Do Animals Have Souls?

by Cold Steel 165 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  LisaRose

  I like to think that animals have souls. I have had some animals in my life who were very dear to me, and had personalities, and good hearts, it seems to me if humans have a soul, they do also. I also had a nasty, revenge pooping sociopathic cat that I am pretty sure will go to hell if there is one.

  If these guys didn't have a soul, I don't know what a soul is.

  Allie - Husky, Shepard, lab mix, 100 lbs, a gentle and good dog, very devoted, died at 14, still mis her

  Cleo, black and white tuxedo cat, 5 lbs, dainty, sweet, but an amazing jumper and a fierce hunter, died at 17

  Lizzie, adopted last year from the shelter, tortoise shell dilute, smartest cat I've ever known, crazy too.
• 

  cofty

  I didn't realise Mormons made JWs sound rational.

  By the way everything we normally think of as animals are nothing compared to the billions of bacteria that were doing their thing long before anything with a cute face first made an appearance.

  Cyanobacteria - the discoverers of photosyntheis - were splitting water into oxygen and hydrogen over 3 thousand million years ago. When we work out how its done we will solve the world's energy problem forever.
• 

  Bobcat

  Cold Steel:

  I know most Jehovah's Witnesses believe in the soul sleeping doctrine. By this, given that neither man nor beast has a spirit, but that they do possess souls (or "intelligences" unique to themselves).

  AMG's Word Study Dictionary OT defines "soul" (Hebrew nepes, Strong's # 5315) this way:

  A feminine noun meaning breath, the inner being with its thoughts and emotions. It is used 753 times in the OT and has a broad range of meanings. Most of its uses fall into these cartagories: breath, literally or figuratively (Jer. 15:9); the inner being with its thoughts and emotions (Judg. 10:16; Prov 14:10; Ezek 25:6); and by extension, the whole person (Gen. 12:5; Lev 4:2; Ezek 18:4). Moreover, the term can cover the animating force of a person or his or her dead body (Lev. 21:11; Num. 6:6; Jer. 2:34). It is even applied to animals in a number of the above senses: the breath (Job 41:21[13]); the inner being (Jer. 2:24); the whole creature (Gen. 1:20); and the animating force (Lev. 17:11). When this word is applied to a person, it doesn't refer to a specific part of a human being. The Scriptures view a person as a composite whole, fully relating to God and not divided in any way (Deut. 6:5; cf. 1 Thess. 5:23).

  I think this is basically how the Society defines the term "soul" also. In fact, the NWT is fairly scrupulous about rendering the term always as "soul," even if they have to add additional to it. (Compare Prov. 23:2 NWT)

  All the "intelligence" that a man or animal has is electro-chemical (or possibly even operating at the quantum level, as some suggest). And thus, when they die, all that they were dies with them. The only thing left of them is the memories that others hold of them.

  If you are interested, you ought to watch the PBS program "The Fabric of the Universe." In it, Bryan Green pointed out that if you could know the complete quantum state of a person, you could take a similar amount of quantum material and restore that person by setting the quantum state of the material to what it was, assuming, of course, that you had the memory and ability to manipulate material at the quantum level. This idea involves the theory of 'quantum entanglement' and is related to the idea of 'transporting' on the Star Trek series. In theory, if you did this, the person would be back alive in the exact same state, same memories and abilities, as they were at the time the 'snapshot' of them was taken. Mr. Green wasn't discussing resurrection, but when I saw this, I could see where the idea could easily be used for this by someone who had the ability to manipulate things at that level.

  But the question of restoring previously living animals revolves around whether God intends to do that or not. From a mechanical standpoint, it would be theoretically possible, just as it would be for any human.

  I can think of texts that show that by means of Christ the animal kingdom is going to be brought back into its original state (cf. Romans 8:18-23; see my post # 285 here). But I can't think of any that would suggest that specific animals would be brought back to life. That would be neat though. I can think of some dogs we've had that had fascinating personalities.

  Take Care
• 

  moggy lover

  You're right. Your question cannot be answered definitively, at least not at this time and in our current state of understanding. The limits of human wisdom preclude the making of any categorical statement one way or other. We are left but to speculate, wonder, and believe. But belief itself is a product of having faith, which itself is defined as "being certain of that which we cannot see". [Heb 11:1 NIV]

  We must therefore depend, if we want to have faith, on revelation. If you are oriented to Christianity, the source of that revelation is the Bible. Evidently however the Bible does not want us to know things which we cannot see, because if we knew for certain it would by logic cancel out the need for faith.

  The Bible , is either deliberately or otherwise, too vague, or ambiguous, or even subject to a myriad different interpretive conclusions, that one will find onself miserably locked into a maze of conflicting values if one ponders a question such as this. The two parts of the Bible are already locked into their own separate theolgcal matrix and the condition of animal life is left unstated. The OT is concerned about the relationship of the nation of Israel and its descendants to their God Yahweh, while the NT deals with the issue of sin and reconcilliation back to God through the blood of Christ. No mention of Tabby or Trigger anywhere in either hemisphere of the Bible.

  But there are tantalizing clues. For instance we know that animals are CALLED souls, but do they also HAVE souls? Dunno. However there is a text at Prov 12:10, where Freddy Franz translated the NWT to read:

  "The righteous man is caring for the soul OF his domestic animal"

  The genetive here evidently indicates possession, so that the "of" implies that domestic beasts, at least, appear to HAVE a soul. However, as I said, this is a minefield of interpretive impulses and is subject to endless debate.

