Dogs have souls, but you already knew that

seattletimes ^ | May 16, 2009 | Electa Draper

[driftdiver]

“An animal cannot sin against God, having not eaten from the tree of knowledge, “

So I guess animals don’t have a soul. Were animals made in God’s image?

“Before man and his fall, God saw everything as good........”

So mountains have souls? Cause God created everything and said everything was good. Being good doesn’t get you into heaven.

[Nosterrex]

The whole creation is awaiting for the time of the sons of God to be revealed, humans are awaiting their adoption, the redemption of our bodies. There is absolutely nothing in Romans 8 that talks about the redemption of animals and plants, and they sure has heck are not waiting to be adopted as sons of God. Again, my friend, you are engaging in eisgesis. You are trying to read into these passages things which just are not there.

It is worth noting that you agree that nowhere in Scripture does it state that animals or rocks have souls and will be resurrected on the last day. You try to appeal to an argument of silence which is the weakest argument of all. It would be like me saying that Jesus had six toes since the Scriptures do not say he had five toes.

If there are not specific and clear verses stating that animals and plants have souls (by the way, this is what the article is about), then all that is left are mere opinions, speculations, and imaginations. I do not know of anyone at any time in the history of the Church that has ever interpreted the verses that you cite as denoting that animals and inanimate objects have souls or will be resurrected.

Only the pagans had such belief in animal spirits and afterlife, such as the cat mummies that you find in Egyptian museums. I can find nowhere in either the Hebrew writings or the new Testament (biblical and extra-biblical) that the church held such beliefs, in fact they ridiculed these pagan mythologies and the worship of cats and dogs.

[driftdiver]

“Everything has a soul.We have an everlasting soul.”

Rocks have souls?

Clinton has a soul?

[RegulatorCountry]

I do not know of anyone at any time in the history of the Church that has ever interpreted the verses that you cite as denoting that animals and inanimate objects have souls or will be resurrected.

I've never claimed that plants and inanimate objects have souls. I have stated that our physical senses do not perceive all there is to God's Creation, and that the wonder of that Creation is much more than our ability to ever comprehend in the flesh.

As far as interpretations, you might want to look at Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Wesley and Matthew Henry, for starters.

[goat granny]

You have your beliefs and I have mine...We will only know which one is right after we’re dead...But a word of caution, as Jesus said everyone that says Lord Lord will not enter the kingdom..Some who think they should be in the kingdom, will be left outside...Not my words but Jesus word..Others will be surprised and told to enter...I haven’t got the slightest idea where I will be. Glad your so sure....

[driftdiver]

“.I haven’t got the slightest idea where I will be. Glad your so sure....”

I’m only sure because I’ve read the book and have done what it told me to do. Confess you’re a sinner, believe Jesus is the son of God and that he died for your sins, and accept Jesus as your savior.

Its right there in the book.

[Nosterrex]

The article was about dogs having souls. (I do have a good knowledge of Martin Luther's writings.) It seems that we have been talking past each other. If your point is that inanimate objects or creation itself worships God according to their nature, I do not disagree with you. Brunner discussed this in his book, which I read many years ago.

This discussion was about whether dogs had souls and not whether creation itself worships its Creator in some mysterious way. At least for me, they are two different topics.

[goat granny]

OK

[RegulatorCountry]

Living creatures with the breath of life have hope of life eternal. Revisit your Concordance and consider the meaning of nephesh, nephesh chayyah, and ruach. Note where these words are used, and in relation to which creature. If you can do so and come away with the impression that man alone among creatures with the breath of life is a triune being, you're not reading what I'm reading.

Dogs do have souls. They have a place alongside us in heaven as part of our household, though, regardless of how fine a point you put upon the intended meaning of nephesh, nephesh chayyah, and ruach. But, that is a debate for another day.

[Nosterrex]

I read Hebrew and Greek, so I usually consult OT and NT word studies, such as Kittel. . Nephesh can simply mean breathe or soul, and it can even mean throat. God is the Creator of all living things, they have biological existence (nephesh). Ruah can mean breathe, wind, spirit, etc. Looking in a concordance is not helpful. It is the difference between diachronic and synchronic meanings of words. As in all things, context is king.
The Hebrews were not pet or animal lovers in the sense that many of us are about our pets. They certainly thought that dogs were an abomination. Many kinds of animals were considered unclean. Even shepherds and sheep were thought to be unclean and the bottom of the social ladder. They definitely did not think of animals as having souls or consciences. As far as they were concerned, animals were nothing more than beasts to be eaten, worked, or destroyed. It is in this wider context (Sitz im Leben) that the idea of animals having human souls or eternal life would be most odd. I can find nothing in the OT that would indicate that animals were redeemed by the Lord.

