Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tl00260)

kymsmith@micron.net wrote:

> Why do you think a plant doesn't reincarnate?  A plant is composed of
> measurable energy - where do you think the energy goes upon death of the
> plant?

I'm sure a plant has measurable energy - as does anything else in the world, a
hot fudge sundae, for example. Is this measurable energy less immediately
after it has died? I've read of attempts to find the same energy loss in
humans after death and do not find it convincing.

> This I find particularly perplexing: "Animals may [reincarnate], but I don't
> think they will evolve in consciousness as we do."  Would you consider them
> evolving at all? If so, into what?  What different kind of consciousness do
> you think they will evolve into?

Although I can't "see" into the millions of years of history, the last few
thousand suggest that animals stay substantially the same. Humans appear
more impelled to a evolving future. (Yes, I know many old, old, old and
very basic evils still remain.)

> A quick read of "When Elephants Weep" may change your mind about looking at
> animals as our "support."  Animals suffer, die, love, fear, grieve,
> experience happiness, and make moral decisions.  Their corporeal form and
> lack of language may be the primary differential.

I would agree that animals suffer, die, love, fear, grieve, and experience
happiness. I haven't personally seen what look like moral decisions. If I have
time, I'll look up "When Elephants Weep".

> Many animals have the reasoning capability of infants and children - even of
> some adults I know.  I am assuming you think infants and children will
> 'evolve.'  Why wouldn't animals?

I can see some similarities in the level of abilities of animals and
infants. It still seems like a big leap to say animals evolve.

> There is more evidence to support the opposite of what you claim.  Plants,
> animals, and humans are all imbued with the same basic aspects:
> Consciousness, Energy, and Form.  Put very simply, if all is of the same
> Source, composed of the same elements - upon death, the Consciousness/Energy
> would dissipate, but not disappear.  The Energy would be drawn into another
> form, would it not, driven by the desire to create?

Well, I think we make different conclusions about the data. We could get
into a discussion of your evidence, but I am satisfied with our stating our
opinions - and simply disagreeing.

[big snip]

> I don't gather Jesus to be implying nature is on a different "footing" than
> humans - or, using your gender-exclusive term, "man."

Pardon my gender-exclusive term. It is a force of habit.

> Ecclesiastes asks a very pointed question: "Who knows if the spirit of man
> rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?"  It
> seems you do.

Maybe it's my imagination since over e-mail I can't see your facial expression
or hear a tone of voice, but is there an edge to our discussion? I thought we
were both offering our thoughts recognizing they are fallible judgments. I
don't claim absolute knowledge that animals don't have a psyche - as I hope
you don't claim absolute knowledge that they do.

> Concluding that the spirit of animals goes upward is less fraught with
> disaster than supposing the opposite.  Christianity is real good at looking
> at the world this way, and thus, we have the exploitation of the planet and
> nature.  If, from the beginning, Christianity had seen it the other way, the
> world would have been a much different place.  Recognition of merit results
> in management with respect. Anthropocentricism has failed us.

I would certainly agree that we have exploited the planet and animals. My
remarks in no way mean that I advocate desecrating Nature.

>> There is more to life than karma. God is certainly large enough to contain
>> the law of sowing and reaping - and then some. There are "gifts" from God
>> that we certainly haven't fully earned, but receive out of His Love.

> "Gifts?"  "Fully earned."  Again, this places God smack in the middle of the
> 'teacher's pet' problem.  As long as we believe what we have or lack is
> somehow God's doing and choice, we will forever remain wibble-wobbled by
> events.  When something goes wrong and we find ourselves unable to cope -
> well, guess it was "God's Will," S/He/It was displeased, or simply in a
> vinegary mood.  If things go well, God has noticed our fine performance and
> has rewarded us for making S/He/It happy.
> 
> It makes God's Love seem too human.

Well, I meant good gifts. When something goes wrong I do not think it is
because God was in a vinegary mood, it is our own doing. God must have
*some* human-like traits. S/He (I refuse to use It) did make us.

Peace.

Titus