Do Animals Have Souls At All?

[carrdero]

[quote]LilyOfSainMary writes: 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.[/quote]

Why is this?

[quote]LilyOfSainMary writes: We prove our soul's independence of matter through our intellect.[/quote]
I think that you may be confusing the mind with the soul.

[quote]LilyOfSainMary writes: 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.[/quote]

It almost sounds like you are referring to a human ego.

[quote]LilyOfSainMary writes: 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.[/quote]

This last part sounds like a personal preference of a religious intellect and not a practical purpose of a soul.

Edited August 5, 2007 by carrdero

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='LilyofSaintMaria' post='1350213' date='Aug 5 2007, 12:03 PM']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[/quote]

yay! someone with my exact views who is capable of expressing them!

[abercius24]

I just wanted to end my involvement in conversation with one more tidbit of information. Here is the academic list of logical fallacies as published by the English department of Northern Illinois University. I like to include beyond this list the "Pig's Fly" Fallacy, which is when someone offers unprovable fantasy as a valid argument. Our friend Carderro has used a number of these tactics to formulate his arguments. I just want everyone to at least learn to recognize these logical fallacies when considering such topics. God bless!

Logical Fallacies
The following list of logical fallacies is taken from Rise Axelrod and Charles Cooper's The Concise Guide to Writing.
Fallacies are errors or flaws in reasoning. Although essentially unsound, fallacious arguments seem superficially plausible and often have great persuasive power. Fallacies are not necessarily deliberate efforts to deceive readers. They may be accidental, resulting from a failure to examine underlying assumptions critically, establish solid ground to support a claim, or choose words that are clear and unambiguous. Here, listed in alphabetical order, are the most common logical fallacies:

[b]Begging the question.[/b] Arguing that a claim is true by repeating the claim in different words. Sometimes called circular reasoning.

[b]Confusing chronology with causality.[/b] Assuming that because one thing preceded another, the former caused the latter. Also called post hoc, ergo propter hoc (Latin for "after this, therefore because of this").

[b]Either/or reasoning.[/b] Assuming that there are only two sides to a question, and representing yours as the only correct one.

[b]Equivocating.[/b] Misleading or hedging with ambiguous word choices.

[b]Failing to accept the burden of proof.[/b] Asserting a claim without presenting a reasoned argument to support it.

[b]False analogy.[/b] Assuming that because one thing resembles another, conclusions drawn from one also apply to the other.

[b]Overreliance on authority.[/b] Assuming that something is true simply because an expert says so and ignoring evidence to the contrary.

[b]Hasty generalization.[/b] Offering only weak or limited evidence to support a conclusion.

[b]Oversimplifying.[/b] Giving easy answers to complicated questions, often by appealing to emotions rather than logic.

[b]Personal attack.[/b] Demeaning the proponents of a claim instead of their argument. Also called ad hominem (Latin for "against the man").

[b]Red herring.[/b] Attempting to misdirect the discussion by raising an essentially unrelated point.

[b]Slanting.[/b] Selecting or emphasizing the evidence that supports your claim and suppressing or playing down other evidence.

[b]Slippery slope.[/b] Pretending that one thing inevitably leads to another.

[b]Sob story.[/b] Manipulating readers' emotions in order to lead them to draw unjustified conclusions.

[b]Straw man.[/b] Directing the argument against a claim that nobody actually holds or that everyone agrees is very weak.

[123]

I don't think it is a sin to believe that there is a spirit or certain entity within an animal that has a role in the Kingdom of God. My point for that is, animals weren't made by God just to eat, sleep, and be our food when we are hungry. The Bible says that he created man in the Image of God, but he could have made animals spiritualy similar from man. This doesn't mean that animals have souls or spirits, and if they did Christians don't "have" to start believeing in soul transmigration. Just because God may have given animals souls (or a seperate spiritual entiy.) and chose not to tell us doesn't mean that animals don't have them or that we must personaly change our doctrine. We must accept the mysteriousness of man, animal, and spirit and move on with our lives. Once we stand before him we will learn as to why animals did (or did not.) have spirits and what exactly was their occupation on Earth.

