone or something so radically evolutionary, and the evidence obvious of bias from every direction. On that note, I have yet to see statements of any kind related to genetics or DNA that was in harmony with another bout of evidence, so it may not even be fruitful for either of us to mention it. No one seems to get their facts right. Still, feel free to argue this.

5) Animals as angels or visa versa? It's an interesting thought. From Scripture we know a serpent was used by Satan (an angel) to deceive Eve and in the late parts of the Old Testament, one of God's prophets was talked to by his donkey when God opened its mouth and controlled its response. From Scripture we also know of "indwelling" and "possession." Christ cast "Legion" out of the graveyard man and into the herd of swine, that ended up drowning themselves because of the demons. Once again, angles are entirely spiritual beings with the ability to occasionally manifest. This is done so few times in Scripture (when spiritual phenomena were everpresent) that to even imagine that all animals are angels or visa versa is blatantly contradictory to Scripture. There is a VERY clear distinction between the two.

6) I have no comment about the dogs praying statement.

7) My final note: It's discouraging to read sermons like the one you posted. It's like the sermon writer didn't want to believe in anything so he made a hyrbid of all beliefs and filled in the blanks with his own ideas. In Scripture we're taught to check every fact by the confirmation of two witnesses. Understanding the characteristics of a true witness, I'd venture to say we'd end up with a "trial of Christ" situation were he to try to prove his points. It's very easy to make your point seem founded when you can cut out lines and words and take statements and beliefs out of context. As a Christian, I can vouch for the FACT that he took much liberty and license in a great many of his statements that he claimed were based in Scripture.

The sticking point is that evolution is a proven fact. It's been observed to happen in fast-lived organisms such as bacteria, and even insects. There's still a great deal of debate over different theories of evolution, and how they apply to the rise of various species, but the basic fact that it happens hasn't in serious scientific dispute for the past 75 years or so.

In general, I can't consider scripture authoritative, expecially when it contradicts direct evidence. Simon has one version of Holy Writ, you have another (I think you're not Mormon - my apologies if I'm wrong), the Moslems, the Jews, the Bahais all have their own as well. None of them are in accord. What we all lidoli have in common, though, is the physical universe. If we assume (as I do) that it's a divine creation, then we're left with the choice between studying God's creation and trying to learn from that, or studying what the people of the past believed God was telling them. There's a great deal of good in all scripture, but it's not infallible.

The classic example is I Kings 7:23-26, where the diameter of a vessel is given as 10, and the circumference as 30. There've been any number of attempts over the years to reconcile that description with reality, but in the end a circle like that can't be drawn. We may write of such a circle, but the rules of the universe don't allow us to actually make one. The error's a minor one - the description's more than good enough to give the reader an idea of how big this thing was - but it's an error nonetheless. In the end, we have to ask ourselves whether I Kings is the best authority for what God wants a circle to look like, or whether circles themselves are the best authority for what God wants a circle to look like.

You have several very good points for consideration; however, I have to disagree completely that evolution is proven and has gone undisputed as fact for 75 years. Note that across the world every facet of evolution is titled solely as "theory," implying that it/they are not at all fact, but formulated ideas and hypotheses supplemented by observation. Also, Louis Pasteur disproved the theory of spontaneous generation (necessary for naturalistic evolution) over 150 years ago, as admitted by George Wald, an evolutionist who won the Nobel Prize for his book on evolution. -_- Like you said, it has been observed to happen, but explain this to me, as there are a few discrepencies: If evolution can be seen as occuring in even fast-lived organisms that have a known habit of mutating like the cold virus, how come, when evolutionists believe we have been evolving from whatever we began as for the past 5 million to 600 billion years (one such indecision in different evolutionary theories), how come we have yet to become whetever it is we're going to be? If it can be charted and seen over just a few hundred years (as is claimed), how come we've been evolving for millions of years and are just now experiencing an uprising of diseases more deadly and less curable than any others? We've seen a dramatic increase in the life-span of people over the past several hundred years, but consider the living conditions. Get any reasonable scientist or historian to look at the whole picture, and they will tell you the lifespan had nothing to do with genes and everything to do with living conditions and lifestyle.

