Do Animals Have Souls At All?

[carrdero]

[quote]FattyBones writes: Carderro, the answer to your question:

I beleive humans are special and set apart for reasons as follows.

1 -- It is implied in the bible by our being designated as having dominion over all the animals in Genesis. (The Pope just said we're allowed to believe in evolution, but that doesn't make Genesis irrelevant, merely an allegory or a simplification in the worst case. Although we're simply allowed, and not required to AFAIK.)[/quote]

I believe there could be a balance of both. How evolution and creation compliment each other may insist that I have a better understanding of both.

[quote]2 -- Because of the ridiculously large divide in reasoning capacity between myself and a chimpanzee. Or you and a chimpanzee.[/quote]
I agree, there is no way that humans could possibly comprehend the understanding of a different entity other than themselves.

[quote]3 -- Because people are physically set apart from animals, and observably have dominion over them, lending support to 1.[/quote]
Animals and plants have been very purposeful towards humans. From the nutritional value of food from the knowledge that they provide us in the laboratories for our chemical and commercial needs. These differences and contributions are not enough to convince me that they do not have souls or that these souls are denied a different afterlife than humans.

Thanks for your responses FattyBones,

[quote]FattyBones writes: I collect good arguments, so here's one against reincarnation that suits you well.

You seemed to say earlier that everyone and every animal and plant reincarnated.

The population of humans is exploding.

The earth's biomass (kilograms of "life") is decreasing due to deforestation and whatnot.

Humans are a large animal. The majority of life forms are smaller than your finger. Since the earth's biomass is decreasing, and more of it is taken up by large animals, the total number of living things is decreasing.

Hence, a lot of souls are not coming back.[/quote]

FattyBones, one of the biggest misconceptions humans seem to make about their existence is that not only do they feel that they are more important or superior over other physical entities but that humans are alone (meaning the only intelligent entity in the universe). From my understanding, there are many other inhibated places, many other different species, experieces and existences that a spritiual entity can incarnate into. It would seem from this decrease in living things that this earth may no longer be a popular or desirable resort to incarnate into. I also want you to consider that not every spiritual entity desires to incarnate into a physical existence (for the first time, immediately after a previous physical existence or ever again). It is not mandatory to adapt to any physical existence.

Edited August 4, 2007 by carrdero

[Ora et Labora]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1349377' date='Aug 4 2007, 09:23 AM']These are not logical qualifications for soul possession.

I think my way is simpler…..actually. There are many religions, many humans who do not know who God is or how to serve Him (hence the need for faith). There are many humans who do not know how to recognize love or how to relate and express it to other entities (hence the need for trusting in love). Either every living entity needs to acknowledge and serve a god for existence or they do not. Either every living thing has a soul or no one has a soul. Either every living thing goes to the same afterlife or no one goes to an afterlife. I do not believe that GOD would be so selective or unfair.[/quote]

sorry...I think my way is much simpler. And more logical. God chose humans and made them in the likeness and image of Himself. I don't think he said he did that for the animals...

[carrdero]

[quote name='Ora et Labora' post='1349405' date='Aug 4 2007, 10:11 AM']sorry...I think my way is much simpler. And more logical. God chose humans and made them in the likeness and image of Himself.[/quote]
Would it require imagination from GOD to create the appearance for animals? Where did the image and description of animals come from?
[quote]'Ora et Labora'I don't think he said he did that for the animals...[/quote]
I don't remember anyone confirming He said that for humans or animals.

Edited August 4, 2007 by carrdero

[Ora et Labora]

Of course he created animals with his own imagination...for our use!!

[carrdero]

[quote name='Ora et Labora' post='1349419' date='Aug 4 2007, 10:32 AM']Of course he created animals with his own imagination...for our use!![/quote]
Then if God imagined animals and plants to live on a planet that he imagined humans to live on, than it is only logical to conclude that in order for God's imagination and will to be fulfilled (read:God's use) that he had to [b][i]choose both animals and humans[/i][/b] to occupy the earth. Which would lead to the possibility that all these living entities could very well occupy individual souls.

Edited August 4, 2007 by carrdero

[FattyBones]

Carderro, I knew you'd say something like that about reincarnation. I'm not going to press the issue.

I've been reading a bit of doctrine, and I think that for these guys (and for me) a soul is a little different than what you consider a soul.

For a being to have a soul, it has to

1- Make moral choices, have free will, and understand morality.
2- Be immortal.
3- Be able to reason enough to conceive of, or perceive, God.

Simply being alive is not enough.

