Animals, a soul, and free will (Jesus, moral, Creator, Earth)

[Ardhanariswar]

"How can you say this? I have seen the sense of right or wrong within my bird and my dog. Moreso in my bird, who has felt GUILT. Why is it that you can presume to know how and why a being does something? Sure, maybe insects and other "dumb" non-humans act one instinct, but certainly, the "higher" forms do not. It is terribly anthropocentric to believe so.
"

sorry, but they act because they are taught to. if the cat scratches on my couch, and i scold the cat and spank it off the couch the cat thinks, 'oh, okay, whatever'. the next day, when the cat goes to the same couch again, he puts together the action of scratching it and me spanking him, which is a no no. so he walks away onto another couch or perhaps not at all.

its thier instinct. they do not have a sense of, 'oh, maybe i should apologize for scratching his couch'. a smart cat might cuddle around with me in order to feel better. but animals dont have that sense of right or wrong.

i still respect animals and i enjoy them. they have emotions and feelings too! i also believe that animals have souls. but they dont have free will. well, they do, to a certain degree.

[Druidus]

Listen, Darwin, my parrot, has felt guilt on her own part.

I keep her treats away from her, and she knows that I don't geive her more then one. On occasions when I have allowed her to pick her own treat from the bag, she may have tried to take more then one, but I would take it back, and tell her that she wasn't supposed to do that.

One day, I noticed that I had left the treat bag open, and I decided to watch her, without her knowing. She crawled along her cage, hopped onto a shelf, walked along and jumped to the bookcase where the treats were. She picked two out, went pack to her cage, and placed them on the floor of the cage. She did until she had about a dozen treats. She ate one then. Then she started wandering around the top of her cage, and she appeared very angry. She threw her ball across the room, and ripped a peice of her climbing rope off. Finally, she began a long pilgrimage, and brought nearly all of the treats back to the bag. She kept one, and ate it, (I guess she felt that it was unjust for me to only give her one). She did not know I was there.

sorry, but they act because they are taught to. if the cat scratches on my couch, and i scold the cat and spank it off the couch the cat thinks, 'oh, okay, whatever'. the next day, when the cat goes to the same couch again, he puts together the action of scratching it and me spanking him, which is a no no. so he walks away onto another couch or perhaps not at all.

If a human child is not taught right and wrong, or is taught the opposite of right and wrong, she doesn't have a sense of morals then, now does she.

Chimpanzee's know what is right and wrong (for them, they don't nescessarily follow our morals). They know that to murder another chimp is wrong, and so they don't (unless there is a particularily homocidal chimp around).

[Ardhanariswar]

"If a human child is not taught right and wrong, or is taught the opposite of right and wrong, she doesn't have a sense of morals then, now does she."

a child is taught morality according to society. this changes and begins to form his/her own conscience. morality is subjective, only according to the view of the person. i might believe that gay marriage is okay, christian fundamentalists might not agree.

" Finally, she began a long pilgrimage, and brought nearly all of the treats back to the bag. She kept one, and ate it, (I guess she felt that it was unjust for me to only give her one). She did not know I was there."

She feels guilt for not listening to you and taking more than one. But is it moral to not take more than one? morality has nothing to do with taking more treats than you are supposed to.

perhaps if the parrot killed some rodent (i dont know what it eats! sorry!) and ate it, i dont think it thinks that it was wrong. But if you scolded her and made her not kill the rodent and she did kill it, she would definitly feel guilt. not because it was immoral, because she betrayed you.

[Druidus]

Similarily, if a human kills a rodent, such as a rabbit, for food, we don't scold that hunter and put him in jail, do we? However, if he was brought up not to kill rodents, he would feel guilt when he did so. Of course children will shape their own morals, to an extent. A major part of your morals is your upbringing. We shape our own morals to the extent we can, because of our intelligence. Likewise, the intelligence that many non-humans hold allows them to shape their morals as well.

[Ardhanariswar]

hmm. i guess. yet animals dont have the moral depth we have. they dont keep debate forums ^-^

[precept]

The idea of humans as containing a soul is a teaching of Justin, the pagan phlosopher turned Christian. Justin converted to an impure form of Christianity that existed on or about 160AD. And in his dialogue with Trypho, the Jew, this teaching of the existence of the soul, that part of the human being that communicates with God and can never die-the part of the human that discovers the ultimate experience-God.

In Justin's dialogue with Trypho:

Trypho.......".......How then, 'he said, ' should the philosphers judge correctly about God, or speak any truth, when they have no knowledge of Him, having neither seen Him at any time, nor heard Him?'

