B
billcu1
Guest
What is meant by an animal’s soul isn’t immortal like ours? Why is ours immortal and an animal isn’t. Also actual grace communicates to the rational soul. Animals don’t get grace? Where’s the spirit in all this?
- Status
L
Love4All
Guest
Animals have spirit in the sense of breath, not in the sense of understanding. Animal consciousness is tied to the present moment, so there is nothing in an animal that could desire eternal life. An animal cannot conceive eternity; only “now.”
What is meant by that is that for an animal, there is no judgment, no heaven, no hell. There is only life, ending in death. Animals do not have a hunger for the Infinite. Thus, there is no reason for them to life forever. They are finite; so their lifespans are also finite.
Human beings, by contrast, were created immortal, and the only reason there is death in the world for humans is that there is sin.
B
billcu1
Guest
So in man is there a difference in spirit and soul? I know alot of this from Jewish mysticism’s point of view but I’m trying to understand what the church teaches and I’m guessing that’s Aristolean.
L
Love4All
Guest
Here is my view: a human being is body and soul, or, spirit and flesh. Or, spirit, mind, and body.
Keep in mind that this is a philosophical device, merely a map to understand ourselves. There are not actually neat divisions as if we could be disassembled and thrown into bins. A human being is one thing, really. The separation of body and soul at death is not natural to us.
With that in mind, I hold that the three parts of a human being are spirit, mind, and body. Spirit and mind together are the soul. Mind and body together are the flesh.
Usually, we think of either spirit and flesh, or body and soul. The mind, cannot exist by itself. This simple fact is the heart of the fallacy of Psychiatry. There is no “mind” per se, for Psychiatry to treat. There is, in fact, body and spirit, and the mind is the subjective interface between them.
B
billcu1
Guest
Interesting. Buddhism teaches everything is some form of mind and the “soul” “spirit” concept as far as I know doesn’t come up. Is what your saying the church’s view?
B
billcu1
Guest
Psychiatry is a medical doctrine that treats the brain. Everything is physical. Medications work on the body. Psychology on the other hand might say their is mind. Some traditions teach the mind is a sheath outside of the body and will one day move into it. As you say an interface of sorts. But this thread is intended to find out the church’s philosophy.
F
FrancisBenedict
Guest
My personal opinion is:
With God anything is possible.
Only God knows if animals live forever.
To me they seem innocents like children.
Pax+
(Yes I love people, no I don’t love animals more than people. Yes I am vegan 20 years).
With God anything is possible.
Only God knows if animals live forever.
To me they seem innocents like children.
Pax+
(Yes I love people, no I don’t love animals more than people. Yes I am vegan 20 years).
L
Love4All
Guest
They are certainly innocent. Even though sometimes, God allows demons to will His animals, the animals themselves are innocent. There is nothing in them that could have malice; malice is spiritual.
5
504Katrin
Guest
Maybe I’m simply brain dead by now as I had three different lectures today starting 10 am till 10 pm, and am ready to go to bed soon, so have mercy on me please
As to your first paragraph:
Can you conceive eternity? What makes you think that judgement is a necessity to eternal life? Maybe those that live without sin in the first place - as an animal doesn’t know evil - will go to heaven first?
How do you explain the fact that elephants for instance come back to places where a family member died years later after their family member deceased?
As to your second: Do you really believe that the hunger for infinity as you put it is (part of) what may grant us eternal life?
L
Love4All
Guest
The Buddha taught that there is consciousness, sensation, perception, and volition, which we can see are parts of the mind. And, the body. The Buddha left open the question of whether there is spirit in the sense I mean it, because he viewed attachment to the question of what happens to the spirit as clinging, and his system was entirely about renouncing clinging.
However, with a little reflection anyone can infer that what the Buddha left out must remain in the end, since without it there is no subject in which the objective phenomena of consciousness, sensation, perception, volition, and the body might inhere.
The Buddha’s teaching in a nutshell is, “Let go your ego!” The ego is the sense of “I,” “me,” “mine.” Some confuse this with the idea that the Buddha taught the nonexistence of the soul, but actually he only taught non-attachment to the ego. The soul without attachment to ego is situated in Nirvana, no longer resisting the flow of life with egoic attachments.