So when you argue that people are like animals, what they hear isn't "Animals have souls." but instead, "People don't have souls."

It is no accident that when people behave like animals they are "in peril of their immortal souls." If you don't use it, you lose it.

By all means, keep arguing, I'm enjoying the discussion, but remember that you don't win an argument by tiring out your opponents. You win when you convince the other party that your view is correct.

[carrdero]

[quote]Carderro, I knew you'd say something like that about reincarnation. I'm not going to press the issue.

I've been reading a bit of doctrine, and I think that for these guys (and for me) a soul is a little different than what you consider a soul.

For a being to have a soul, it has to

1- Make moral choices, have free will, and understand morality.
2- Be immortal.
3- Be able to reason enough to conceive of, or perceive, God.

Simply being alive is not enough.[/quote]
If you do not mind me asking FattyBones, from the three reasons you have given, when do you feel that infants receive souls?

[quote]So when you argue that people are like animals, what they hear isn't "Animals have souls." but instead, "People don't have souls."

It is no accident that when people behave like animals they are "in peril of their immortal souls." If you don't use it, you lose it.

By all means, keep arguing, I'm enjoying the discussion, but remember that you don't win an argument by tiring out your opponents. You win when you convince the other party that your view is correct.[/quote]Thanks for the tip FattyBones.

Edited August 4, 2007 by carrdero

[FattyBones]

Infants have the potential to do all three of those things, so they have souls at conception. That they are ignorant of God is not the same as being unable to perceive him. But really, as you might recall, I was arguing that animals do have souls earlier. My position is not changed, I just wanted to let the others argue with you because they seem to like it better than argueing with me.

You should put that question and a similar one about mental handicaps to the others. I'd like to see what they say .

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='carrdero' date='Aug 3 2007, 09:08 AM' post='1348420']
Animals probably believe we are the gods (or they may believe us to be incredibly insane or unintelligent).
How about my theory that it is unnecessary for their existence to know GOD at all. Would this still get them a ticket to the afterlife? Do you think their soul will still be able to find itself to the spiritual realm after their death?

So then if humans do not know for sure if Jesus is the only way to salvation and if humans do not know if God sets the standards of morality for humankind, why does the possibility of animals having souls have to rely on the unknowing, untrustworthy hopes of human faith?
Yes, it is a good thing we are reasonably reviewing your logic at this moment.
Yet you believe that animals are nothing more than machines. Do you realize how degrading that sounds?
.
And yet this same respect does not extend upon your God granting them a soul or allowing them personality or individuality or permitting them to enter and share the same afterlife as you.
Why did you think they were going to live forever?

But not with animals, right?

Then what is Hell for?

How did you ever arrive at this conclusion?


You must understand that, I believe, animals do not have much of an intelligence. I dont think they have the capacity to understand concepts like God. I dont think they believe we are their Gods. The concept of God allows us to define our origin. Hence he created us. I dont think animals think about things like "why am I here" or "who created me". My opinion is that it is very unlikely that they think about those kinds of things. If you wish to believe they do then go ahead.

I am not concerned with their fate after they die. I dont believe they have souls that go any place in an afterlife.

As I was trying to say in one of my previous posts...EVERYTHING is a matter of faith. Yes faith is subjective since people believe in different things. In this case, we can not say for sure if animals have souls. Its a matter of faith. I chose to put my faith into the idea that animals dont have souls. I dont think they portray any interest in worshipping or believing in God.

I would like to reiterate that I think animals are capable of feelings including love and they have the ability to learn (to a degree). Yes there is a level of individuality amongst animals. They are products of their environment...some animals were treated badly so they become mean...some were treated like kings so they are much more calm and content. I think there are a lot of similarities between animals and humans. We are all products of our environment. Humans are capable of much more. We have the ability to reason, and because of this we have the freewill to believe in God. Freewill doesnt mean that we can chose to fly or anything like that. We can only do what we are capable of. I know im rambling...ill just leave it at that.

[FattyBones]

[b]I am concerned about the fate of animals. I live in a city full of trampled, dead grass, concrete, and sterile gardens. When I see a bird flying high above it, I experience fleeting joy. The one place that stands out is a public garden downtown, full of ducks, swans, beautiful flowers, and trees. In there I feel very close to Heaven.
[/b]
I've been reading a lot of information linked to the defense directory, and I think I might change my opinion somewhat.