Also, archeologists in the middle east and in Africa have been turning up bodies not too long ago (from older civilizations just thousands of years old) that were six and a half feet tall (some as tall as eight feet), but the inscriptions on the coffins very clearly identified the bodies to have belonged to twelve-year-old to fourteen-year-old boys. Accompanying suits of armor in buried vaults were as tall as nine feet. Now, if we've been evolving into something better, how come it makes headline news when a single person reaches those heights? Everything looks like the earth and all the creatures in it are on the up-and-up if you consider it from a span of only the past 200 + years, but a whole lot has only degraded. In England they had the plague, which wiped out millions of people. That's preventable by cleanliness and treatable by the same accompanied with antibiotics. The AIDs epidemic today has already swallowed an entire continent irreparably (this is no new information, and it has been determined by both the Peace Corps and various countires across the globe), and it is growing as an epidemic in India. As of yet, it is also highly contagious and not treatable. Medical evidence points to the knowledge that viruses we deal with today have been in existence for hundreds and thousands of years, we just had more effective immune systems. If people had to deal with AIDs in the past, when the living conditions and moral ideals were at an all time worldly low (not that our moral ideals are much better), I'd be willing to bet there wouldn't be many humans in existence today. At least, certain of the bigger more powerful countries today would not be in existence.

No, you're right, I'm not Mormon, though Simon and I do share one Scripture. Mormons have the Bible, but also three other Scriptures written by (mostly, according to my divinity professor) Joseph Smith: "The Book of Mormon," "The Doctrine and the Covenant," and "The Pearl of Great Price." I'm... well... I'm not sure what I am, but it would be safe to say I'm more or less Baptist. It's more specific than that, but that'll do.

Yep, you'll find contradictory religions everywhere you look. But I'll go ahead and quote you here, too; as there are also many different theories of evolution. Now, I'll never understand how anyone can logically think order can result from a chaotic explosion, but that's beside the point, as there are a great many evolutionists who believe the Big Bang theory to be bubkiss. I've heard people say they don't go to church because there are only hypocrits. I understand that going to church where people claim to have higher ideals means you should expect more of them, but hypocrisy is a human thing. The point of having ideals is that you'll fall short of them, otherwise you never grow. It's the same here. Scriptures are only seen as fallible if you're not looking at the whole picture, and I'll give you an example.

Taken from the original text: I Kings 7:23-26 - "And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about. And under the brim of it round about there were knops compassing it, ten in a cubit, compassing the sea round about: the knops were cast in two rows, when it was cast. It stood upon twelve oxen, three looking toward the north, and three looking toward the west, and three looking toward the south, and three looking toward the east: and the sea was set above upon them, and all their hinder parts were inward. And it was an hand breadth thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies: it contained two thousand baths."

It's easy to get confused about this, especially since we're talking in terms of measurement we don't use anymore, and the fact that the subject of conversation changes constantly. Still, let's take a look at the specific verses you were referring to. "It was round all about" does not imply that it was circular. Other things have been referred to as circular in the Bible, but this one is not. It could easily be oval (though unlikely). Also, notice how he changes from the subject of "it" to "he" and back again. When it refers to the basin, it uses the titling "it," but then it refers to whoever "he" is as having five cubits in heighth. Weird. Also, notice that it is mentioned that these "knops" lie UNDER the brim, implying that it reaches out beyond the actual girth of the vat. I had to look up the Hebrew transliteration for knop, and it follows (synopsis), "the capital of a column." So it's basically a column that the brim rests on. ALSO, and this is crucial, Solomon was VERY sepcific when he referred to different things. He called the brim the brim, but the measurement of 30 cubits does not refer to the brim, it refers to a line that compassed the whole basin round about. See verse 26, where it states the brim was shaped like a cup. If you do a little research on Israelitish customs and old artifacts, you'll find that they did very little in symetrical shapes; every basin was curved in or curved out to fit a top (they were very efficient people, you see). In this case, it would be very simple to assume that this basin, being as big as it was, would have to be shaped like a bowl in order to hold the amount of water that it did without breaking or fracturing from the stress. If that were true, its girth could have very justly been a circumference of 30 cubits, while the brim was 10 cubits across.

