Do animals have souls?

#21

I think I worded it wrong and Raum said what I meant to say "They don't have the knowledge of good and evil." That's what I meant but didn't say. Sorry for the confusion.

QUOTE(Deepak)TT, right and wrong is different for everyone

I totally disagree with this. Right and wrong are not different. They may perceive it differently but that doesn't mean that right and wrong are different. By saying that you're saying there are no absolutes yet the statement that you said is an absolute. You just contradicted yourself

#22

True! everyones perception of what is right and what is wrong is different but there really cannot be a basic elementary level of right and wrong. To be every situation would be judged differently as to which actions would be considered right and which to be wrong. For example there is this dude with a AK47 and he is about to shoot down five people and in your hand is a 15 shot automatic pistol and you only have a clear shot to his head...

Therefore the only way to save those five innocent people is shooting this guy in the head and killing him. I know its more of an ethical question but would you do it and if you did would it be considered right or would killing someone be considered wrong ?

At the same spot that man with a AK47 would definietly be in the wrong for shooting and killing innocent people. But in the end both hands would cause death ie loss of human life.... so is it still wrong to kill some one to save someone elses life.

Right and wrong differ in ever situation.

Coming back to the fact that animals do not have the knowledge of good and evil is something that be debated over and over again. It was debated over in the Reincation (Remix ) thread. But if you have a look at it how numerous occasions where animals with no reason what so ever have saved lives only for loyalty and just to do good and save lives. The simple enough fact that we cannot understand animals will make it impossible for us to actually understand if they can actually know what is good and what is evil. However if its living it has a soul, if it lays motionless and not breathing it doesnt have a heart beat .... its dead and does not have a soul

#23

My approach to this is that I have had dogs most all my life. Every one of them has a distinct personality and relates to me in slightly different ways, but all of them have helped ease my pain and have helped me celebrate victories. When I'm sick, they'll lie next to me to comfort me, when I'm angry or upset, they distract me to help me calm down.

I'm not going to get into a big theological debate over whether or not they have "souls" or merely "life energy". All I know is that if there's a heaven, it would be a pretty sorry place without my dogs there.

#24

QUOTE(trashtalkr)I totally disagree with this. Right and wrong are not different. They may perceive it differently but that doesn't mean that right and wrong are different. By saying that you're saying there are no absolutes yet the statement that you said is an absolute. You just contradicted yourself

TT, I'm going to have to ask you to lay off the sauce...What...the...hell..?

Right and wrong aren't different, so...They are the same..?!?!?!

We have dived into this before, and the answer is that right and wrong are relative to those that percieve them...You see a guy with an AK spraying down peeps, and you say he's wrong, and you put the gun to his head and squeeze, and you're a hero...

That is, until you find out that the guy that had the AK was exacting a little revenge cause his wife and 5 kids were murdered by the family of the people he was trying to murk...

A long shot, but the angles can't be taken for granted...The perception of right and wrong is almost exclusively dependant on position...

TT, I'm going to have to ask you to elaborate more on some of the shit you're saying, cause you're confusing me, and that ain't easy to do...I can follow raum's 10 paragraph discourse on multi-dimensional meditations, yet you loose me after 3 sentences...

#25

If it helps, simply remove the third sentence, and re-read it.. makes MUCH more sense to me that way..

On another note.. it's not just relative as AYHJA said.. but also the way you grew up and understood such concepts. For example, if you grew up in a world where you had the reverse perception of right and wrong (since you see it while you grow up.. people getting put in jail for doing something bad.. you get told off when you do something you shouldnt've), it would seem normal for someone to do something that we normally conceive as intorable, such as cannabalism :shock: (or something realistic like shooting someone without an obvious reason)

#26

Guys, the "average" does not constitute the majority...Just cause 8 out of 10 people feel one way, doesn't make that the right way to feel...If that were true, then I could understand that point of view...Just cause TT thinks something is right or wrong, and can get 100 people to agree with him vs 1 opposing opinion makes me about as wrong as it does right...

