Genesis 2:7
Then the Lord God formed man out of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being.
Notice that earlier in the scriptures when animals are created (Genesis 20-25) God created them, as all things in the universe, through the Holy Spirit but he did not bring them through life through his breath, but through his Word.
Then, in Genesis 26 God discusses with the angels how he will make mankind in their image and likeness (as the angels were already created in God's image, which is why God says "our" image and likeness...)
In order to be in the likeness of God and the angels, one must not only physically "look" like them, but also have a component that is the spirit, which is the soul.
Now you can understand more clearly that Genesis 2:7, cited above, is the point when God breathed into the clay he had risen the first soul, given to Adam, making him the first man, the first human being.
A human being is not an animal because a human being has a soul and an animal, no matter how good, loved, useful, or intelligent, does not have a soul. Far from diminishing the importance of animals, the lack of a soul means humans have a greater obligation to be honorable in their treatment of animals, to be good stewards.
But back to the main point, you can trust the responsible evidence of your own eyes, which is accurate and not manipulative interpretation of geology, fossil records and other evidence of evolution in all animals, including the apes and so forth, and evolution to proto, as in "before" human beings. But remember that God is always truthful and accurate in all things and the scriptures record this accordingly. God raised the first human out of the clay and dust when he breathed into Adam a soul. Adam is then able to give a soul to his spiritual descendant, Eve, who then is his spouse, and then they bear children who have souls the normal way that God put into motion, which is a soul and a guardian angel given to each human at conception. This is what is meant when God created Eve from the rib of Adam. They really kind of shared the first soul, and they shared the first guardian angel. From that point onward, though, the process of bearing children who receive from God their own soul and their own guardian angel commenced.
Showing posts with label animals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label animals. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
About evolution and Adam
I see some very good and intelligent discussion is taking place about evolution among believers of various faiths.
I just want to put forward a quick reflection, just so that in the sweep to accept accurate science that those of faith do not in then inaccurate cascading thoughts and conclusions marginalize what God has said he did.
I am concerned that those believers of good hearts who accept evolution in regard to human beings will then assume that God did not make Adam out of the clay, as he said he did. That is the beginning of eroding the scriptures, which is incorrect.
What you need to remember is that animals do not have souls. Only human beings have souls. God made Adam out of the clay when he rose him up and gave him a soul. Adam is the first spiritual human being in addition to being biologically human. This is how to understand the accuracy of the scriptures together with the accuracy of genuine fossil evidence. It is also at that time that humans, through Adam, even become really noticeable and the object of honor by God's angels. Angels aren't really involved with other forms of life, since while precious and good and God created, they lack souls. When Adam received a soul, and thus was raised from the clay, created by God, he also then received the first guardian angel. The Qur'an mentions God ordering the angels to honor Adam. That's when this happened. All subsequent humans receive souls at conception and a guardian angel.
I hope you find this helpful.
(Hi young people, by the way.... hope you are hanging in there and working on what you need and want to do....thinking of you....).
I just want to put forward a quick reflection, just so that in the sweep to accept accurate science that those of faith do not in then inaccurate cascading thoughts and conclusions marginalize what God has said he did.
I am concerned that those believers of good hearts who accept evolution in regard to human beings will then assume that God did not make Adam out of the clay, as he said he did. That is the beginning of eroding the scriptures, which is incorrect.
What you need to remember is that animals do not have souls. Only human beings have souls. God made Adam out of the clay when he rose him up and gave him a soul. Adam is the first spiritual human being in addition to being biologically human. This is how to understand the accuracy of the scriptures together with the accuracy of genuine fossil evidence. It is also at that time that humans, through Adam, even become really noticeable and the object of honor by God's angels. Angels aren't really involved with other forms of life, since while precious and good and God created, they lack souls. When Adam received a soul, and thus was raised from the clay, created by God, he also then received the first guardian angel. The Qur'an mentions God ordering the angels to honor Adam. That's when this happened. All subsequent humans receive souls at conception and a guardian angel.
I hope you find this helpful.
(Hi young people, by the way.... hope you are hanging in there and working on what you need and want to do....thinking of you....).
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Monday, August 25, 2008
Case study of interpreting animal behavior
There's a cool study where Google has been used to look at cows, noticing that they tend to align themselves in a north-south direction, predominately north. The theory is that they have a magnetic (directional) capability in their brains, similar to whales, with whom they share evolutionary ancestry. OK, read the article then I'll point out how people so quickly settle on just one or two explanations.