Catholic Doctrine is that there is a soul, and it has two principal powers, the intellect and the will. These two powers correlate to consciousness (vijñāna) and volition (samskāra) in Buddhism, I would say, exactly. Then there is the body which both East and West acknowledge, and remaining are sensation and perception, which in Church teaching form aspects of the mind. The understanding correlates to perception (samjñā), whereas sensation (vedanā) in Buddhism includes both sensory experience and feelings. Thus, vedanā includes not only, for example, the hearing of music, but also our interior reaction to it. Exterior reactions would begin to fall into the realm of samskāra, volition or formative tendencies. Even though there is a difference between acting with intention and simply reacting, both of these are connected with samskāra. But in intentional actions, samjñā, understanding, is included, too.
L
Love4All
Guest
I cannot encompass eternity in my finite mind, but, I also cannot imagine not existing, and, I perceive more than just the present moment, I also have concepts of the past and the future. It is this last that, it seems to me, sets us apart from mere beasts.
I do not think the desire of eternal life arises in the beasts. For a human, the Last Things are, Death, Judgment, Heaven, and Hell. We do not fully arrive in Heaven or Hell until after we die and are judged. Although, we can certainly enter either Heaven or Hell now, by either renouncing sin (Heaven) or rejecting all grace (Hell.)
To “go to Heaven” is a human concept laden with human attachments. I am not nearly as concerned about what happens after we die as I am about what should I be doing now? I seek to live in the Kingdom of Heaven, now, by renouncing all sin. So you could say that in the same sense, animals live in the Kingdom of Heaven now, while they live.
Memory, which is not the same thing as reminiscence. I do not think animals reminisce, but that does not mean they will not return to a familiar place. We don’t currently have any way of discerning an elephant’s thoughts, and it does not seem utterly clear to me that they even have thoughts. If they do, we have no way of apprehending what those are like.
No. Eternal Life is God’s friendship. The hunger for infinity is just the hunger for eternal life, not its contributing cause.
B
boomerang
Guest
As far as animal souls or spirits are concerned, both of my parents as well as my niece have heard their deceased dogs right after they died. Both of my parents heard their little schnauzer, “Jinx” clearly bark right next to their bed around 11pm the night Jinx died. Several years earlier, my niece heard her boxer walking across the wood floor, toenails going clickety-clack, and then the sound stopped, and then she heard the sound of dog tags clinking, as if the dog had shaken itself. This was the same day the dog had died. Both these incidents occurred in the same house.
Interesting to speculate on what was going on in that house. My mother and my niece also felt invisible hands touching them. For my niece, it was a gentle touch on the shoulder, but my mother was shoved from behind. Both incidents occurred in the kitchen in the same house.
Interesting to speculate on what was going on in that house. My mother and my niece also felt invisible hands touching them. For my niece, it was a gentle touch on the shoulder, but my mother was shoved from behind. Both incidents occurred in the kitchen in the same house.
A
Auntie_A
Guest
I have asked about animal’s souls and reasoning abilities so many times throughout my life and the answer I get is usually summed up in the word: “instincts” “Animals have instincts.” Well so do humans, so I continue to wonder and question. We view an animal through a human window of reason, not an animal’s. But God’s window is the one I am most curious about.
I understand in the story of Genesis how the animals were made, then humans were made and we, as humans, are asked to be stewards of the earth. I see that animals are slaughtered for food for humans and for other animals, and in some eras and places, for ritual sacrifice. I see that animals are used for assisting humans and some amazing stories of what we might call “loyalty” are formed in those working/helping relationships. I see that some animals exist without an obvious relationship to humans.
But if you raise animals on a farm or as pets or however, you DO notice that one animal in a litter or herd is different from another, just like humans are different from each other. That uniqueness must account for some intention, on God’s part, to individualize rather than merely group.
When I think of a bird, I think of the Holy Spirit. When I see a butterfly, I think of eternity. When I think of my cat, I think of how God sent him to our family to provide companionship, entertainment, happiness, and mystery. I know he has a soul.
I understand in the story of Genesis how the animals were made, then humans were made and we, as humans, are asked to be stewards of the earth. I see that animals are slaughtered for food for humans and for other animals, and in some eras and places, for ritual sacrifice. I see that animals are used for assisting humans and some amazing stories of what we might call “loyalty” are formed in those working/helping relationships. I see that some animals exist without an obvious relationship to humans.
But if you raise animals on a farm or as pets or however, you DO notice that one animal in a litter or herd is different from another, just like humans are different from each other. That uniqueness must account for some intention, on God’s part, to individualize rather than merely group.
