Do animals...

[Aurelia]

...have a soul? I've always wondered this and I would like to say they do because I would like to have my doggies in heaven. What do you guys think?

[Episcopus]

Well exactly one year ago I went on a mountain trek in the beautiful french countryside and then we were chased by a load of evil cows. They were super fast. You think I'm lying but I looked into their eyes and they were pure evil. They will surely go to hell if there were such a place, but no they just die and then there is nothing for them. The life is over, and the evil cows should accept it. Actually because french beef is exported I could have eaten that evil cow, thus spawning a more serious question, an malarum infectus episcopus vaccarum illarum sanguine?

[Aurelia]

oh yes, the evil bovine!

My Latin teacher told us about the evil Greek goats called Cree cree whose horns are a-semetrical so when they butt you at least one side hurts!

[klewlis]

are evil cows like mad cows?

[Titus Marius Crispus]

I had to say no, regardless of whether or not animals have souls, because I simply do not believe such a place exists.

If one was to say that animals did in fact have souls, wouldn't one naturally be forced to be vegetarian?

I wonder if it would be possible to have a soul but not be sentient?

[benissimus]

If a soul is something eternal within humans or all living things that persists after death, then I do not believe animals or humans have them. I also do not believe there is a heaven so I would have to say 'no'.

[threewood14]

I think they do for one. But when do bodies get souls?

[Kopio]

When a young child asked if dogs go to heaven or not, his pastor replied....I don't know son, when you get there whistle!

[jaclem]

Greetings all. I was happy to find this site, I've wanted to learn Latin and Greek for ages. Perhaps soon I'll be able to respond in some proper Latin. At the moment, Its all Greek to me.......

....ahem, anyway....

I'll have to take the middle road on this topic. I believe that heaven is beyond our comprehension in our current fallen state, therefore the question is rhetorical at best.

....later

[Aurelia]

I have a friend who thinks Heaven is on Venus and in another dimension. It's an interesting thought, don't you think?

I also watched Nova when they were explaining string theory. I was home alone sick with the flu and I watched this at 1 in the morning and I actually understood what they were talking about!

[Democritus]

I always imagined that animals go to the Elysian Fields.

Cats chase the Elysian squirrels, and dogs run around catching the Elysian frisbees.

[Emma_85]

Well, like others here I don't believe such things as souls exist, so I vote no. But they do have feelings and minds (even though they are different from human minds), which is why I'm a vegetarian (and have been for 10 years, ever since I found out that you could be vegetarian really).

[klewlis]

If God wanted me to be a vegetarian he wouldn't have given me incisors.


;)

Seriously, though, if we are all animals and animals kill each other for food, then why is it wrong for us to do it? Are we held to a higher standard because of our sentience?

[Emma_85]

Well, basically I don't believe that most animals have any other choice, it's kill and eat or die. Even if for some it's not life or death I don't think animals have the capability to decide whether or not it is right to eat another animal or not. Animals have instincts and don't have morals.
Humans on the other hand don't need to eat meat to survive and they have the brains to think and come up with moral concepts. So a human actually has a choice, which an animal doesn't have (and it can be a curse, because a human must make a choice). So I have to decide what I think I should do. As I don't have to eat meat to survive and can live quite well as a vegetarian I can base my choice solely on what I think is right and wrong and don't have to think about what is better for me or not (a vegetarian can ruin his or her health with a terrible diet just as someone who eats meat can if they go to McDonalds all the time ).
I personally don't think it's right. Why should I be at least partly responsible for the sometimes terrible conditions in which some animals are kept, for the food industries abuse of drugs, unhealthy breeds, cruel transport and handling of animals if I can just not eat meat and so show that I don't think it's right to eat animals. Yeah, some animals are kept in good conditions, but most aren't I think. So do I eat fish because they can swim in wide ocean? Well, we all know that over fishing is a huge problem, so if I did eat fish I'd actually try and buy the farmed fish and not the ocean fish.
Plus, how would you feel if some highly advanced alien race found earth and though that they had the right to kill and eat us because of us being so much below their intelligence? Our lives might seem dumb and silly to them. Or a later race of super chickens eating you great, great, great, great.... grand children? Seriously - how do you justify it, when humans have the choice? Because I don't believe you can say just because they can't think like humans can is a good one, as mentioned above, that same rule could theoretically apply to humans too and justify the slaughter of humans.