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-cows26-2008aug26,0,3764260.story
snip
Cows are known to align their bodies facing uphill, facing into a strong wind to minimize heat loss or broadside to the sun on cold mornings to absorb heat, but the fact that the pictures were taken at many locations, at different times of day and in generally calm weather minimized the impact of environmental factors, the researchers said.
snip
What the benefit could be for cows, however, remains a mystery. It might help them find their way home, experts said, or perhaps it is simply a vestigial sense that is no longer used for any purpose.
Furthermore, the authors noted, no one has examined cows or deer to determine whether their brains contain magnetic particles.
Experts acknowledged that the research almost certainly has no practical applications.
***
OK, this is a classic example of a brilliant observatory research study (use Google to just observe some aspect of animal behavior, without setting out to prove a theory, just observe). So just by using material that has become available something significant is noticed.
Then is the next step, which is to develop theories about what one is observing. This tends to fall into two parts, "how they do it" (magnetic capability) and "why they do it" (instinct from vestigial capability, or just saying who knows). This is where the research typically gets weak. There is a too rapid jump from observing something significant to immediately trying to hypothesize a "why."
Because there is no way to ask the cows, or to test this further, they quickly conclude there is no practical application. Well, giving it a whole 30 seconds of thought I can posit a how and why that is useful. Watch this:
Suppose cows have a magnetic sense, so they can distinguish directions and orient themselves accordingly. Well, think about their environs. Cows live all day in fields, exposed directly to the elements, most specifically, no matter where you are in the world, the sun. The researchers mention that thinking only of the heat (cows like to expose their sides to the sun if they are somewhat cold), but the researchers too quickly conclude that has no bearing on the study (because they observe the orientation through all variations of sunlight and heat).
But the sun does something else, as all cancer paranoid humans talk about today. It damages skin (no problem with cows who are covered with hair) but constant sun exposure also damages eyes. (This is why many humans are told to wear sunglasses when outdoors to protect the eyes from sun damage). Cows have huge eyeballs and are stuck in the sun all day. They can't close their eyes for hours on end because of the evolutionary need to watch against predators. So cows have instinctively evolved to use their vestigial magnetic detection capability to face north, away from the direct light of the sun on their eyes.
My theory demonstrates that it's not as simple as 1) has capability and 2) must have capability for one "reason." Usually animals (and people) have a capability that then is modified or utilized depending on a variety evolutionary and environmental circumstances. So cows have settled into a "best configuration" based on several factors, but the one factor true throughout the world is that cows are exposed to the sun's light in addition to it's heat, regardless of the season. Remember, snow blindness is a problem in the cold weather. So it is the light of the sun that cows have developed a self protective pattern regarding their eyes, not the heat of the sun (for which they have a different pattern, which is seek shade in the extreme heat, and expose the side to the sun to gain more heat when they are cold).
I hope you've found this useful. This is the way to more accurately and productively develop a series of hypotheses. Also, usefulness doesn't just mean applying it to cow pastoral practices, but observing what animals find "prudent" to do is useful in reinforcing or refuting theories that humans have about themselves. Thus I point out this very well might be a confirmation by cows that constant exposure of their eyes to the light of the sun is to be avoided. There's then further room for research, for example, noting directness of light, whether north or south hemisphere, etc. In other words, when you have a variety of theories you can do more fact finding of the data, rather than reach a self imposed brick wall by settling on a "one theory or nothing" mentality.
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-cows26-2008aug26,0,3764260.story
snip
Cows are known to align their bodies facing uphill, facing into a strong wind to minimize heat loss or broadside to the sun on cold mornings to absorb heat, but the fact that the pictures were taken at many locations, at different times of day and in generally calm weather minimized the impact of environmental factors, the researchers said.
snip
What the benefit could be for cows, however, remains a mystery. It might help them find their way home, experts said, or perhaps it is simply a vestigial sense that is no longer used for any purpose.
Furthermore, the authors noted, no one has examined cows or deer to determine whether their brains contain magnetic particles.
Experts acknowledged that the research almost certainly has no practical applications.