You see, this is one of those situations where it is claimed to be a "fallacy" of Scripture when in fact it's entirely people reading meaning into something because they want to prove their point without getting their facts right. Everybody does that, but you need to be EXTRA careful when your trying to refute meaning and implications wrought in very old languages that have endured some changes or have even been forgotten by conversation entirely.

Many people don't understand the ramifications of faith and the inspiration of the Word of God. I'm not going to argue about the infallibility of Scripture, even though I do firmly hold that it is without fault, it's just misinterpreted and misunderstood. That's a big topic, and deepeing the rabbit trail on which we already tread. :wink: The big thing here is that you're implying that observation is infallible, when it's not. My government professor was trying to explain the validity of eyewitness testimony when he told us a story of a time when he and his friends witnessed a vehicle with someone in it trying car doors to see if they were unlocked. They pursued him, but eventually lost him, so they called the police. When they did, they realized that of the four of them, not one could agree on what kind of car it was, what company made it or even what color it was. In that respect, observation is one of those things you have to take at face value; people make things up, distort evidence and above all else select only that observation that proves their point. Sure, nature and the world we share is concrete grounds on which we can all share common ground, but according to whose perspective?

I'm tried. I'll leave you with that.

i believe animals do have souls and these souls are nore intune with the forces of nature. i mean think about it no one can explain why pets act strange before natural disasters even occur.

The way I believe things, the answer would be yes. The Rats have knowledge of good and evil now, as did Adam and Eve after they ate the forbidden fruit. They can sin and thus will probably need saving. So in my opinion the Rats would participate in the Original Sin (If you could call it that, really) and would be included in those who could be saved through Christ.

Hmm. Very interesting thread. Here's my two cents for those who are interested...

First off, in the LDS faith, we don't believe that Man is born with an "original sin". One of our articles of faith reads: "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression." Certainly, as a result of Adam's fall, we are a fallen people and subject to death and temptation, but we don't believe that one is born with sin. So that basically makes the whole argument somewhat moot from my perspective. ;)

However, the question of whether intelligent rats are capable of sin and therefore need the grace of Christ for salvation remains a valid one. It's also a point that I'm not going to touch on--I'm of the mind that I'd rather keep fiction seperate from fact. As far as animals in real life goes, I think my opinions most closely match GrizzlyCoon's:

I believe myself that animals, as they are, unlike humans, are free from sin, and Christ did not die to save them, because they never needed to be saved, they have always been closer to God than man, and never fell short of him through sinful ways, and are more obedient to him. Heaven is granted without question to all animals.

And one final note... just to clarify this:

Mormons have the Bible, but also three other Scriptures written by (mostly, according to my divinity professor) Joseph Smith: "The Book of Mormon," "The Doctrine and the Covenant," and "The Pearl of Great Price."

We believe the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price to be ancient scripture that was translated by the power of God through Joseph Smith (see the introduction to the Book of Mormon[=http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/intrdctn]introduction to the Book of Mormon for a longer explanation). We also believe that the Doctrine and Covenants were received as revelation from God to Joseph Smith. Again, just to clarify; although we owe a lot to Joseph Smith, we do believe that God is the originator of these works.

Anyway, as Forrest Gump would say, that's all I have to say about that. ;)

Whoops! That was a fault of my foul transliteration. Sorry, Simon. :oops: That maes sense, too; otherwise they wouldn't be considered Scriptures by Mormons, would they? :wink: My bad.