Lastly, the more science grows the more we find about about the mental capacity of animals such as cats and dogs. God gave animals a sixth sense that allows them to sense despression, disaster, and even death (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6919063.stm) and all throught Biblical and Secular history dogs and cats were seen as powerful creatures, blessed by a Higher Power (even thought they were powerful by pagan standards, the Lord uses mysterious ways.).

[u]Dog Research[/u]
[url="http://www.all-creatures.org/aip/nl-9aug2002-dogs.html"]http://www.all-creatures.org/aip/nl-9aug2002-dogs.html[/url]

[u]Cat Research[/u]

Prestine Memory Retension - [url="http://animal.discovery.com/guides/cats/behavior/forgets.html"]http://animal.discovery.com/guides/cats/be...or/forgets.html[/url]

Basic Cat Study- [url="http://www.catsinternational.org/articles/training/the_intelligent_cat.html"]http://www.catsinternational.org/articles/...ligent_cat.html[/url]

Edited August 6, 2007 by GloriaIesusChristi

[carrdero]

[quote]abercius24 writes: Our friend Carderro has used a number of these tactics to formulate his arguments. I just want everyone to at least learn to recognize these logical fallacies when considering such topics. God bless[/quote]
What abercius24 fails to recognize is that everyone posting in this thread is guilty of some or most of these including abercius24 which in the light of the post above is extremely hypocritical. I never claimed I was a professional debator and I never claimed that my beliefs were the Truth.
[quote]abercius24 writes: Maybe you really don't care about helping others find what is true.[/quote]
Here you accuse me of leading others away from what is true. I invited you to share any evidence to prove me incorrect, you have not come forward with any substantial posts so you have resorted to attacking my posts and my character calling my freedom to believe, think and reason "illogial workings of my own imagination". If you have any relevant arguments, I'll be willing to consider them but just because something has shaken your faith, doesn't mean you should be behaving like a sore loser.

Edited August 6, 2007 by carrdero

[carrdero]

[quote]GloriaIesusChisti writes: Lastly, the more science grows the more we find about about the mental capacity of animals such as cats and dogs. God gave animals a sixth sense that allows them to sense despression, disaster, and even death.[/quote]

My sister used to bring a certified dog around with her to detect seizures beore they happened.

I have also read that they are doing dream studies in humans and animals in relationship to identifying soul purposes and its relation to our sleeping state and spirituality.

[quote]GloriaIesusChisti writes:We must accept the mysteriousness of man, animal, and spirit and move on with our lives. Once we stand before him we will learn as to why animals did (or did not.) have spirits and what exactly was their occupation on Earth.[/quote]

Edited August 6, 2007 by carrdero

[FattyBones]

"poor, innocent cow."

Ok, this probably won't impress you, but the Australian native peoples have a similar story to the garden of Eden. Except that in their story, they were commanded by the king of gods not to eat animals. There was a drought, and the plants died, and they killed some of the animals to eat, and that brought death into the world. From then on, humans had to struggle to live and died painful deaths.

Eating animal products is a matter of survival. Vitamin B12 is not found in any vegetable. I would hope that the cow I ate now knows something better than the factory farm he lived in in life.

We need privileged access to both the afterlife and the mind of an animal to settle these questions. Yet, the call of argument pulls at my soul.

What about people who are mentally handicapped,from birth, to the point where they can barely reason? Do they have souls, even though they can't speculate about God? Will St. Peter check them for opposable thumbs before letting them through the gates?

[FattyBones]

What's a "soul purpose" ?

[carrdero]

[quote]FattyBones writes: What about people who are mentally handicapped,from birth, to the point where they can barely reason? Do they have souls, even though they can't speculate about God? Will St. Peter check them for opposable thumbs before letting them through the gates?[/quote]

I was thinking about your list these last few days. Four years ago my wife and I had a child born prematurely that only lived for three weeks, though I can understand your position about a human’s potential and can probably anticipate your answer, three weeks doesn’t really afford too much of a potential to a premature infant who passes away before getting to know GOD. It has been a long time since I can remember my lessons but doesn’t the church teach of heavenly provisions for infants who die a premature death?