  Does "soul" here mean "life" only? According to the NASV Bible the answer is Yes. Can the word "soul" here [Hebrew "Nephesh"] simply mean the physical needs of the animal? According to the NIV, the answer is Yes. [The righteous man tends to the NEEDS of his animal - NIV]

  And so on.

  What then do we believe? That is what the root of our humanity is, and not what we know or want to know. Personally, as a dyed-in-the-wool Baptist, I believe that only domestic pets who are smarter than their owners will live with them forever in the eventual heavenly Paradise.

  Which means that Moogy my cat is a shoo in. She's so smart that she has mastered the "fetch" command. When she wants something she gets me to fetch it.
• 

  tec

  Just need to speak on this one point from above. I do not mean any disrespect at all, truly.

  We must therefore depend, if we want to have faith, on revelation.

  Faith is what allows us to hear the voice of our Lord, and receive revelation.

  If you are oriented to Christianity, the source of that revelation is the Bible.

  Some revelations are written down in the bible. But the bible is not the source... Christ is the source of revelation for a Christian. In spirit.

  John's revelation is written in the bible, but it was received in spirit, from Christ.

  Those who belong to and have faith in Christ hear Him still, today, same as those who had faith and belonged to Him did, then. Many religions just do not teach this, and some teach against it.

  Evidently however the Bible does not want us to know things which we cannot see, because if we knew for certain it would by logic cancel out the need for faith.

  If faith is being assured of what we do not see... then faith is knowing for certain. One does not necessarily have to SEE something, to know that it is true.

  Then, once you know for certain... you still exercise faith in the things that One your faith is IN, tells you. By believing what you are told, and acting upon what you are told. Hearing, believing, doing.

  I know that when I asked about animals having a spirit, then my Lord reminded me of what I posted on the first page of this thread.

  Personally I believe that only domestic pets who are smarter than their owners will live with them forever in the eventual heavenly Paradise.

  Which means that Moogy my cat is a shoo in. She's so smart that she has mastered the "fetch" command. When she wants something she gets me to fetch it.

  This is cute ; )

  And perhaps not so far off at all. For some, their animals are a part of their family, their 'house'. As well, during the plagues in Egypt, none of the livestock of the Israelites were harmed... belonging to those who belonged to God. Perhaps like a physical example of the spiritual things to come.

  (Unlike what the wts teaches, God does not save one member of a household, and condemn the rest that one's loved ones and family; I mean, who could look forward to that or ever be happy about it? The 'house' is saved. The blood of the lamb over the door saved everyone in the house.)

  Just some things to ponder.

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  moggy lover

  Hi Tammy, no disrespect was taken, truly.

  I understand what you're on about, but remember you are writing from a different perspective from what I was intending. You are writing from a position of Christian certitude, based on theological verities, which is a point of view that I share. But I was attempting to reach others who do not perhaps have this certainty.

  Remember to most people on forums such as this, concepts such as "hearing the voice of the Lord" are alien, and are seen as tending to dogmatism rather than on a rationalism that is dependent of other points of view. If you were writing for your own Church paper the above is what you would write, but in an open forum where different views are openly expressed, you need, while holding to "the pattern of sound teaching", a differrent approach.

  Of course a Christian DOES know for certain. But this is predicated on an assumption that all Christians make. That Christ IS the source of Truth, indeed He is truth. But how do you reach someone who does not make such an assumption in the first place? Remember this is not a forum for theology or for pressing a particular point of doctrinal persuasion, so we cannot assume Christian verities to be universally accepted.

  My point of course was that of impirical knowledge. A knowledge that is verifiable from impirical, or physical evidence.

  We know for instance, that a corpse is dead. By physical evidence we can discover the cause of death, the time of death, and we can garner a basic degree of knowledge about the lifestyle of the person while alive. These are truths that are verifiable, and confirmed by the evidence that is without bias, available to all.

  But where is that person now? What happened to him at the moment of death?

  You may believe that you know for certain, because the "Lord told you". But that is not impirically verifiable. It is a revelation, and you must first assume that that revelation is True, which is an assumption others won't make.

  So, whether or not animals have souls, cannot be known by impirical knowledge. It can only come from revelation. But what revelation? Buddhist revelation suggets that they do, as does Hindu revelation. My point was that the biblical revelation is unclear, and for complete verifiable proof, we will have to await the time when, in glory, we will be told.
• 

  cofty

  Faith is what allows us to hear the voice of our Lord, and receive revelation - Tammy

  Translation....

  By making a virtue out of believing things for which there is no evidence we can assert that our inner conversation is a message from an omnipotent deity - even though she never says anything even remotely interesting let alone useful or even original. We can then indulge in the ultimate hubris of claiming knowlede of divine origin thus eliminating the need to show that our assertions are rational.
• 

  JamesThomas

  Perhaps a more pertinent question is : do humans have a soul?

  If a “soul” is a word pointing to a foundational connection and caring for all life (and if it is not this, then what good is it), then when I look around me and see what humanity has done to humanity and planet, I would say: it is clear that humans have no soul.

  Who are we to question other animals?
• 

  cofty

  James - Humans are doing more to feed and heal and improve the lot of other humans than in any other time in history.
• 

  JamesThomas

  Tell that to the elephants.