Ah, about the original sin comment: I keep thinking of "Original Sin" as simply the inheritance of sin nature in us by virtue of the fall. You know, being impoerfect and "prone" to the draws of sin nature. I believe like you do, though. We're not born sinners, or if we are we're granted amnesty from those charges. It's been so long since I read up on this issue... like, since I got saved... um... gosh, fourteen years ago. There's some maturity cut-off-point where we begin to be responsible for our actions. Where we're babies and very young children, we can't but only begin to comprehend the difference between right and wrong, you know? I need to read up on that again. I'm sure my sister with her flawless memory knows. :wink:

Hmm. Very interesting thread. Here's my two cents for those who are interested...

First off, in the LDS faith, we don't believe that Man is born with an "original sin". One of our articles of faith reads: "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression." Certainly, as a result of Adam's fall, we are a fallen people and subject to death and temptation, but we don't believe that one is born with sin. So that basically makes the whole argument somewhat moot from my perspective. ;)

However, the question of whether intelligent rats are capable of sin and therefore need the grace of Christ for salvation remains a valid one. It's also a point that I'm not going to touch on--I'm of the mind that I'd rather keep fiction seperate from fact. As far as animals in real life goes, I think my opinions most closely match GrizzlyCoon's:

I believe myself that animals, as they are, unlike humans, are free from sin, and Christ did not die to save them, because they never needed to be saved, they have always been closer to God than man, and never fell short of him through sinful ways, and are more obedient to him. Heaven is granted without question to all animals.

And one final note... just to clarify this:

Mormons have the Bible, but also three other Scriptures written by (mostly, according to my divinity professor) Joseph Smith: "The Book of Mormon," "The Doctrine and the Covenant," and "The Pearl of Great Price."

We believe the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price to be ancient scripture that was translated by the power of God through Joseph Smith (see the introduction to the Book of Mormon[=http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/intrdctn]introduction to the Book of Mormon for a longer explanation). We also believe that the Doctrine and Covenants were received as revelation from God to Joseph Smith. Again, just to clarify; although we owe a lot to Joseph Smith, we do believe that God is the originator of these works.

Anyway, as Forrest Gump would say, that's all I have to say about that. ;)

i think i agree with you simon. you have a very insightfull arguement.

I think there's confusion by the difference between "theory" and "theoretical assumption". I've seen this happen before. "Theory" is a set of assumptions derived from observations, that can be used to predict future events, that can be tested, and that have yet to be disproven. "Theoretical assumptions" are derived from theory rather than from observation, and by their nature have yet to be proven or disproven. You can prove or disprove an assumption. You can never prove a theory - only disprove it. The words have a more precise meaning in the natural sciences than they do in daily speech.

There are, for instance, competing theories of gravitation. The one you were probably taught in school is Einstein's spacetime curvature theory. Gravitation can also be considered as a force similar to magnetism that acts through an 'ether', or as a result of a sort of pressure that arises in empty space and pushes objects together. These are all internally consistent theories to explain gravity, can all be used to predict real world behaviours, and none of them have ever been disproven. Thus they're all valid theories. Einstein's is a much better theory because it explains more observed facts, but even so, it's only a theory.

Gravity itself is neither a theory nor an assumption - it's an observation. It's known to exist, thus there's a need for theories to explain it. It's the same way with evolution. It's seen to happen, therefore we theorize about lihowli it happens. By the nature of theories, they can never be proven.

The idea that evolution requires some form of spontaneous generation of life is based on a fallacy. You're assuming that the first life would necessarily be as complex in its biochemistry and organization as modern life. Atoms are quite capable of organizing themselves into molecules without outside intervention. Self-replicating molecules can be considered as alive, for all practical purposes.


There is no 'whatever is it is that we're going to be'. Evolution is a blind process. It doesn't work toward a set goal, and there's nothing inevitable about the current state. You're making the mistake of looking at one point in the process, and thinking that state was inevitable from the beginning. Imagine that I threw a bucket of confetti out on the floor. The pieces would land in some sort of pattern with regard to their relationship to one another. The odds against that exact pattern occurring are literally one in infinity. Does the fact that I produced a unique pattern mean that I somehow controlled the placement of each peice of confetti?