[quote]FattyBones writes: What's a "soul purpose" ?[/quote]
I believe one of the main purposes is to deliver the spiritual entity to it’s chosen physical shell and to bring it back to the spiritual realm after the physical entity passes.

[abercius24]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1351007' date='Aug 6 2007, 09:27 AM']What abercius24 fails to recognize is that everyone posting in this thread is guilty of some or most of these including abercius24 which in the light of the post above is extremely hypocritical. I never claimed I was a professional debator and I never claimed that my beliefs were the Truth.

Here you accuse me of leading others away from what is true. I invited you to share any evidence to prove me incorrect, you have not come forward with any substantial posts so you have resorted to attacking my posts and my character calling my freedom to believe, think and reason "illogial workings of my own imagination". If you have any relevant arguments, I'll be willing to consider them but just because something has shaken your faith, doesn't mean you should be behaving like a sore loser.[/quote]

That is the problem, carderro. Your apparent goal is to win the debate, not to find truth for our collective benefit. If a win is what you want, you've got it. That's not what we are here for. Don't create "flying pig arguments", though, and expect us to debate what is impossible to debate. Whether or not you know the rules for a proper debate, your lack of humility on the topic makes it impossible to fairly discuss it with you. And my statement above was not meant literally, but rhetorically. The statement above is as unfair and impossible to answer as your statement on unknown animal spirituality. Notice that every rhetorical question I asked was preceded by "maybe". "Maybe's" cannot be debated and certainly are not appropriate for a fair theological discussion. If I unknowingly used a logical fallacy, I apologize. But your statement on "possible, but unknowable animal spirituality" is clearly a logical fallacy, and I expect you to admit it in the spirit of fairness. Otherwise, the topic is useless to further debate.

[FattyBones]

Sorry if I woke up some sleeping dogs, Carderro, I'm not trying to make anyone feel bad.

God is fair. I doubt that he'd bar anyone innocent from Heaven, even if they didn't know God. An infant can't really be described as "good" but is handily described as innocent.

On another note, if there are bodies in Heaven, there must be stomach bacteria?

Edited August 8, 2007 by FattyBones

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1350529' date='Aug 5 2007, 06:14 PM']If hell does truthfully exist, then one shouldn’t need the faith that it does exist.[/quote]

But, you see it does exist. The mind can be very real to people. Plain and simple Whatever you and I do in this life, it either brings us closer to God or further from him. Plain and simple. That's what Peter Kreeft said... i think in one of his books or maybe it was an audio lecture.

[quote name='abercius24' post='1350976' date='Aug 6 2007, 06:05 AM']I just wanted to end my involvement in conversation with one more tidbit of information. Here is the academic list of logical fallacies as published by the English department of Northern Illinois University. I like to include beyond this list the "Pig's Fly" Fallacy, which is when someone offers unprovable fantasy as a valid argument. Our friend Carderro has used a number of these tactics to formulate his arguments. I just want everyone to at least learn to recognize these logical fallacies when considering such topics. God bless!

Logical Fallacies
The following list of logical fallacies is taken from Rise Axelrod and Charles Cooper's The Concise Guide to Writing.
Fallacies are errors or flaws in reasoning. Although essentially unsound, fallacious arguments seem superficially plausible and often have great persuasive power. Fallacies are not necessarily deliberate efforts to deceive readers. They may be accidental, resulting from a failure to examine underlying assumptions critically, establish solid ground to support a claim, or choose words that are clear and unambiguous. Here, listed in alphabetical order, are the most common logical fallacies:

[b]Begging the question.[/b] Arguing that a claim is true by repeating the claim in different words. Sometimes called circular reasoning.

[b]Confusing chronology with causality.[/b] Assuming that because one thing preceded another, the former caused the latter. Also called post hoc, ergo propter hoc (Latin for "after this, therefore because of this").

[b]Either/or reasoning.[/b] Assuming that there are only two sides to a question, and representing yours as the only correct one.

[b]Equivocating.[/b] Misleading or hedging with ambiguous word choices.