One of the files there portrayed heaven as not a physical place at all, but as a state of mind. Within the "good" part of the afterlife, there is one state called heaven, which consists of the "Beatific Vision" (spelling?) -- Being able to see and know God directly, in His full glory. There is another state called "Limbo" which is a lesser, but still satisfying and happy state. Unbaptized infants are there, and so are aborted babies. I'm not sure, but I think people who are ignorant (of Christianity), but innocent also end up in this state.

(I know some of you know this, but I didn't, so it will help a passerby understand my post -- and if it's in the Catechism, I apologize, I am a former atheist and I'm here as an act of Contrition. I'll read the Catechism as soon as I can.)

Now the thing is, someone who is in Heaven, and someone who is in Limbo can be standing next to each other, hold a conversation and whatnot. They are in the same place, to use a strict definition of "place". Limbo seems to be the default for the innocent, and Beatitude a reward bestowed on virtuous Christians.

Ok, research ends, and speculation begins here.

Now I think animals, who have such limited reasoning that they rarely get to make moral decisions would be innocent. Maybe they do get to choose between compassion and violence once in a while, and those that choose right are innocent. Maybe they don't, and in that case still innocent. Someone wrote before of an "animal Limbo", this argument is ten pages long so I don't remember who. Limbo wasn't adopted until well after Jesus and His first disciples died, so it seems reasonable that there may be another as-yet-undiscovered state of partial grace up there.

Besides which, in Genesis, God gave me (via Adam) the duty to be concerned about the fate of animals. Funny to interpret this duty as arguing on an internet forum about animal limbo, but hey, that's how I see it.

[infinitelord1]

Oh carrdero,

If you think that animals should be subject to the same rights as humans...then dont go to McDonald's and eat a cheeseburger...you are in association with the murder of that poor innocent Cow that yielded that beef.

-infinitelord1

[carrdero]

[quote]Infinitelord1 writes: You must understand that, I believe, animals do not have much of an intelligence.[/quote]

And you must understand that animals do not require that much of an intelligence to exist. What good would the knowledge of fixing a washing machine be to a beaver if they do not have the size and opposable thumbs to work on one? Animals are not required to know what we know for their existence. Animals are not required to go to school (except fish). Intelligence is not a true measure of inferiority/superiority or soul/soulless BEings as FattyBones has pointed out in Post #83.

[quote]FattyBones writes: You should put that question and a similar one about mental handicaps to the others. I'd like to see what they say[/quote]

[quote]Infinitelord1 writes: I dont think animals think about things like "why am I here" or "who created me". My opinion is that it is very unlikely that they think about those kinds of things. If you wish to believe they do then go ahead. I dont think they have the capacity to understand concepts like God.[/quote]

The imperativness of proving the existence of GOD and the acquiring of accurate knowledge of said BEing has not been abundantly evidenced towards leading (or not leading) a purposeful and fulfilling life. This is my belief which can be confirmed through experiencing the examples around us.

[quote]Infinitelord1 writes: The concept of God allows us to define our origin.[/quote]

And to a an evolutionist, naturalist, atheist, materialist these concepts or definitions may not be necessary to define their origin. By this reasoning, you cannot assign souls to certain types of human and not to others.


[quote]Infinitelord1 writes: As I was trying to say in one of my previous posts...EVERYTHING is a matter of faith. Yes faith is subjective since people believe in different things. In this case, we can not say for sure if animals have souls. Its a matter of faith. I chose to put my faith into the idea that animals dont have souls. I dont think they portray any interest in worshipping or believing in God.[/quote]

I find that faith is a matter of NOTHING. You cannot touch it, you cannot see it, you cannot trust it, you cannot feel it, you cannot define it, you cannot question it, you cannot reason with it. For me faith is not a show of intelligence but is an excuse not to exercise it. It has also been defined by some people as a complete surrender of one’s reasoning capacities. I believe that you are not considering all the angles of your beliefs but that you seem to be stuck in one train of thought in the hopes that one belief is the truth and that you can conveniently fit everything into this one box. You are hinging your beliefs on the hope of a critical GOD that judges good and bad when there is no evidence that this BEIng displays any such behavior or distributes or upholds any morals or standards for humankind.

And you are correct, animals do not practice faith, you may recognize this as a inferior quality in animals but for me this is a quality that I believe excels animals over humans.

[quote]Infinitelord1 writes: I would like to reiterate that I think animals are capable of feelings including love and they have the ability to learn (to a degree). Yes there is a level of individuality amongst animals.[/quote]

The reason you believe this is because it can evidenced by observation. You are to be commended for these observations but the possibility of not considering these beings worthy enough for souls baffles me.