By the same token, we're not evolving towards perfection. We're simply evolving. Our diseases are evolving with us. We're a team, in some sense :) We influence one another.


It can be argued (and I think it's a good argument) that the physical universe and its laws are created moment to moment by God, and therefore the whole dichotomy between natural evolution and divine intervention is moot. That lies in those classes of speculation that can't (at least by no means now known) be tested, though. Arguments like that lie in the realm of faith rather than observation.

I'm by no means arguing for the infallibility of observation. If observation were infallible, there'd be no need to repeat experiments. What I liamli arguing is that observation of the physical universe will tell you more about that universe than reliance upon scripture. Observation carries with it its own mechanism for correction - the observations can be repeated until a concensus emerges. Scripture lacks that safeguard.

Lastly, I don't understand your argument about the vessel shape. Can you explain that a different way?

Actually, on a broader scope the whole question of what would constitude the framework of NIMH Rat spirituality is an intriguing concept.

One has to wonder what exposure to various spiritual material the rats would have had as they made their way from the city, to the abandoned mansion, the Fitzgibbon farm, and finally Thorn Valley.

Since they adopted a lot of their knowledge from humanity the quandry as to what philosophical concepts they adopted is intriguing.

In the movie we got some interesting hints:

Nicodemus :"We can longer live as rats. We know too much."

Jenner: "I have learned to take what you can, when you can."

Justin: "Then you have learned nothing."

The sticking point is that evolution is a proven fact. It's been observed to happen in fast-lived organisms such as bacteria, and even insects. There's still a great deal of debate over different theories of evolution, and how they apply to the rise of various species, but the basic fact that it happens hasn't in serious scientific dispute for the past 75 years or so.

Wait a minute.

Evolution has never been a proven fact. Neither has Intelligent Design for that matter. Both are supported and disproven by science. However, the sort of evolution you're refering to is "Microevolution." These are changes in species themselves. "Macroevolution" is one specie becoming another.

Bacteria--There is a lot we do not understand about them. They are very different from the more complicated life forms. Some examples of why Evolution is Theory:

1) Mutations are never beneficial to species.

2) Adaption is not passed from parent to offspring. This has been noted for thousands of years with the people in the Himilayan mountains. These people have an extra layer of cells on their feet so they can walk in the snow, but the adaption of those extra cells is never given to offspring. The offspring must be exposed themselves, to the bitter climate. It is not in the DNA to have those cells and pass them.

3) Evolution cannot explain where the "conscious" originated. We can take the nonliving, inorganic building blocks of life--the very same ones suggested to have begun life--and combine them in a lab but the result is just more non-living material.

4) Second Law of Thermodynamics. This is an unbreakable law of physics which the entire theory of evolution contradicts. The universe, the planet--they are isolated systems. Disorganized chemicals do not organize themselves, just like a bunch of spare parts do not organize themselves into a functioning computer. The mathematical statistics, probability, of these unorganized chemicals coming together is of the same, equal to the mathematical probability that tornado ravaging a junk yard would create a fully functional 747 airliner.

5) The Fossil Record is incomplete. Sure, they claim to have found the transitional forms between species, but where is the proof that those transitional forms themselves are the ones they are looking for? Where are the transitional forms between those transitional forms, and the transitional forms between even those? They have not been found. Darwin himself stated that he did not believe in evolution because of this. (On a side note, the real practitioner of the theory was his grandfather, Erasmus.)

6) Look at the human specie over the last 100 years, without the application of modern medicines and technology. People were more resistant to disease 100 years ago than they are today. The human immune system isn't getting stronger, its getting weaker--just like how the genepool isn't getting bigger (according to Evolution) but smaller. The oddity is why people live longer--this is thanks to our society development.

This is the stuff they will not teach in school. Why? Because these little problems with Evolutionary theory automatically suggest a higher intelligence of some sort, and most people have a generalization that this means religion. However, you saw no mention of God or the Bible, or some other religious subject in these arguements against Evolution.

As for Intelligent Design?