[b]Failing to accept the burden of proof.[/b] Asserting a claim without presenting a reasoned argument to support it.

[b]False analogy.[/b] Assuming that because one thing resembles another, conclusions drawn from one also apply to the other.

[b]Overreliance on authority.[/b] Assuming that something is true simply because an expert says so and ignoring evidence to the contrary.

[b]Hasty generalization.[/b] Offering only weak or limited evidence to support a conclusion.

[b]Oversimplifying.[/b] Giving easy answers to complicated questions, often by appealing to emotions rather than logic.

[b]Personal attack.[/b] Demeaning the proponents of a claim instead of their argument. Also called ad hominem (Latin for "against the man").

[b]Red herring.[/b] Attempting to misdirect the discussion by raising an essentially unrelated point.

[b]Slanting.[/b] Selecting or emphasizing the evidence that supports your claim and suppressing or playing down other evidence.

[b]Slippery slope.[/b] Pretending that one thing inevitably leads to another.

[b]Sob story.[/b] Manipulating readers' emotions in order to lead them to draw unjustified conclusions.

[b]Straw man.[/b] Directing the argument against a claim that nobody actually holds or that everyone agrees is very weak.[/quote]
This is a good list. I should keep it handy somewhere so I can try and keep in focus here. I know I slip up with some ambiguous, vague statements. I think partly its not having the humility to step out and maybe say something wrong.

[quote name='GloriaIesusChristi' post='1350994' date='Aug 6 2007, 09:15 AM']I don't think it is a sin to believe that there is a spirit or certain entity within an animal that has a role in the Kingdom of God. My point for that is, animals weren't made by God just to eat, sleep, and be our food when we are hungry. The Bible says that he created man in the Image of God, but he could have made animals spiritualy similar from man. This doesn't mean that animals have souls or spirits, and if they did Christians don't "have" to start believeing in soul transmigration. Just because God may have given animals souls (or a seperate spiritual entiy.) and chose not to tell us doesn't mean that animals don't have them or that we must personaly change our doctrine. We must accept the mysteriousness of man, animal, and spirit and move on with our lives. Once we stand before him we will learn as to why animals did (or did not.) have spirits and what exactly was their occupation on Earth.

Lastly, the more science grows the more we find about about the mental capacity of animals such as cats and dogs. God gave animals a sixth sense that allows them to sense despression, disaster, and even death (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6919063.stm) and all throught Biblical and Secular history dogs and cats were seen as powerful creatures, blessed by a Higher Power (even thought they were powerful by pagan standards, the Lord uses mysterious ways.).

[u]Dog Research[/u]
[url="http://www.all-creatures.org/aip/nl-9aug2002-dogs.html"]http://www.all-creatures.org/aip/nl-9aug2002-dogs.html[/url]

[u]Cat Research[/u]

Prestine Memory Retension - [url="http://animal.discovery.com/guides/cats/behavior/forgets.html"]http://animal.discovery.com/guides/cats/be...or/forgets.html[/url]

Basic Cat Study- [url="http://www.catsinternational.org/articles/training/the_intelligent_cat.html"]http://www.catsinternational.org/articles/...ligent_cat.html[/url][/quote]
This is a good post as well. Animals are amazing. I even notice wonderful things in my pet rat. Even after having 3 others, not one of them are the same. In fact, this rat doesn't even care about leaving his cage. I could leave the door open all the time and he'll come back to it. Won't eat out side of it. Doesn't care about the floor. My other 3 always wanted to hide away, and would eat anywhere. Strange, isn't it?

[LilyofSaintMaria]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1350529' date='Aug 5 2007, 07:14 PM']If hell does truthfully exist, then one shouldn’t need the faith that it does exist.[/quote]

There are many things that we cannot see, but we know must exist. Hell is one of them. We do know through reasoning and faith that there is a Hell. Hell is place and a state where souls are who did not follow God’s will here on earth. They were given a lifetime to do as God wanted of them, but they did what they wanted instead. In God’s Infinite goodness he let’s us do what we want, even when that means being totally cut off from Him for eternity. That is hell – and I think one experiences Hell when one is cut off from God through mortal sin. Where there is not God, there is Hell. God is everywhere as we have learned in our Baltimore Catechisms, but I think somehow God is cut off from the damned souls, where they know God is there, but will never be able to enjoy the Happiness of the Beatific Vision.