[Geoff]

No dogs allowed (Rev 22:15)

[klewlis]

I personally don't think it's right. Why should I be at least partly responsible for the sometimes terrible conditions in which some animals are kept, for the food industries abuse of drugs, unhealthy breeds, cruel transport and handling of animals if I can just not eat meat and so show that I don't think it's right to eat animals. Yeah, some animals are kept in good conditions, but most aren't I think. So do I eat fish because they can swim in wide ocean? Well, we all know that over fishing is a huge problem, so if I did eat fish I'd actually try and buy the farmed fish and not the ocean fish.

But make sure to recognize the difference between saying "it's wrong to eat meat" and saying "some of the practices involved in the food industry are wrong". It's an important distinction. I don't condone abuse of animals, and yet I have absolutely no problem with eating them. But then, I grew up in a farming community and even today, in the city, I know exactly where all my meat comes from and how it is raised, since it is all local (and my grampa was a cattle farmer!).
I think there are better and more effective ways to address the abuses within the system than to avoid meat altogether. Plus it is just plain yummy and does give us lots of nutritional benefits that simply cannot be gotten any other way, no matter how they try to slice it. The day I give up pork roast for lentils and soy products will be a very sad day indeed.

Plus, how would you feel if some highly advanced alien race found earth and though that they had the right to kill and eat us because of us being so much below their intelligence? Our lives might seem dumb and silly to them. Or a later race of super chickens eating you great, great, great, great.... grand children? :wink: Seriously - how do you justify it, when humans have the choice? Because I don't believe you can say just because they can't think like humans can is a good one, as mentioned above, that same rule could theoretically apply to humans too and justify the slaughter of humans.

The difference is that we are sentient creatures. I do not eat other sentient creatures. :)

[Aurelia]

No dogs allowed (Rev 22:15)

I think it means people-dogs, get my gist? Why would God pick out an individual genus not to be allowed in heaven?

[Bert]

The difference is that we are sentient creatures. I do not eat other sentient creatures.

Maybe I misunderstand the way you use sentient (it is not a word that I use in a complete sentence very often ) but if you mean 'having feelings' than I think you ARE eating sentient creatures.

[Geoff]

Rev 22:15- Definitely People under consideration. - As to the other question, God didn't exclude one Genus, but only humans are portrayed as in posession of an eternal soul. Consequently only they are fitted for heaven. Animals may have feelings but lack the eternal soul essential for life beyond this one.

[klewlis]

The difference is that we are sentient creatures. I do not eat other sentient creatures. :)

Maybe I misunderstand the way you use sentient (it is not a word that I use in a complete sentence very often :) ) but if you mean 'having feelings' than I think you ARE eating sentient creatures.

no.... "sentient" as in having a higher intelligence which recognizes our own existence. although examination of the dictionary entries seems to indicate that i have been misusing the word. :( what i meant, in any case, was that humans realize that we exist and are able to look at the larger perspective of things--whereas animals run entirely on instinct. (both things could be argued, of course, but this is how i see it.)

[mingshey]

What kind of heaven is it if it has no animal? No bird in the forest to sing, no fish in the lake, no cat in the sunlight, no dog to lick your hands, etc? And what about the lions to feed on the straw?

[Bert]

What kind of heaven is it if it has no animal? No bird in the forest to sing, no fish in the lake, no cat in the sunlight, no dog to lick your hands, etc? And what about the lions to feed on the straw?