1) Can't explain viruses, bacteria, and the oddities of the insects. At least, I haven't heard any attempts on it.

2) Cannot point out at what or who is thought to have made all this.

3) Likewise cannot explain where the consciousness comes from, however is more agreeabel to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.


Gravity? I saw someone mention this. Yes, its still a theory. We still don't understand quite what it is even today. What goes up, must come down is not always true.

The Sun powered Fusion--this is only theory as well. We don't know and probably never will because we cannot go inside the sun. Once you leave earth, just about everything is theory. The strange thing--by normal chemical processes, if this is what the sun ran on, it would burn out 10,000 years after it first began to shine.

The Age of the Earth--also theory. We don't know. Whoever suggested 5 billion was a good estimate overlooked the fact there are hundreds of estimates ranging from as little as 100 years to 20 billion. Why 5 b illion when there's really no proof of it? We don't know how old the sun is for that matter.

There is one conclusion piece of evidence for the age of the universe itself, but not earth. All the stars, nebulas, galaxies we see today--it takes time for that light to get here. For example: The Andromeda Galaxy is about 2.5 million light years away. We see it as it was 2.5 million years ago. It may not even look like that now.

Wow, that was fun to read. Informative and... congealed? Cool beanses. :)

Thanks Tort. :oops:

I used to be a diehard believer in evolution. Fortunately, I had scientific classes in school on both theories.

You're quite welcome.

Wow, that's impressive. I've known people on both sides to be so adament about their stance that to approach them could mean the difference between life and death (that's an exaggeration, of course). It's encouraging when anybody is willing to consider another possiblity. So... yeah. More cool beanses.

I believe it is possibly a mix of both, but also neither at the same time. However, according to scientific principles that is impossible. XD

Since my fanfiction brings up this subject and I was recently asked my opinion on Christianity, mind as well put in my 2 cents.

If the rats have the capacity and knowledge to know about sin and they have free will to choose between right and wrong, then I'm sure what applies to humans also applies to the rats.

Christianity is extremely flawed. This may offend a lot of you, but I can't argue my case unless I mention this.

Christianity is based off on one's anxiety as to whether or not one is going to heaven or hell. So instead of doing good by one's desire, you do good so that Satan doesn't slap your ass for eternity. It's also based heavily on guilt because atonement for one's sins is a priority. It creates an obsessive compulsive environment where we constantly are on the look out for our bad deeds. Instead of using your mistakes as learning experiences, we must constantly reflect on them, which only causes pain and nothing good comes from it.

I can write a book on the flaws of Christianity, one that would be longer than the Bible (or at least the Hebrew Scriptures). I've spent the past 15 years in Catholic education and I've had many debates with many different types of Christians over the years.....many of which I've won (though I don't really take pride in it).

If Simon thinks this post is inappropriate and locks the topic, I'll totally respect that....if you people want me to go on and not be so vague I'll respect that too. I don't hate Christianity or Christians, I just find it flawed and a little absurd.

Okay, I'm not trying to turn you into a Christian with this post, I'm just defending my faith.

Christianity is based off on one's anxiety as to whether or not one is going to heaven or hell. So instead of doing good by one's desire, you do good so that Satan doesn't slap your ass for eternity. It's also based heavily on guilt because atonement for one's sins is a priority. It creates an obsessive compulsive environment where we constantly are on the look out for our bad deeds. Instead of using your mistakes as learning experiences, we must constantly reflect on them, which only causes pain and nothing good comes from it.

Christianity is not about doing as many good things as you can and hope desperately that it's enough good to get you into Heaven. It doesn't work like that. The Bible says that good works by themselves cannot get you to heaven, we are saved by grace alone. Jesus came to earth to die for ALL of our sins, so that anyone who asks to be forgiven who really mean it will be instantly forgiven. They're free from the laws of Sin and Death. That doesn't mean they don't sin, nor does it give them a license to sin (they're truly sorry, so they won't even want to), but it means that all of their sins are forgiven and forgotten, and they are granted passage to heaven.