***
OK, this is a classic example of a brilliant observatory research study (use Google to just observe some aspect of animal behavior, without setting out to prove a theory, just observe). So just by using material that has become available something significant is noticed.
Then is the next step, which is to develop theories about what one is observing. This tends to fall into two parts, "how they do it" (magnetic capability) and "why they do it" (instinct from vestigial capability, or just saying who knows). This is where the research typically gets weak. There is a too rapid jump from observing something significant to immediately trying to hypothesize a "why."
Because there is no way to ask the cows, or to test this further, they quickly conclude there is no practical application. Well, giving it a whole 30 seconds of thought I can posit a how and why that is useful. Watch this:
Suppose cows have a magnetic sense, so they can distinguish directions and orient themselves accordingly. Well, think about their environs. Cows live all day in fields, exposed directly to the elements, most specifically, no matter where you are in the world, the sun. The researchers mention that thinking only of the heat (cows like to expose their sides to the sun if they are somewhat cold), but the researchers too quickly conclude that has no bearing on the study (because they observe the orientation through all variations of sunlight and heat).
But the sun does something else, as all cancer paranoid humans talk about today. It damages skin (no problem with cows who are covered with hair) but constant sun exposure also damages eyes. (This is why many humans are told to wear sunglasses when outdoors to protect the eyes from sun damage). Cows have huge eyeballs and are stuck in the sun all day. They can't close their eyes for hours on end because of the evolutionary need to watch against predators. So cows have instinctively evolved to use their vestigial magnetic detection capability to face north, away from the direct light of the sun on their eyes.
My theory demonstrates that it's not as simple as 1) has capability and 2) must have capability for one "reason." Usually animals (and people) have a capability that then is modified or utilized depending on a variety evolutionary and environmental circumstances. So cows have settled into a "best configuration" based on several factors, but the one factor true throughout the world is that cows are exposed to the sun's light in addition to it's heat, regardless of the season. Remember, snow blindness is a problem in the cold weather. So it is the light of the sun that cows have developed a self protective pattern regarding their eyes, not the heat of the sun (for which they have a different pattern, which is seek shade in the extreme heat, and expose the side to the sun to gain more heat when they are cold).
I hope you've found this useful. This is the way to more accurately and productively develop a series of hypotheses. Also, usefulness doesn't just mean applying it to cow pastoral practices, but observing what animals find "prudent" to do is useful in reinforcing or refuting theories that humans have about themselves. Thus I point out this very well might be a confirmation by cows that constant exposure of their eyes to the light of the sun is to be avoided. There's then further room for research, for example, noting directness of light, whether north or south hemisphere, etc. In other words, when you have a variety of theories you can do more fact finding of the data, rather than reach a self imposed brick wall by settling on a "one theory or nothing" mentality.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
My attitude toward zoos
This is a very important hot button topic, with issues way beyond sentimentality. There have been many instances of both terrible overall zoo conditions and specific examples of certain animal exhibits in otherwise reasonable zoo settings who are confined in far too small spaces for their well being. I am sympathetic toward the part of the public and animal rights supporters who demand the closing down of entire zoos or of the exhibiting of certain animals whom compassion and common sense can tell us are living in unhappy circumstances.
However, this means that zoos must be also recognized for two vital and essential services that they provide. One is that it is essential that animals ambassadors continue to be made available to the public around the world. Yes, you read that right: ambassadors. I view zoo animals as an essential part of the human development experience. As such they are like foreign ambassadors who go to a country in order to live and represent their interests. Therefore, they should life in circumstances that an ambassador requires and deserves. It is a sacrifice to have a herd of elephants taken from their habitat and placed in a limited space. But it is a sacrifice that is for the greater good. These elephants are ambassadors for their entire species. People must see real animals and have real education, not just through sentimental cartoon movies and wildlife adventure DVDs. Too many animal rights advocates are rich self indulgent people who can afford safari vacations or "adventure" trips. Zoos are for everyone else. They are for the children. They are for the poor and middle class. They are for the disabled and the elderly. They are for the people who cannot travel to the "real ecosystem" to "appreciate the animal in its natural setting." Animals are both educational and soothing. They are part of making humans more humane. They are ambassadors for not just their species but for the joy of life, something that is under attack and thus in very short supply.