Justin: "But, father, said I, ' the Deity cannot be seen merely by the eyes, as other living beings can, but is discernible to the mind alone, as Plato says; and I believe him.'

Trypho: "' Is there then, 'says he' 'such and so great power in our mind? Or can a man not perceive by sense sooner? Will the mind of man see god at any time, if it is uninstructed by the Holy Spirit?'

Justin: "' Plato indeed says, 'replied I, ' that the mind's eye is of such nature, and has been given for this end, that we may see that very Being when the mind is pure itself, who is the cause of al discerned by the mind, having no colour, no form, no greatness-nothing, indeed, which the bodily eye looks upon; but it is something of this sort, he goes on to say, that is beyond all essence, unutterable and inexplicable, but alone honourable aaaand good, coming ssuddenly into "souls" well-dispositioned, on account of their affinity to and desire of seeing Him.'

Trypho: "'What "affinity", then, 'replied he, ' is there between us and God? Is the "soul" also divine and immortal, aand a part of that very regal mind? And even as 'that' sees God, so also is it attainable by us to conceive of the Deity inour mind, and thence to become happy?'

Justin: "'Assuredly, 'I said.

Trypho: "' And do all the "souls" od all living beings "comprehend Him"? 'he asked; 'or are the "souls of men of one kind aand the "souls" of horses and of asses of another kind?'

Justin: "'No; but the "souls" which are in all are similar, 'I answewred.

Trypho: "'Then says he, ' shall both horses aand asses see, or have seen at some time or other, God?'

Justin: "'No; 'I said; 'for the majority of men will not, saving such as shall live justly, purified by righteousness, and by every other virtue.'.......Trypho continues hios questioning of Justin re the "soul"....."Tell me, however" he continues: "Does the "soul" see God so long as it is in the body, or after it has been removed from it?'

Justin: "'So long as it is in the form of a man, it is possible for it, "I continue, ' to attain to this bymeansof the mind; but especially when it has been set free from the body,and being apart by itself, it gets posession of that which it was wont continually and wholly to love.'

Trypho: "' Does it remember this, then [the sight of God], when it is again in the man?'

Justin: "'It does not appear to me so, 'I said.

Trypho: "' What, then, is the advantage to those who have seen God? or what has he who has seen more than he who has not seen, unless he remember this fact, that he has seen?'

Justin: "' Icannot tell, 'I aanswered.

Trypho: "'And what do those suffer who are judged to be unworthy of this spectacle? 'said he.

Justin: "'They are imprisoned in the bodies of certain wild beasts, aand this is their punishment.'

Trypho: "'Do they know, then, that it is for this reason they are in such forms, and that they have committed some sin?'

Justin: "'I don't think so.'

Trypho: "' Then these reap np advantage from their punishment, as it seems: moreover, I would say that they are not punished unless they are concious of their punishment.'

Justin: "'No indeed.'

Trypho: "'Therefore "souls" neither see God nor transmigrate into other bodies; for they would know that so they are punished, aand they would be afasid to commit even the most trivial sin afterwards. But that they can perceive that God exists, aand that rightousness and piety are honourable, I also agree wwith you, 'said he.

Justin: "'you are right, 'I replied.'

Trypho: "'These philosophers know nothing, then,. about these things; for they cannot tell what a "soul" is.'

Justin: "' It does appear so.'

Trypho: "' Nor ought it to be called "immortal"; forif it is immmortal, it is plainly unbegotten.'

Justin "' It is both unbegotten and immortal, according TO SOME WHO ARE STYLED Platonists.'


Trypho:"'........But if the world is begotten, "souls" also are necessarily begotten; and perhaps at one time they were not in existence, for they were made on account of men and other living creatures, if you will saythat they have been begotten wholly apart, and not along with their respective bodies.'

Justin: "'This seems to be correct'.

Trypho: "They are not, then, immortal?'

Justin "'No; since the world has appeared to us to be begotten.'

Trypho contiues his quetioning of Justin re the "soul"...."'But I do not say indeed that all souls die; for that were truly a piece of good fortune to the evil. What then? The souls of the pious remain in a better place, while those of the unjust aand wicked are in a worse, waiting for the time of judgement. Thus some which have appeared worthy of God never die; but othewrs are punished so oong as God wills to exist and to be punished.'

Justin: "' Is what you say then of a like nature with that which Plato i Timoeus hints abou the world, when he says that it is indeed subject to decay, in as much as it has been created, .......does it seem to you the very same can be said of the "soul", and generally all things......For this reason "souls" both die and are punished: since, if they were unbegotten, they would neither sin, nor be filled with folly, nor cowardly, and again ferocious; nor would they willingly transform into swine, and serpents and dogs and it would not indeed be just to compel them, if they be unbegotten....but after letting the mind ever wander to infinity, you would at length, wearied out, take your stand on one unbegotten, and say that this is the Cause of all. Did such escape the observation of Plato and Pythagoras, those wise mwn, 'I said, 'who have been as a wall and fortress of philosophy to us?'