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--not by works, so that no one can boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9)

"Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death." (Romans 8:1-2)

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16)

THAT is the basis of Christianity, not anxiety. You can still use your mistakes as learning experiences, the thing is that Christ forgives them so you don't have to have any guilt.

The life of a Christian is not about trying to be good enough to get into heaven, it's about spreading the good news about Christ to others, which can be done no matter what you do with your life. Those who truly want Christ will be drawn towards Him, while those who don't just won't, and there's nothing that anybody can do to convert the latter group. So, I'm not going to even try to force you to convert, because if I have to resort to that, you're probably part of the latter group, who won't become Christian no matter what anyone says.

And that's all I have to say on the matter.

Steven

There are many different ways to look at Christianity. I know people who DO believe that they must obsess over their sins and I know people who DO believe that being a good Christian (and nobody else) is the way to salvation.

The Bible contradicts itself many times (that's what happens when you have many authors with different biases), so while throwing Bible quotes is a tempting way to defend yourself, it's not something that should be used often. Though I do see your point the the paragraph above the passages.

I'm also not trying to make anyone a non-Christian. Please defend your faith, I'm not trying to stop you.

I shouldn't have been so brash and vague while tackling this topic, for this I do apologize, but now I'll dig a little deeper into what I actually meant.

The very idea of heaven and hell isn't good. It's unhealthy to continuously ponder our bad deeds. The only reason one even wants forgiveness is so that they won't go to hell. Let's face it, most of the "bad" we do, we don't genuinely feel sorry for. If we lie and that lie gives us a positive result, we don't feel sorry. It's when we go "Oh slilit! I'm going to go to hell if I don't ask for forgiveness!" that we feel "sorry" for what we did.

Pondering over your mistakes only makes you feel guilty. What does guilt give us? Misery....and the high possibility that we will do something stupid to combat our guilt. Throughout my Catholic education I've been constantly told that guilt is good....I call that bullflilik, plain and simple.

To ask to be forgiven is pondering over your mistakes, plain and simple. You may get relieved for awhile until you make another big mistake.

Instead of worrying about our mistakes, we should just accept that suffering is life and that the best we can do about it is accept it. If one understands what causes suffering and accepts that it's what life is all about, you'll be happy and much less likely to "sin" than if you were just living life as if it were a test to see if we can ask for forgiveness for our wrongdoings.

Firstly, I included Bible Verses in my last post to show that my opinion is based on the book my whole faith is based on.

Secondly, not all guilt stems from the fear of Hell. I've felt guilty even when Hell wasn't on my mind. I've made a lie once that didn't really do me any harm, but has been nagging at me on and off ever since. I felt guilty because I made a mistake in the first place; it had nothing to do with Hell (because I know that I'm going to Heaven).

Thirdly, talking about this subject seriously ticks me off. Believe me, you can keep saying why Christianity is flawed and I can keep defending my faith until the damn cows come home. But the reality is that we're people with different religions and we won't change our minds. Arguing about religion is worse than eternally pondering over your mistakes. So how about, instead of obsessing about religion, we set aside our differences, use the forum for its intended purpose, and GET BACK TO WRITING OUR STORIES?!?!?

Steven

Firstly, I included Bible Verses in my last post to show that my opinion is based on the book my whole faith is based on.

Secondly, not all guilt stems from the fear of Hell. I've felt guilty even when Hell wasn't on my mind. I've made a lie once that didn't really do me any harm, but has been nagging at me on and off ever since. I felt guilty because I made a mistake in the first place; it had nothing to do with Hell (because I know that I'm going to Heaven).

Thirdly, talking about this subject seriously ticks me off. Believe me, you can keep saying why Christianity is flawed and I can keep defending my faith until the damn cows come home. But the reality is that we're people with different religions and we won't change our minds. Arguing about religion is worse than eternally pondering over your mistakes. So how about, instead of obsessing about religion, we set aside our differences, use the forum for its intended purpose, and GET BACK TO WRITING OUR STORIES?!?!?