Lots of shit to back up what I'm saying, you guys are going to have a hard, hard time selling that POV... /laugh.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":lol:" border="0" alt="laugh.gif" />

#27

QUOTEWe have dived into this before, and the answer is that right and wrong are relative to those that percieve them...You see a guy with an AK spraying down peeps, and you say he's wrong, and you put the gun to his head and squeeze, and you're a hero...

QUOTE
Therefore the only way to save those five innocent people is shooting this guy in the head and killing him. I know its more of an ethical question but would you do it and if you did would it be considered right or would killing someone be considered wrong ?

Yes, I'd prolly shoot the guy but that doesn't make it the right thing to do. We always think that what we do is right just because we think it should be right. I don't agree with that at all.

I know we've talked about this before and neither of us will change the others opinion, but sometimes, for me, it's hard to grasp the idea that right and wrong are different for each person

#28

I've got an Alaskan Malamute that loves to watch ESPN. This tells me she ABSOLUTELY has a soul.

Sorry. Seriously, I think that right and wrong, for animals can simply be reduced down to instinct. They do what is in their nature to do. I live in the country and not two weeks ago my dog took off after a deer before I could stop her. I lost her in the woods but after a few hours of searching I came across her dragging the carcass back to towards my house. Was that wrong? To take a life, even if it's another animal, for no reason? She gets two meals a day. There was no need for her to kill it. It ran. She chased it. It's that simple. Whenever my aunt comes to visit me, I have to lock my dog up because she's tried to attack my aunt on more than one occasion. Does that mean she's acted in the wrong? Absolutely not! Animals can sense evil. /:D" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt=":D" /> Or, she felt her territory, my house, was being threatened and she reacted. Again, instinct.

As to whether they possess a soul, I'd have to say that deepdiver hit it pretty close. I suppose I am just focussing on pets(dogs, cats, horses, etc.) but the word animals is rather ambiguous. We form attachments to these animals. We feed them, shelter them, see to their injuries. It's impossible not to. And they, in their own way, bond to us as well. I read of a man that filed for divorce but his wife threatened to put their dog to sleep so he went back to her. I've known families that bought live turkeys for Thanksgiving because they wanted to be cautious(read overly paranoid) about the feed the birds were given and wanted to fatten it up themselves. By the time Thanksgiving came around, the thing had a name and it's own shelter in the backyard. Attachments.

Let's extend this to the other animals though. Do cows have souls? Or course not. The distinction? When you sit down at Burger King, nobody wants their Whopper w/ cheese to have had a name. In all seriousness, it's more a question of faith. My more religious friends tell me that animals can't have souls. It's what distinguishes the children of Adam from the beasts. Meanwhile, I have more faith in my animals than I do in some of the people I know.

#29

Cbasstn.....Welcome to TAF...Damn, I like you being here already....

@ Trash

What part of the relative theory are you having a hard time grasping..? I'm not trying to change your opinion, I just want to see where you coming from...We watch movies all the time based on revenge, and we call them cats heros, and don't think twice about it being right or wrong...Gladiator, for example...

How do you draw that line..? Why is it hard to say, "To each his own," and leave it at that..? To me, right or wrong delves off into judgement, and that's not something I feel any human is qualified to to do to another one...Life is a big reaction, but we need to start another topic rathe than troll this one to sleep, LoL...

Animals have souls...All living things have a soul...James Brown got soul...That fern on the porch got soul...And cb's Alaskan Malamute not only has soul, but damn fine taste too...

#30

Cbasstn,

your "religious" friends are completely wrong that animals don't have souls...

To the average person, the word "soul" carries the meaning of an undying, immaterial essence that continues in conscious existence after death. This conception is accepted without thought or examination.