The second essential purpose of zoos is the continuation of the species. It is no surprise or secret that without zoos and associated breeding programs that many species would be in even more peril and dire diminishing of numbers than they are now. Zoos are the first and last defense against future extinctions of further animal species. For example, I sure wish that the Chinese dolphins which have gone extinct were "cramped" in some "zoo" condition somewhere in the world today, rather than totally dead and gone.
What is the value of a life, of any life? Each life is precious, whether animal or human, whether long and happy or short and sad.... or short and happy or long and sad. We don't kill humans who have lives that "do not live up to their full potential." Likewise we don't go up to grieving parents who lost a child and say, "Well, that life wasn't worth living was it?" Similarly, one must recognize this same trade off with animals. Some animal ambassadors will have a lower quality of life than they would have had if they were still living in the wild. But others will live longer and better than they would have in the wild, subject to predations, disease and killing by humans. Animals who can be ambassadors can provide benefits for their species and the human race that are exceptional and essential. Like guide dogs for the blind, living animal ambassadors bring to humans an essential part of the global life experience of being alive and understanding the marvelous diversity of life. People do not live on farms anymore, for the large part, or in wildernesses. Zoos are positive contributors to the quality of life and the valuing of life, both human and animal, for everyone.
I grew up in a city with a terrible zoo, but as a child, I also saw one of the world's best zoos. I have seen the extremes. This is not rocket science here. People who care and put their dollars and volunteer time where their mouths are (and who are allowed to do so, since many wildlife and zoo organizations are incestuous and clannish in their hiring or allowing of citizen involvement) can cultivate brilliant zoos filled with relatively happy animal ambassadors. In Australia for example I have marveled at their great work in bringing the platypus to levels of contentment where they will breed, an outstanding breakthrough, and I wish them even more success. They are a shining example of where the zoo provides not only the ambassador (one that is hard to view in exhibit by that way, ha!) but also the bulwark against extinction of the species. People can build and maintain great zoos, even marvelous zoos.
Zoos need to be discerning and understand their limitations. People will be more understanding of them, even their critics, if they do their homework and recognize what is within their reasonable means and what is not. My home city was terribly traumatized by one of the most stupid errors imaginable that cost the life of a much loved baby elephant. The arrogance and just plain dumbness of some highly paid zoo "professionals" angers me. They did not know their limits. A human parent could have given them better advice about the risks to a newborn or toddler elephant than these idiots seemed to possess in common sense. When I see things like that I am so outraged. There is no excuse because there are so many people who truly know what they are doing who could advise and assist, but they become little defense fiefdoms. I hate that. It harms everyone. A city does not need to be scarred through some zoo oligarch's arrogance and negligence.
But having seen the worse I've also seen the best. As a child I walked through the Berlin zoo when real "habitat" exhibits were still very rare in the world and I marveled at what I saw: a bridge through a building with crocodiles underneath in their natural setting, elephants separated from people by only a moat. My ex husband and I donated to the building of the snow leopard exhibit in the Bronx Zoo, and now many generations of this endangered and so beautiful animal has thrived there.
I think that as those who manage zoos think about their core constituency and their missions, it will help if they think of their animal residents as ambassadors. Just as you would treat a human ambassador, one must recognize that while there are limits because they are "assigned" to that "posting," that they provide an essential and often under appreciated role as ambassadors of life, and so deserve quarters and conditions that such a responsibility and honor demand. And that includes safety, because there are thefts of animals from zoos such as some of the smaller ones in England that are just terrible and result in the animal's death. Naturalness, comfort, space and security are firm requirements that all zoo animals have and if you cannot provide them, then you should not display that animal. Zoos and serious wildlife sanctuaries need to be reasonable about their strengths and limitations and plan and budget accordingly. The display of elephants is the obvious example of where real discernment must take place. Don't be idiots and hang on to unhappy elephants if you can't give them the ambassador treatment. But likewise, critics need to recognize that some zoos really must display elephants. It's ironic that we expect all sorts of scientific and medical breakthroughs from our society, but then think that the kind and generous display of elephants is a problem too difficult to solve. Huh?
I think that zoos should actually be even more mainstream in our society than they really are. Our society really needs places of nature for contemplation. There is no reason that zoos cannot become multipurpose, with aspects of art and park settings mixed with the classical zoo activities. I often walked through the Albuquerque Zoo as an exercise regiment (a mile or two) and as a place for contemplation and peacefulness. For example, I like mixed botanical garden and zoo settings. Why go to one or the other if you can have both in a multi use landscape? It's all good if people keep their positive attitudes and not be churlish. Why not try some new things too, like mixing a zoo with a demonstration farm? Kids could learn about animals and also about cultivation. It's all good.