Steven

I wasn't directly replying to you the second time I posted (first time I did, I'll admit)...I was mostly just referring to my experiences with the subject. So in essence, I wasn't really arguing with you, just stating my case. I'm perfectly happy to let this topic die and stop this "conversation" if you want.

I don't want to make it look like I'm trying to get everyone to hate Christianity, I'm just sharing my opinion based on experience. I welcome disagreements and discussions.

Though I don't get where you got the idea where I said guilt stems from fear of going to hell. Either you misread, or on my part, I wrote it wrong (it was very early in the morning). Guilt stems from obsession. Guilt is ultimately pointless.

I wouldn't mind leaving this discussion at that because "I can feel the anger dwelling within you!" We don't want you turning to the Dark Side of the force (I kid I kid).

I understand. When I wrote that, I was replying to 'If we lie and that lie gives us a positive result, we don't feel sorry. It's when we go "Oh slilit! I'm going to go to hell if I don't ask for forgiveness!" that we feel "sorry" for what we did.'

A little bit of guilt, just enough for you to realize you've made a mistake and compel you to correct your mistakes is a good thing (like when you make a mistake in math and you realize that the mistake is made, you just correct it and not obsess over it), but it can get out of hand quickly when you don't let go of it or when you refuse to try to correct your mistake.

So yeah, I'm sorry for turning the discussion into an argument. Will you forgive me?

Oh, and about the Dark Side... Too late:
http://nooooooooooooooo.com/vader.jpg[" alt=""/img]

Steven

It's best to think about the long run when making decisions. We can steal a candy bar and get short term happiness, but we gain nothing in the long run and we've just hurt someone's business. It's when we see the consequences of our actions that we see our mistakes and that's when we can learn from them....not by thinking about them and feeling guilty.

I'm sorry, I have to share this: http://www.abc2news.com/dpp/lifestyle/group-is-promoting-%22jesus-ween%22-instead-of-halloween

....It's just so wrong...and so...funny....


I might actually do it. Though I might just dress up as a Mormon or Jehovah's Witnesses and pretend to be selling the word of God. I kid. I kid.....I think.

I'm totally going to hand out Bibles and tell those naughty children that hell awaits them, though.

Yeah, I know that not all Christians support this and I'm not making fun of you, it's just that it can get out of hand sometimes.

Wow, just wow. If I got trick-or-treaters where I live I would think about doing that. Would be great fun to see look on their faces.

Would dressing up like Jesus be blasphemy or would it be alright? After all, it's not an ungodly image. I mean people play Jesus in school plays and such, so I can't see it being blasphemous.

In fact what constitutes as an ungodly image? If pumpkins with faces on them and kids dressing up as princesses and asking for candy are ungodly, then pretty much every piece of literature, play, book, film, music, and Non-Christian pictures are off limits. We would be forced to be huddled up in Church wearing white and reading Bibles.

This is why we shouldn't focus or limit our thinking on what's "black and white" because it limits our potential. Of course, you shouldn't go out raping or killing people, but exploring those concepts in the arts, or if I may say, making comedy out of those concepts doesn't make them provocative. If someone hears a rape joke and goes and rapes everything he sees, he chose to make the connection in his mind and thus he is responsible, not the joke. A peaceful society is a society where we can laugh at and explore life's problems without choosing to be offended by them. Same applies here, just because you dress up as a devil, doesn't make you a devil, just as telling a rape joke doesn't make you a rapist.

I'm sorry if I sounded pretentious while tackling this subject. Saying stuff like "I can write a book about the flaws of Christianity that would be longer than the bible!" is simply wrong on my part. It's just that I've dealt with some really REALLY crazy Christians in my time. I was born and raised around Christianity and the more I grew up, the more I saw the flaws of it. Worrying about the afterlife, something we cannot control, is pointless in my book, which is what I was really getting at the meat of my argument. The idea of life being a test is utterly ridiculous to me, but I shouldn't have sounded like I was pissed off at anyone (I'm not, by the way).

Apologies if I offended anyone, I didn't mean to sound rude.