Can Animals be Guilty of Sin?

[MCH1]

How would you define ‘rationality’?

The ability to think and reason.

 

[MCH1]

A human being alone can ponder his/her own existence.

We do not know if animals can.

Human beings alone are self aware.

Several species of mammals are indeed self aware.

Human beings alone can say “I am”. No other creature has that appreciation and ability to consider it’s own existence

We have no proof for or against that.

Human beings are wired to seek something outside our own small passions and instincts. And to the degree we pursue that search, we are fully human. To the degree we live in our base passions and instincts for their own sake, we are less human.

Quite true.

 

[tweedlealice]

Blessings
God, for some reason calls for blood sacrifices. He knows I have a problem w that. He’s Omniscient. Any way, Animals do not have souls. As an animal lover, what can I say…
A soul has intellect and free will. Animals can be taught things. But there is no self control. RE: a animal in heat. Dogs making love to our legs. Eating cat crap, paper towels… some trainable. But an animal in heat…
So, a dog can’t sin.
The bull is a sacrifice. Or doves, etc.
Later, God was fed up w us trying to get over on him. Bringing blind & lame animals.
God said, YOUR TRADITIONS AND HOLOCOSTS ARE AN ABOMINATION TO ME, WHAT I WANT IS A CIRCUMCISION OF YOUR HEART. I love that.
Blood is a symbol of life.
In Christ’s Love
Tweedlealice

 

[MCH1]

Animals do not have souls.

Animal indeed have souls!

 

[JamalChristophr]

Chihuahuas are wicked sinners!

---

Not all, mind you, but there have been some very bad ones in world history.

 

[Gorgias]

tweedlealice:

Animals do not have souls.

Animal indeed have souls!

Not immortal souls, though. That’s the distinction. Inasmuch as the ‘soul’ is the substantial form of the material body, animals (and plants) have souls. However, they’re tied to the physical existence, and do not survive the death of the being.

Human souls, on the other hand, are immortal.

Gorgias:

How would you define ‘rationality’?

The ability to think and reason.

Do you know that animals ‘reason’? How can you distinguish that from ‘react’ or ‘interact with their environment’?

 

[MCH1]

Not immortal souls, though. That’s the distinction. Inasmuch as the ‘soul’ is the substantial form of the material body, animals (and plants) have souls. However, they’re tied to the physical existence, and do not survive the death of the being.

What is your proof to that? God loves all his creatures, He will care for them after they die. I know for certain that my pets that have passed away are with God. Why would God give some of His creatures immortal souls and other not?

Do you know that animals ‘reason’? How can you distinguish that from ‘react’ or ‘interact with their environment’?

If animals only react, them the same can be said of humans.

 

[tweedlealice]

Bl sings,
It’s not my idea. It’s what our church teaches. I’m just putting out what I was taught.
Personally, I want my animals in heaven w me. OR an animal heaven w a rainbow bridge.
You can fight it all you want, but I see the INSTINCT vs INTELLIGENCE.
It’s their instinct to please us.
We’ll find out one day…
Don’t be mad at me.
In Christ’s love
Tweedlealice

P.S. I fudged and taught kids about the rainbow bridge and animal heaven.
I know how you feel.

 

[MCH1]

You are right, we will find out someone day. My reasoning has lead me to believe that animals will be in heaven, but I understand that other may think differently. All’s good.

 

[tweedlealice]

I understand. It saddens me. I had an acquaintance of a psychic. I just knew him.
I asked the question,” Where do animals go?”
His view point was that they are a gift to us for our pleasure. YEP! When they die, their spirits exist near us. As long as we speak of them and remember, their spirit exists. When we cease remembering… they dispersed into nothingness.
I have a pet cemetery in and around my house. I wonder how that counts.
All we can do is love them and appreciate the gift.
In Christ’s Love
Tweedlealice

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Not immortal souls, though. That’s the distinction. Inasmuch as the ‘soul’ is the substantial form of the material body, animals (and plants) have souls. However, they’re tied to the physical existence, and do not survive the death of the being.

What is your proof to that?

The Bible.

Only humans were created in the “image and likeness of God”. God isn’t physical, so that description cannot mean anything about our physical bodies. Therefore, it must refer to our souls. Only humans have souls that, like God, are immortal.

God loves all his creatures, He will care for them after they die. I know for certain that my pets that have passed away are with God.

If you say so.

Why would God give some of His creatures immortal souls and other not?

Because that wasn’t His purpose for creating them, perhaps?

If animals only react, them the same can be said of humans.

Right… so, we’re back to that notion: if you’re a behavioralist, then all you look at is the external actions, and therefore, you draw correspondences between human behavior and the behavior of other animals.

 

[MCH1]

Only humans were created in the “image and likeness of God”. God isn’t physical, so that description cannot mean anything about our physical bodies. Therefore, it must refer to our souls. Only humans have souls that, like God, are immortal.

I always thought it meant physical as well as spiritual likeness
"Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness”

Even if it does mean spiritual likeness only, that could merely mean that we have an intellect higher than that of animals, one closer to God’s.

Because that wasn’t His purpose for creating them, perhaps?

We can’t say for certain. Jesus said: “Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life? And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. …

This to me seems to say that God loves and cares about all His creations.