Trypho: "'It makes no matter to me, 'said he,' whether Plato or Pythagoras, or, in short, any other man held such opinions. For the truth is so; and you would perceive it from this. The "soul" assuredlly is or has life. If, then, it is life, it would cause something else, and not itself, to live, even as motion would move something else than itself. Now, THAT THE SOUL LIVES, no one would deny. But if it lives, it lives not as being life, but as the partaker of life; but that which partakes of anything, is different form that of which it does partake. Now the soul partakes of life, since God wills it to live. Thus, then, it will not even partake of life when God does not will it to live. For to live is not its attribute, as it is God's; but as a man does not live always, and the soul is not forever conjoined with the body, since, whenever this harmony must be broken up, the soul leaves the body, aand the man exists no longer ; even so whenever the soul must cease to exist, the spirit of life is removed from it, and there is no more "soul", but it goes back to the place from whence it was taken.'

The doctrine of the existence of the "soul" is unblibical. This is a pagan philosopher's "spin" on his view of a mind entity aka "soul" and made up entirely on the basis of other pagan philosophers' belief in such an entity as existing in the form of a "soul".


precept

[huajiro]

Originally Posted by pah

In Genesis, God created the animals, The questions I’d like discussed is whether this biblical God embodied the animals with souls and if free will was given, in the same period, to the animals. And finally, is sin, as spoken of in the Bible, attributable to animals if they do not have a soul and/or free will?

-pah-

I am sorry, I don't agree that animals do not have a soul. Anyone that has had a pet knows that they are not just objects, some of them have personalities just as us, they reason, and as far as free will, try to hold on to your dog when he gets near a female in heat, it is very clear what his wish is

[Druidus]

The idea of humans as containing a soul is a teaching of Justin, the pagan phlosopher turned Christian. Justin converted to an impure form of Christianity that existed on or about 160AD. And in his dialogue with Trypho, the Jew, this teaching of the existence of the soul, that part of the human being that communicates with God and can never die-the part of the human that discovers the ultimate experience-God.

Actually, it's written in the bible. That leads me to believe it wasn't just him.

The doctrine of the existence of the "soul" is unblibical. This is a pagan philosopher's "spin" on his view of a mind entity aka "soul" and made up entirely on the basis of other pagan philosophers' belief in such an entity as existing in the form of a "soul".

What is the bible's base? The philosophy of others. Any belief is just a philosophy, and is descended from previous ones.

[precept]

Originally Posted by Druidus

Actually, it's written in the bible. That leads me to believe it wasn't just him.
What is the bible's base? The philosophy of others. Any belief is just a philosophy, and is descended from previous ones.

The bible refers to the soul in this context:

"The soul that sinneth it shall die." Ezekiel 18:20

"Man became a living soul." Genesis 2:7

"The first man, Adam was made a living soul." 1 Corinthians 15:45

Justn- the pagan philosopher turned Christian's soul:::

"cannot die"

Juatin's "souls" leave the body of the living humans rendevous with god and returns to the living body. It is from Justin's teaching that the "doctrine of the soul" originated in false Christianity...."the souls allowed to rendevous with god must be righteous....unrighteous souls are condemned to the bodies of "ferocious beasts".

Prior to Justin, Christian teaching had living Christians being "caught up together" with the resurrected dead Christians to be with the returning Jesus.- The dead Chritians' bodies were destroyed by worms; and did not see God till they were again in the flesh like their living fellow saints..... "And though worms destroy this body; yet in my flesh shall I see God." Job 19:26

....And if a living human is itself a "soul" then so is a living animal; it also is itself a "soul". And the only similarity between the two is that they were created as living animals, breathing in the same oxygen and made by One God to so live.


precept

[Druidus]

And God said, "Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for food. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is a living soul, I have given every green herb for food: and it was so." ~God, Genesis 1:29-30

Genesis 12:13 Say, I pray thee, thou art my sister: that it may be well with me for thy sake; and my soul shall live because of thee.

Genesis 27:4 And make me savoury meat, such as I love, and bring it to me, that I may eat; that my soul may bless thee before I die.

Genesis 34:3 And his soul clave unto Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the damsel, and spake kindly unto the damsel.

Genesis 35:18 And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died) that she called his name Benoni: but his father called him Benjamin.

That looks like soul to me. How about you? There were numerous more, but I decided to leave it at that. The last one is rather convincing.