I hope this helps. I sure could design some good zoos!
However, this means that zoos must be also recognized for two vital and essential services that they provide. One is that it is essential that animals ambassadors continue to be made available to the public around the world. Yes, you read that right: ambassadors. I view zoo animals as an essential part of the human development experience. As such they are like foreign ambassadors who go to a country in order to live and represent their interests. Therefore, they should life in circumstances that an ambassador requires and deserves. It is a sacrifice to have a herd of elephants taken from their habitat and placed in a limited space. But it is a sacrifice that is for the greater good. These elephants are ambassadors for their entire species. People must see real animals and have real education, not just through sentimental cartoon movies and wildlife adventure DVDs. Too many animal rights advocates are rich self indulgent people who can afford safari vacations or "adventure" trips. Zoos are for everyone else. They are for the children. They are for the poor and middle class. They are for the disabled and the elderly. They are for the people who cannot travel to the "real ecosystem" to "appreciate the animal in its natural setting." Animals are both educational and soothing. They are part of making humans more humane. They are ambassadors for not just their species but for the joy of life, something that is under attack and thus in very short supply.
The second essential purpose of zoos is the continuation of the species. It is no surprise or secret that without zoos and associated breeding programs that many species would be in even more peril and dire diminishing of numbers than they are now. Zoos are the first and last defense against future extinctions of further animal species. For example, I sure wish that the Chinese dolphins which have gone extinct were "cramped" in some "zoo" condition somewhere in the world today, rather than totally dead and gone.
What is the value of a life, of any life? Each life is precious, whether animal or human, whether long and happy or short and sad.... or short and happy or long and sad. We don't kill humans who have lives that "do not live up to their full potential." Likewise we don't go up to grieving parents who lost a child and say, "Well, that life wasn't worth living was it?" Similarly, one must recognize this same trade off with animals. Some animal ambassadors will have a lower quality of life than they would have had if they were still living in the wild. But others will live longer and better than they would have in the wild, subject to predations, disease and killing by humans. Animals who can be ambassadors can provide benefits for their species and the human race that are exceptional and essential. Like guide dogs for the blind, living animal ambassadors bring to humans an essential part of the global life experience of being alive and understanding the marvelous diversity of life. People do not live on farms anymore, for the large part, or in wildernesses. Zoos are positive contributors to the quality of life and the valuing of life, both human and animal, for everyone.
I grew up in a city with a terrible zoo, but as a child, I also saw one of the world's best zoos. I have seen the extremes. This is not rocket science here. People who care and put their dollars and volunteer time where their mouths are (and who are allowed to do so, since many wildlife and zoo organizations are incestuous and clannish in their hiring or allowing of citizen involvement) can cultivate brilliant zoos filled with relatively happy animal ambassadors. In Australia for example I have marveled at their great work in bringing the platypus to levels of contentment where they will breed, an outstanding breakthrough, and I wish them even more success. They are a shining example of where the zoo provides not only the ambassador (one that is hard to view in exhibit by that way, ha!) but also the bulwark against extinction of the species. People can build and maintain great zoos, even marvelous zoos.
Zoos need to be discerning and understand their limitations. People will be more understanding of them, even their critics, if they do their homework and recognize what is within their reasonable means and what is not. My home city was terribly traumatized by one of the most stupid errors imaginable that cost the life of a much loved baby elephant. The arrogance and just plain dumbness of some highly paid zoo "professionals" angers me. They did not know their limits. A human parent could have given them better advice about the risks to a newborn or toddler elephant than these idiots seemed to possess in common sense. When I see things like that I am so outraged. There is no excuse because there are so many people who truly know what they are doing who could advise and assist, but they become little defense fiefdoms. I hate that. It harms everyone. A city does not need to be scarred through some zoo oligarch's arrogance and negligence.
But having seen the worse I've also seen the best. As a child I walked through the Berlin zoo when real "habitat" exhibits were still very rare in the world and I marveled at what I saw: a bridge through a building with crocodiles underneath in their natural setting, elephants separated from people by only a moat. My ex husband and I donated to the building of the snow leopard exhibit in the Bronx Zoo, and now many generations of this endangered and so beautiful animal has thrived there.