When I think of a bird, I think of the Holy Spirit. When I see a butterfly, I think of eternity. When I think of my cat, I think of how God sent him to our family to provide companionship, entertainment, happiness, and mystery. I know he has a soul.
I
ilikepizza1
Guest
Within the tradition of scholastic philosophy It simply means that all the activities of an animal’s soul (i.e. sensory perception) while certainly in part immaterial, are directly dependent upon material organs. So when the body dies so does the soul. Humans however possess intellect and will, which have *entirely *immaterial activities and thus are able to exist/operate independent of the material body. (Although while embodied they may also be indirectly linked to material organs.)
5
504Katrin
Guest
One example of how the dog planned to steal the cookies from the living room table. We had baken cookies and she wasn’t allowed to have some. When I was in bed, the dog next to me was laying still, shortly before I fell asleep, or while I was falling asleep, I felt that she was wagging her tale and I remember having thought to myself “Why in the world would she wag her tale now?” However, I couldn’t finish the thought as I was about to fall asleep. Next morning - sure enough - all the cookies were gone. So you imagine why she had wagged her tale. She was waiting untill everyone was fallen asleep, and after that had happened, she went over to the living room and had the cookies for supper lol.
I agree, I too, don’t think that the desire of eternal life arises in animals. There are, however, people that ascended right into heaven without having been judged according to church or maybe I don’t remember this correctly. So I was just thinking, why shouldn’t this apply to animals that didn’t sin?
I agree it’s most important what we do now.
This is an interesting theory
Only bitter herb in there is that their lifespan on here is finite.Memory, of course, but what is it that prompts the elephant family to wander through entire deserts in order to visit their graveyards?
I agree that it’s G0ds’ friendship.
I was trying to convey that when you say that: "Animals do not have a hunger for the Infinite. Thus, there is no reason for them to life forever. " You seemed to draw a conclusion here from hunger to infinity. But I understand you better know. Thank you for your kind reply.
J
John_Martin
Guest
A human being is a body animated by a soul. This is Aristotelian and Thomist.
The soul is the place of our intellect and will. The body is the place of conscious thought, images, memories, emotions, and physical activities. The soul is the place where words and ideas come from as they consciously began appearing in your thoughts as you form sentences, like I am writing this sentence. The soul is the “master” of the body, though with difficulty, because of sin. It uses the body to interact with all “other” reality outside itself.
As to animals living forever (immortal is an incorrect term) or rising from death on the last day: The whole creation longs for the revelation of the sons of God (the resurrection). Why would my dog long for that day, especially if it will die before that day? My dog, and all animals, want to live. Or, it might be more correctly said, my dog and all animals consider it good to live and eat and play, and they fight with all their strength not to die when encountering death.
At the resurrection, the curse of death ends. What the animals and all creation long for is the end of the curse.
Now, an animal does not have an intellectual soul, as humans do, whereby we know ourselves and we know that we know ourselves (that dual knowing is important) and our decisions are reasoned morally. But all that this means is that if they are raised to life on the last day, as we are, they will enjoy the life, but not understand why they are so happy. They will simply be happy to be with us and alive, just as now, and the fear of humans and other animals will be gone from them, whereby they are now cursed because of our sin of origin.
John Martin
B
billcu1
Guest
Thanks very much. I apreciate your knowledge of things. And that pretty much somes up what I am looking for. But does the soul animate and then there is no “spirit”?
J
John_Martin
Guest
Actually, the intellect and will are not conscious, we have no sensation of what is in our souls. The soul is that which moves us to have conscious thought, conscious words and images, and conscious expression of decisions. The soul, the intellect and will, are completely immaterial, not perceivable by the body, including the conscious thought. You can only “know” consciously of the soul by the effects you see: thus as a sentence or paragraph starts forming in your thoughts one word at a time, it is actually your intellect and will that is moving your mind to select the next words, but you cannot feel where the source of the words is, you only experience that the right words appear one after the other. That hidden or immaterial source is given the name “soul” (and “intellect” for the intelligence of the words that appear, and “will” for the fact that the words actually appear).