There is an old saying that he who asserts must prove. I do not know of anything in Scripture that supports the view that animals have souls, in this case “dogs.” The idea for a Hebrew that dogs had souls would be horrific to say the least.

[fatima]

Posting. On. A. storm .every living thing has a soul.

[fatima]

Ps. Know your teasing.

[xsmommy]

People can be as pro-life as they come [ME for example] and still bristle at someone categorically stating something so cavalierly that simply CANNOT be known, and with which they vehemently disagree. Stating your belief simply as your opinion, which is all that it is, would not have ruffled nearly as many feathers. But i think you knew that.

[driftdiver]

“every living thing has a soul.”

I disagree, people have souls. Animals and plants do not.

[ought-six]

“As a pet lover, I can understand why some people believe that dogs and cats have souls. Sorry, friends, but they do not.”

And you know this how?

[Nosterrex]

How do you know that they do? I base this upon two epistemological sources: Scripture and nature. If you look at my discussion with another poster on this subject, you can see my reasoning. I will, however, give my reasons again if that is helpful. I am willing to share my source of knowledge with you, and I would be interested to know on what basis you came to your views.

[andy58-in-nh]

Thanks for the bump, if only to correct my original post for spelling (I must have been a bit weary that day...):

Anyone who has loved a dog and received their affection and trust in return knows intrinsically that there is something behind their eyes more than simple instinct.

[RegulatorCountry]

Reading Hebrew and looking to understand Hebrew cultural attitudes as you do, then, you should be familiar with the concept of the levels of soul represented by these terms. Translation in context is, as you note, oftentimes difficult between languages, having to deal with differing conceptual notions contained within words, and with Hebrew in particular, having levels of meaning, meaning attached to each character and numeric symbolism with specific meaning, as it does. I will say that a given instance of, for instance, nephesh or ruach most definitely does have an implication insofar as our concept of soul, as far as a particular, referenced creature is concerned, regardless of conceptual difficulties between Hebrew/Aramaic and English. Such instances as these are why a good concordance is very helpful in ascertaining deeper meaning, or resolving apparent misunderstanding, at least for those who do not read Hebrew (or Greek) as you, yourself do.

That said, I'm surprised that you would not know that the Hebrews regarded all living creatures with the breath of life as possessing (being, really) a soul. Different levels, yes, but true nonetheless. So, your contention that the idea for a Hebrew, that dogs had souls would be horrific, is not correct.

Regarding Hebrew attitudes toward the "lesser" creatures, I'll point out that the righteous man regards the life of (is merciful to) his beast (Proverbs 12:10), and also the tale from II Samuel of King David being outraged at the taking and killing of a sheep being kept basically as a pet. Going into the fulfillment of Judaism represented by the Messiah, Jesus Christ, there is not one inkling of revulsion, in fact shepherds featured prominently, and He was born among farm animals, who were apparently quite reverential.

I've taken the liberty of going back through your posting history, and you're Lutheran, so of course you'd have more than a passing familiarity with the writings of Martin Luther. How do you rationalize Luther believing as he did, and your beliefs to the contrary, regarding the topic of this thread? Protestant thought, by and large and such as it is, does not reject this concept at all, as demonstrated by not just Luther, but Calvin, Wesley, Henry and others. They found the "proof" that you request in the very passages I've provided.

So, right back at you, he who asserts must prove. How can an animal be present on the new Earth, glorified, as all these prominent Protestants believed, without a soul?

[fanfan]

LOL, I knew what you meant.

[ought-six]

“I will, however, give my reasons again if that is helpful. I am willing to share my source of knowledge with you, and I would be interested to know on what basis you came to your views.”

And my views on the subject are just what, may I ask? I never stated them. I only asked you upon what you based your steadfast conclusion that dogs DO NOT have souls. You seemed pretty sure of yourself.