I think that as those who manage zoos think about their core constituency and their missions, it will help if they think of their animal residents as ambassadors. Just as you would treat a human ambassador, one must recognize that while there are limits because they are "assigned" to that "posting," that they provide an essential and often under appreciated role as ambassadors of life, and so deserve quarters and conditions that such a responsibility and honor demand. And that includes safety, because there are thefts of animals from zoos such as some of the smaller ones in England that are just terrible and result in the animal's death. Naturalness, comfort, space and security are firm requirements that all zoo animals have and if you cannot provide them, then you should not display that animal. Zoos and serious wildlife sanctuaries need to be reasonable about their strengths and limitations and plan and budget accordingly. The display of elephants is the obvious example of where real discernment must take place. Don't be idiots and hang on to unhappy elephants if you can't give them the ambassador treatment. But likewise, critics need to recognize that some zoos really must display elephants. It's ironic that we expect all sorts of scientific and medical breakthroughs from our society, but then think that the kind and generous display of elephants is a problem too difficult to solve. Huh?
I think that zoos should actually be even more mainstream in our society than they really are. Our society really needs places of nature for contemplation. There is no reason that zoos cannot become multipurpose, with aspects of art and park settings mixed with the classical zoo activities. I often walked through the Albuquerque Zoo as an exercise regiment (a mile or two) and as a place for contemplation and peacefulness. For example, I like mixed botanical garden and zoo settings. Why go to one or the other if you can have both in a multi use landscape? It's all good if people keep their positive attitudes and not be churlish. Why not try some new things too, like mixing a zoo with a demonstration farm? Kids could learn about animals and also about cultivation. It's all good.
I hope this helps. I sure could design some good zoos!
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
What is the "Lions Club" up to?
This poor man was not Daniel.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,359523,00.html
JOHANNESBURG, South Africa — Police say six caged lions left only fingers and intestines after eating a worker giving them water.
The lions attacked the 49-year-old man Tuesday after he went inside their cage to deliver water, police said Wednesday.
The man had been working at the Uitspan game farm in northwest South Africa for at least two years, police said. No one witnessed the attack.
Environmental affairs was called to the game farm, which cages lions and other animals for tourists' viewing, to discus the fate of the lions.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,359523,00.html
JOHANNESBURG, South Africa — Police say six caged lions left only fingers and intestines after eating a worker giving them water.
The lions attacked the 49-year-old man Tuesday after he went inside their cage to deliver water, police said Wednesday.
The man had been working at the Uitspan game farm in northwest South Africa for at least two years, police said. No one witnessed the attack.
Environmental affairs was called to the game farm, which cages lions and other animals for tourists' viewing, to discus the fate of the lions.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Quick answer about Pelosi comment?
I heard that she incorrectly quoted from the Bible? I don't care enough to look up the quote, but as I heard it on the talk shows it is something about humans having to "minister" to animals. That is incorrect and not at all an accurate quote or intention, if this is what she indeed said. God tells humans to be "good stewards" to the earth. A steward is someone who tends to and maintains the natural resource, but still uses it. A "minister" is someone who preaches, worships and attends to the spiritual well being of humans. You can't and should not "minister" to animals. I hope this is just a grammar and English problem for her, but somehow I don't think so. There is plenty in the Bible about being shepherds, not cruel to animals, and being the good steward, without having to make up plain wrong theology.
As an aside, St. Francis preached to animals only because there were not enough people listening, if you know what I mean. The Bible is full of reference to the glory of God being seen in the landscape and creatures, but they are not to be worshiped. St. Francis preached to the birds, bringing them the word of God; he did not adore the animals, which would be idolatry, pagan and polytheistic. The good shepherd does not worship the sheep. Gosh, I hope she is just confused about her lingo.
As an aside, St. Francis preached to animals only because there were not enough people listening, if you know what I mean. The Bible is full of reference to the glory of God being seen in the landscape and creatures, but they are not to be worshiped. St. Francis preached to the birds, bringing them the word of God; he did not adore the animals, which would be idolatry, pagan and polytheistic. The good shepherd does not worship the sheep. Gosh, I hope she is just confused about her lingo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