Understanding happens in the intellect, utilizing reason and will to exercise (to move) the mind to assist with words and images. Perception is a bodily function, but it is the intellect, the reason, that unconsciously evaluates and moves the mind to re-visualize and re- word, so that all aspects of the perception are perceived, and until the perception is understood in the intellect. When it is understood, the will (an appetite) is satisfied, and as with all the workings of the will, it creates a bodily transformation, in this case it moves the body to relax and even to express the fulfillment, by saying, “I understand”.
When you say, “I understand”, the actual understanding is imperceptible to your conscious mind. Your consciousness of understanding what you understand is simply your intellect moving your mind to view the conscious images and words giving explanation of what it understands.
It is the same with Reason and Will; any words you use to express a choice of means to an end, to express volition, are not your actual will, but these conscious words of choice are movements from your soul, from your will. The will is moving your conscious thoughts and your mouth to be a “mirror image” of what your reason and will have chosen and desire. The actual choosing and willing are not perceptible by you, they are in your immaterial soul. Your conscious thoughts and your words are the effect of that immaterial happening.
John Martin
L
Love4All
Guest
How are you defining “soul?”
Where is consciousness?
Is it the body that perceives? How are you defining perception?
These words you are speaking of are mental phenomena. Are you agreeing with the Buddha, that there is no self to be found in phenomena?
But, the words make no sense intrinsically, but only in the mind of a perceiver. The way I define perception.
That sounds a bit like the fabled monkey-mind.
Or are you saying that we necessarily form an interior copy of the world, and only perceive the copy?
What, then, understands? Where is the understanding?
How can the intellect move anything? To my mind, the intellect is that which knows, i.e., has experiences. And the will is that which does, i.e., moves things. If there is thinking being intended and carried out, that is accomplished via the will moving the intellect to apprehend the contents of the mind, manipulate them, re-arrange conceptual units of thought into new structures, all in accord with the desires of the soul.
So, are you saying thought is material, or are you rather saying that it is not necessarily material but phenomenal? Are you saying that we do not move our bodies and minds with our wills, nor perceive our situation in our intellects, but rather that there is some lower reflection of these powers that actually carries out the moving and the perceiving, and that this lower level is somehow connected to the “higher,” i.e. the soul itself? And if so, by what? What would you call the connecting link? Or are you espousing Occasionalism? And if you are positing multiple levels of being, why? Why do we need such a complex scheme?
Or, have I misunderstood you?
J
John_Martin
Guest
*Originally Posted by John Martin *http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Actually, the intellect and will are not conscious, we have no sensation of what is in our souls.
Love4All: How are you defining “soul?” I am defining it in the next paragraph below
*Originally Posted by John Martin *http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
The soul is that which moves us to have conscious thought, conscious words and images, and conscious expression of decisions.
Love4All: Where is consciousness? In conscious thought and images.
*Originally Posted by John Martin *http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
The soul, the intellect and will, are completely immaterial, not perceivable by the body, including the conscious thought.
Love4All: Is it the body that perceives? How are you defining perception? The body (the brain / mind / consciousness / imagination) perceives images some received by the senses, others in the memory, but the understanding of all this happens in the soul, unknown to the consciousness until the soul moves consciousness to “see” what it understands as true or good or beautiful. Consciousness is a servant of something it cannot perceive.
*Originally Posted by John Martin *http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
You can only “know” consciously of the soul by the effects you see: thus as a sentence or paragraph starts forming in your thoughts one word at a time, it is actually your intellect and will that is moving your mind to select the next words, but you cannot feel where the source of the words is, you only experience that the right words appear one after the other.
Love4All: These words you are speaking of are mental phenomena. Are you agreeing with the Buddha, that there is no self to be found in phenomena? Not at all; the person (which is a self) is not the soul and not the body; the person, the self, is the whole “being”, soul and body, soul animating body, animating consciousness to see a mirror image of what it knows or to review images and words of what it wants to know. The soul, also, cannot realize itself (knowing and willing) apart from what it gathers of reality through the senses and how it changes reality through the actions it moves the body to do. The soul and body are one being, one person, one self.
*Originally Posted by John Martin *http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*That hidden or immaterial source is given the name “soul” (and “intellect” for the intelligence of the words that appear, and “will” for the fact that the words actually appear). *
Love4All: But, the words make no sense intrinsically, but only in the mind of a perceiver. The way I define perception. Well, actually, the words make no sense in the mind, either, except that the immaterial soul, moving / animating the mind, reasons about the words unseen and unperceived. Then the soul, the will, moves the consciousness to contentment about the words.