[quote]Infinitelord1 writes: If you think that animals should be subject to the same rights as humans...then dont go to McDonald's and eat a cheeseburger...you are in association with the murder of that poor innocent Cow that yielded that beef.[/quote]

LOL, Thanks infinitelord1 but there is another reason I don’t go to fast food places and that reason is that the food really isn’t that good. I am not an animal rights activist or anything like that. I understand that animals may have a purpose and one of those purposes may be to help humans. I believe that animals and plants are necessary and share in the continual physical existence of many different earthly species and if you don’t believe that this is an aspect worthy enough to consider animals having a soul than you are entitled to this belief but I must point out the selfishness and shallowness of encouraging such a belief, which if introduced into the discussion of morals, you may personally find this behavior unacceptable for a loving, respectful human.

Edited August 5, 2007 by carrdero

[LilyofSaintMaria]

Just thought to put in my two cents worth.
I think you guys need some help clearing up a few misconceptions about the soul. What is a soul? It is the substantial form of a living being. Which means anything that has the capacity to perform immanent acts (perform and act on its own power, in which the doer and the recipient are identical) has a soul. Plants and animals have souls, however they both cease to exist when they cease to exist.
A man has a soul, but a spiritual soul, not vegetative like plants that can perform immanent acts of growth, nourishment, and reproduction. Nor like animals who are similar to plant's souls except they also have senses and motions. A man's soul is not material - it will never die. Spiritual things are neither composed or dependent upon matter as are the souls of plants and animals. We prove our soul's independence of matter through our intellect - one of two operations of our soul, the other being our free will. Our intellect is independent of matter or in other words spiritual and thus our soul is spiritual.
I'll just take one example to prove this spirituality of the intellect. The intellect has the power of self-reflection. It can think about itself and its own act of thinking. The eye on the other hand cannot see seeing, and it cannot see the sense of light. The intellect can bend back upon itself - it is free of time and space.
Plants and animals have neither intellect or free will because they are totally dependent on matter. Animals can be trained through associations with pain and pleasure, but everything it learns must be associated with some material thing. It must be perceived through the senses because they don't have a spiritual intellect.
Men do have some things in common with animals of course. It's obvious we have a material body, sensory knowledge, and some instincts, but the fundamental differences result in man's spiritual soul and this soul through grace and our cooperation may one day live in complete happiness with its Creator.


Well, there you go! Hopefully that helps a little and wasn't too confusing!
Bernadette

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1349350' date='Aug 4 2007, 06:48 AM']If you believe that entities (either spiritual or physical) have free will, no entity would freely, willfully admit themselves to such a place. So I can imagine this hell that you describe is forever vacant and unpopulated. If you believe that entities (either spiritual or physical) have free will, then each entity has the choice and the freedom to accept or reject any other entity’s love (this would also include God’s love). So if no entity wants to freely, willfully choose to march to hell because they freely, willfully refuse to accept the love of a God that does not require it and if you still insist that GOD loves us unconditionally (this means without any condition or an implied return of this loving investment) then a realm like hell can’t possibly exist. Hell is neither conducive or productive to the God that you are trying to promote. Get rid of this superstitious idea altogether.[/quote]

Just another mention, Hell isn't necessarily fire and brimstone, but as FattyBones has mentioned, a state of mind. It does exist. The first one to enter into this state of mind was Satan. Great mystery of why he did it, but the main point is that he holds the state of mind of hell, and he likes it and hates it at the same time. He hates and loves himself too. He is prideful of his image, but at the same time scorns it because it is the work of God. Pretty much what hell is. And yeah, it's in the same place as heaven, some say (no limbo, though. Pope already cleared that up), but it's a state of mind. The actual fire part of hell is God's burning love. Rejecting the Lord's love is painful because the theory is the person in the hell state of mind is enveloped in His love, cause God is immeasurable. The person in Heaven state (I guess we'll call it that for this post) takes part in God's fiery love and isn't burned, but in fact is illuminated. The last bit is speculation, but Hell is a mystery, but through faith, I know it exists. I'm not worried though. Just keep my eyes on Christ and I will come to know him. I fear no hellfire or death.

Edited August 5, 2007 by Sacred Music Man

[carrdero]

[quote]Sacred Music Man writes:Just another mention, Hell isn't necessarily fire and brimstone, but as FattyBones has mentioned, a state of mind. It does exist.[/quote]

[quote]Sacred Music Man writes: but through faith, I know it exists.[/quote]

If hell does truthfully exist, then one shouldn’t need the faith that it does exist.