Bernadette

[LilyofSaintMaria]

[i]Why is this?[/i]
A living being must have some form of unifying principle to make these immanent acts possible – we call this the soul. The souls of plants and animals do not live independently, they depend entirely on material things. They cannot have a spiritual soul because spiritual things are neither composed of nor dependent on matter.

[i]I think that you may be confusing the mind with the soul.[/i]
Our soul has two operations, intellect and will. If our intellect is spiritual our soul can thus be proved to be free from the conditions of matter and even more so than that, our independence of matter. Our senses are immaterial, too, yet they are entirely dependent upon matter. They are not spiritual. If our intellect produces spiritual effects than our intellect must be spiritual due to the fact that an effect cannot be greater (I say greater because matter is a principle of limitation and that which transcends these limitations will be of a higher order) than its cause, a material cause cannot produce a spiritual effect. Another example of the spirituality of the intellect can be found right here, right as I type. The communication of language is spiritual. That’s absurd sounding, but if you think about it. . . I know the meaning of what I am writing down, but I know the meaning is not in all the weird marks I am typing on the computer. I could probably express the meaning in different words, too. And whoever reads these words may see a different meaning in them than the one I intend. The meaning is thus only extrinsically dependent on the words. The meaning itself is spiritual, and spiritual power is needed to extract this meaning from the material qualities of the words.

[i]It almost sounds like you are referring to a human ego.[/i]
Not sure what you mean . . .

[i]This last part sounds like a personal preference of a religious intellect and not a practical purpose of a soul. [/i]
Our soul is spiritual, created directly by God – it cannot die, it will live forever. The soul was not generated by the body because nothing material can generate something spiritual. Our parent’s souls did not generate our soul because, being spiritual, our soul has no parts. Our soul must come from a special act of creation by God. Our soul is spiritual so it will not decompose even when our body dies – our souls are not dependent on our bodies, but are actually independent of it. I can think about things in a different place and time from where my body is right now. The soul depends only on God, and God cannot die. We cannot die. Because we are God’s possessions we belong to Him. We are destined to live with Him forever. It is up to us if we want to live with Him.

Bernadette

[carrdero]

[quote]LilyOfSaintMaria writes: There are many things that we cannot see, but we know must exist. Hell is one of them. We do know through reasoning and faith that there is a Hell.[/quote]
I understand why you would put faith in Hell but I am a bit unclear about your reasoning.

[quote]LilyOfSaintMaria writes: Hell is place and a state where souls are who did not follow God’s will here on earth.[/quote]
I beleive that it is our will that must be done on earth and not GOD’s will. We (as spiritual entities) choose our earthly existence, plan our purpose and decide what existence we experience. I do not believe GOD assigns us to earth. For what will could GOD have that He would have to create a earth for humans to reside on that GOD could not do Himself?

[quote]LilyOfSaintMaria writes: They were given a lifetime to do as God wanted of them, but they did what they wanted instead.[/quote]

I believe that there is nothing wanting or needing of GOD, to imply differently is to deny GOD perfection.

[quote]LilyOfSaintMaria writes: In God’s Infinite goodness he let’s us do what we want, even when that means being totally cut off from Him for eternity. That is hell – and I think one experiences Hell when one is cut off from God through mortal sin.[/quote]

I believe that there is no penalty or judgment from GOD and that no one can ever be cut off from His unconditional Love, even if one denies His existence. I believe that GOD does not discern good and evil, right and wrong, and that sin is a human-made concept.

[quote]LilyOfSaintMaria writes: Where there is not God, there is Hell. God is everywhere as we have learned in our Baltimore Catechisms, but I think somehow God is cut off from the damned souls, where they know God is there, but will never be able to enjoy the Happiness of the Beatific Vision.[/quote]

I believe that through free will everyone has the right and decision to accept or reject any other Love and still complete the existence that they have purposed for themselves.

Thanks for your responses.