*Originally Posted by John Martin *http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Understanding happens in the intellect, utilizing reason and will to exercise (to move) the mind to assist with words and images. Perception is a bodily function, but it is the intellect, the reason, that unconsciously evaluates and moves the mind to re-visualize and re- word,
Love4All: That sounds a bit like the fabled monkey-mind.
Love4All: Or are you saying that we necessarily form an interior copy of the world, and only perceive the copy? Yes, the intellect knows objects internally and the self, knows the self united to what is true / good, and chooses to move the whole person (body and soul) to actual external unity to the unity it knows internally.
*Originally Posted by John Martin *http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
so that all aspects of the perception are perceived, and until the perception is understood in the intellect. When it is understood, the will (an appetite) is satisfied, and as with all the workings of the will, it creates a bodily transformation, in this case it moves the body to relax and even to express the fulfillment, by saying, “I understand”.
When you say, “I understand”, the actual understanding is imperceptible to your conscious mind.
Love4All: What, then, understands? Where is the understanding? As said above, in the intellect, which then via the will, moves the body and mind to mirror its understanding.
To Be Continued…
Actually, the intellect and will are not conscious, we have no sensation of what is in our souls.
Love4All: How are you defining “soul?” I am defining it in the next paragraph below
*Originally Posted by John Martin *http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
The soul is that which moves us to have conscious thought, conscious words and images, and conscious expression of decisions.
Love4All: Where is consciousness? In conscious thought and images.
*Originally Posted by John Martin *http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
The soul, the intellect and will, are completely immaterial, not perceivable by the body, including the conscious thought.
Love4All: Is it the body that perceives? How are you defining perception? The body (the brain / mind / consciousness / imagination) perceives images some received by the senses, others in the memory, but the understanding of all this happens in the soul, unknown to the consciousness until the soul moves consciousness to “see” what it understands as true or good or beautiful. Consciousness is a servant of something it cannot perceive.
*Originally Posted by John Martin *http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
You can only “know” consciously of the soul by the effects you see: thus as a sentence or paragraph starts forming in your thoughts one word at a time, it is actually your intellect and will that is moving your mind to select the next words, but you cannot feel where the source of the words is, you only experience that the right words appear one after the other.
Love4All: These words you are speaking of are mental phenomena. Are you agreeing with the Buddha, that there is no self to be found in phenomena? Not at all; the person (which is a self) is not the soul and not the body; the person, the self, is the whole “being”, soul and body, soul animating body, animating consciousness to see a mirror image of what it knows or to review images and words of what it wants to know. The soul, also, cannot realize itself (knowing and willing) apart from what it gathers of reality through the senses and how it changes reality through the actions it moves the body to do. The soul and body are one being, one person, one self.
*Originally Posted by John Martin *http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*That hidden or immaterial source is given the name “soul” (and “intellect” for the intelligence of the words that appear, and “will” for the fact that the words actually appear). *
Love4All: But, the words make no sense intrinsically, but only in the mind of a perceiver. The way I define perception. Well, actually, the words make no sense in the mind, either, except that the immaterial soul, moving / animating the mind, reasons about the words unseen and unperceived. Then the soul, the will, moves the consciousness to contentment about the words.
*Originally Posted by John Martin *http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Understanding happens in the intellect, utilizing reason and will to exercise (to move) the mind to assist with words and images. Perception is a bodily function, but it is the intellect, the reason, that unconsciously evaluates and moves the mind to re-visualize and re- word,
Love4All: That sounds a bit like the fabled monkey-mind.
Love4All: Or are you saying that we necessarily form an interior copy of the world, and only perceive the copy? Yes, the intellect knows objects internally and the self, knows the self united to what is true / good, and chooses to move the whole person (body and soul) to actual external unity to the unity it knows internally.
*Originally Posted by John Martin *http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
so that all aspects of the perception are perceived, and until the perception is understood in the intellect. When it is understood, the will (an appetite) is satisfied, and as with all the workings of the will, it creates a bodily transformation, in this case it moves the body to relax and even to express the fulfillment, by saying, “I understand”.
When you say, “I understand”, the actual understanding is imperceptible to your conscious mind.
Love4All: What, then, understands? Where is the understanding? As said above, in the intellect, which then via the will, moves the body and mind to mirror its understanding.
To Be Continued…
- Status