So far no one has argued that there will be no animals in heaven (or new heaven and earth) but the discussion had been whether or not animals that live or have lived go to heaven after they die.

[mingshey]

Yeah, now I notice it has been so, Bert.
But a God who can make the sons of Abraham out of stones would possibly pick a bunch of animae of animals and put them in the afterworld. Anyway the entrance to the heaven is not possible by the power of each creature, or man, but of God. -- Not that I believe the stuffs about heaven, but according to the consistency with the basic (loose)propositions of the discussion; a vague sort of Christian theology.

[nicomachos]

I've heard Emma's arguments a thousand times! And so I had enough time to think...
Well, your logic is paradoxical. The paradox is between loving animals and not eating them:
1. Let's assume animals are aloud to eat meat, to survive. We can't judge a species that acts for its own good. So we can't judge humans who eat meat. Or do we have less rights?
2. Or let's assume there is a superior moral, a moral of intelligence, beyond interests of species. Then we must treat animals well. But if moralality is above species, it means that it applies to animals too. They don't act morally, so they are horrible. What is lovable abot them?

PS Big watery eyes don't grant feelings!

[Emma_85]

I'm afraid I don't think your arguments make much sense .

Less rights? I don't think humans and animals have the same rights, that would be stupid. Then you'd have to say that both animals and humans have the right to live and that killing an animal is murder and must be punished like that. I hate mosquitoes - try and stop me killing one .
Animals don't choose, as I've already said, they've got to eat it to survive or even if they could get by without eating meat, they just can't think about it and decide that it is wrong, they act on instinct. Humans can choose if they want to eat meat or not. It's not actually necessarily in the interest of the human race that so much beef is being produced or generally that places like Mc Donalds exist, or am I totally wrong there?
Humans have the burden of having morals so, yes, animals have different rights. Where we humans have the right of being able to make decisions and decide for ourselves what we want to do, animals don't. So we can say that we have the right to live and we can also say that animals have rights too. That's the whole thing, we are the ones who can decide and make those choices. If you think it is morally ok to eat animals then you can. But just because animals don't act morally does not mean they are horrible, if means they don't have morals - you must be able to think on a high level and be able to make decisions in order to have morals.
We have morals and so we have no excuse not to use them. If we behave in an immoral way then it is their fault, because they could also act morally. So we do have less rights in that respect I suppose. We have morals and so we should bloody well use them .

[classicalclarinet]

It's not actually necessarily in the interest of the human race that so much beef is being produced or generally that places like Mc Donalds exist, or am I totally wrong there?

The global economy. It wouldn't kill off the human race, but think of all the jobs, money, and livelihoods that depend on beef, chicken, etc.

But I agree with you that it's not right for humans to kill animals out of choice, but it doesn't reflect so heavili on me that I find another food source.

I also watched Nova when they were explaining string theory. I was home alone sick with the flu and I watched this at 1 in the morning and I actually understood what they were talking about!

Invideo. amica meam!

[Yhevhe]

I do think that animals, and even vegetables, (and even rocks!) have souls... but that about heaven is more complicate, and depends exactly on what is heaven for you. I agree that those methods used in the 'food industry' are just plain wrong. An animals life is sacred, and should be treated with respect, not like if they were just a thing that grows and gives meat & milk. The problem of all this is based on the 'human' overpopulation. We are just invading territory, and taking the home of many species, and requiring more food, more space, generating more junk... Maybe we will have to start those population programs like in China and Japan...

Oops, I just got a little out of topic

[copain]

I do think that animals, and even vegetables, (and even rocks!) have souls...

I do not think that animals or even vegetables, (or even rocks!) have souls, yet not in a way we humans have - a thing which is given by a creator and is able to leave the body and will find it´s way to heaven. So the question if animals - from Earth - will go to heaven I would answer with no.
Beside the fact that I can not imagine a heaven without animals or plants !