As soon as we start to look into the question, however, we begin to make very interesting discoveries. We find, first of all, that the BIBLE meaning of soul is ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT from this, and immediately the question arises:

How can the commonly accepted religious conception of soul be entirely different from the soul of the Bible, seeing that the beliefs of Christendom are supposed to be based upon the Bible?

The webster's dictionary says "The Christian conception of the soul derives from the Greek, especially as modified by the mystery cults, as well as from the Bible..."

"The more exact determination of the Christian conception was reserved for the Church Fathers, especially Saint Augustine, who taught that it is simple, immaterial and spiritual, devoid of quality and spatial extension. He argued its immortality from the fact that it is the repository of Imperishable truth."

However, Among the ancient Hebrews 'soul' was the equivalent of the principle of life as embodied in living creatures, and this meaning is continued throughout the Bible ... "Will" (in the hebrew "Ratzon") on the other hand is something that only God and humans possess, as bestowed upon them by God."

In the Old Testament Hebrew, the original word for soul is nephesh. In the New Testament Greek it is psuche. Both mean the same thing and are used Interchangeably. One is used to translate the other.

Nephesh occurs about 750 times. About 500 times it is translated "soul" in the Authorized Version. The other 250 times it is translated by over 40 different English words, as shown on the chart below.

Psuche occurs about 100 times, and is translated similarly in the New Testament.

It is quite obvious at the outset that a word of such broad application, including all the animal kingdom, all its bodily and physical aspects, CANNOT POSSIBLY indicate some immortal essence in man distinguishing him from the "lower creation."

It is clear from the words used to translate it that it is related throughout to ANIMAL BODIES, includ ing man, and this will become more and more clear in consideration of some of the passages in which it is used.

Here is a breakdown of the use of the word Nephesh, not always translated as "soul"

soul 475, life 117, person 29, mind 15, heart 15, creature 9, body 8, himself 8, yourselves 6, dead 5, will 4, desire 4, man 3, themselves 3, any 3, appetite 2, miscellaneous 47 (the misc. include such usages as "lust", hunger, desire, etc.)

(You may guess when this word is used to refer to enemies, it takes on a negative character.)

However, of the word Nephesh" which is transalted to soul, the Old Testament uses it first to describe ANIMALS and not people.

Gen. 1:20: 11 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath *life*" (The word "life" here is nephesh) .

Next verse: "And God created great whales, and every *living creature* (nephesh) that moveth, which the water brought forth abundantly."

Verse 24: "The *living creature* (nephesh) after his kind, cattle and creeping things."

Verse 30: "Every beast ... every foul ... everything that creepeth, wherein there is *life*. (life = nephesh)."

The references to "Nephesh" are thus:

22 times: of animals alone (Gen. 1:21-28)
7 times: of men and animals together (Num. 31:28)
53 times: of individuals, persons (Gen. 2:7)
96 times: of persons doing things (Lev. 5:1, 2, and 4)
22 times: of man: appetites, and animal desires (Prov. 6:30; Gen. 34:3)
231 times: of man: mental faculties, emotions (Gen. 34:3; Num. 21:4)
22 times: souls cut off by God (Psa. 78:50)
32 times: souls killed by man (Josh. 11:11)
242 times: souls subject to DEATH (Eze. 18:4; Psa. 22:29)
13 times: souls actually DEAD (Isa. 53:12)
13 times: souls going to grave (Job 33:22)
(Note: Last 5, over 320 times, souls dead, dying, subject to death)

so you see, that in consideration of how they choose to employ translation, its not always a good thing or immortal thing.

BY THE WAY, here is the word of the Rabbi on the subject:

The word Nephesh (soul) comes from the root Napash (to take rest, sleep), and the word "Nephash" (replenish, make whole again - refresh). When we sleep, we replenish the soul: that is the truth of the Dream, where we enjoy the knowledge of the Nephesh as bound to the body. That which sleeps, dreams. That which dreams, has a soul.

Sweet Dreams.

vertical,
raum