Right… so, we’re back to that notion: if you’re a behavioralist, then all you look at is the external actions, and therefore, you draw correspondences between human behavior and the behavior of other animals.

I think that if Humans are rational, and animals can reason like humans, then animals are also rational

 

[Gorgias]

I always thought it meant physical as well as spiritual likeness

"Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness”

Does God the Father have physical extension? If not, then ‘likeness’ can’t apply to physical nature…

Even if it does mean spiritual likeness only, that could merely mean that we have an intellect higher than that of animals, one closer to God’s.

IIRC, Aquinas would assert that ‘intellect’ is a characteristic of the human soul only. So… from a philosophical perspective, we wouldn’t hold that animals have ‘intellect’, per se.

This to me seems to say that God loves and cares about all His creations.

Yes, God does care about all the creatures He created! However, that doesn’t support the position that they have immortal souls.

I think that if Humans are rational, and animals can reason like humans, then animals are also rational

OK… we’re back to that assertion, then: do you know that “animals can reason like humans”? If not, then you can’t make the claim for rationality!

 

[MCH1]

Does God the Father have physical extension? If not, then ‘likeness’ can’t apply to physical nature…

No, you may be right.

IIRC, Aquinas would assert that ‘intellect’ is a characteristic of the human soul only. So… from a philosophical perspective, we wouldn’t hold that animals have ‘intellect’, per se.

Aquinas was a wise theologian, but was not infallible. As with the notional of delayed ensoulment, modern learning can correct errors from the past.

Yes, God does care about all the creatures He created! However, that doesn’t support the position that they have immortal souls.

We have no way of knowing for sure if animals have immortal souls. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[goout]

goout:

A human being alone can ponder his/her own existence.

We do not know if animals can.

Human beings alone are self aware.

Several species of mammals are indeed self aware.

Human beings alone can say “I am”. No other creature has that appreciation and ability to consider it’s own existence

We have no proof for or against that.

Human beings are wired to seek something outside our own small passions and instincts. And to the degree we pursue that search, we are fully human. To the degree we live in our base passions and instincts for their own sake, we are less human.

Quite true.

I seriously don’t even know how to respond to this.
When you see even the highest level primate quote Shakespeare:
“to be or not to be, that is the question”,
then we might have something to talk about.

Animals simply do not have self awareness or question anything about the meaning of their lives, their purpose, their destiny, whether they exist and why.
This should be self evident.

 

[Kei]

My reasoning has lead me to believe that animals will be in heaven, but I understand that other may think differently.

What was not assumed was not redeemed.

 

[Medawlinno]

Animals simply do not have self awareness or question anything about the meaning of their lives, their purpose, their destiny, whether they exist and why.

This should be self evident.

Or perhaps it is we humans who do not fully understand creatures/species that have been on this planet for countless eons longer than us.

As an example, one could say that primates who have been taught sign language (e.g. the late “Coco”) may just be responding as sort of a ‘trick’ for humans, but I do not believe this is the case. If one examines some of Coco’s responses (dare I say ‘thoughts’) to the world around her, they definitely don’t scream ‘trick response’; they show independent thinking and self awareness as well as awareness of the world around her (? - I think ‘her’).

Communication is, of course, the main obstacle. Because a species does not communicate as we do does not mean they do not communicate, or that there is no self awareness, etc. An animal does not need to know geometry or quote Shakespeare; that’s a human thing. I’d be willing to bet that there are concepts of nature they understand that we can’t even begin to conceptualize, let alone try and understand. They may be as alien to us as our concepts are to them.

I dare say the average cat is more in tune with nature and the immediate world around them than we can ever hope to be.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

IIRC, Aquinas would assert that ‘intellect’ is a characteristic of the human soul only. So… from a philosophical perspective, we wouldn’t hold that animals have ‘intellect’, per se.

Aquinas was a wise theologian, but was not infallible.

Infallibility is over-rated. It’s called upon far too often as ‘proving’ or ‘disproving’ a point. The Church teaches authoritatively. That’s what’s important.

As with the notional of delayed ensoulment, modern learning can correct errors from the past.

True. However, his issue there was an error of reproductive biology, not of theology. I guess you could make the point that his understanding of animal biology is off, but… this claim of his that we’re talking about is one that’s theological, not biological, right? I mean, it’s not based on any biological premises (other than the identification of the animal as non-human), right?

MCH1:

We have no way of knowing for sure if animals have immortal souls. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Well, we know (Scripturally) that humans do have immortal souls. We also know that animals are not “suitable help-mates” for humans – that’s the whole reason for the rationale (in Genesis 2) that humans are male and female, right? So, if that’s the case, then I think it’s not unreasonable to suggest that the theological impact of that narrative is that we’re more fundamentally different than mere physical differences.

So, if you’re willing to “disagree” with that, then have at it. I’m just not sure that it’s a theologically or philosophically tenable position to defend.

(I’d feel more comfortable suggesting that our animal friends will be re-created in the eschaton. You’d be able to get more traction out of that theory than the notion that animals have immortal souls… )

 

[goout]

I don’t really disagree with anything you say here, but I would reiterate the distinctions I made in concordance with what you say here.

 

[MCH1]

We may never know until Heaven. All debates of animal souls can’t prove anything.