If have read the Catholic Encyclopedia, but I need a simple answer, please.

.......

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 11, 2004

Answers

The information that I have gathered seems to indicate that lower life forms have a "different" soul than the human soul.

I have two Scriptures to consider:

Ecclesiastes 3:21

"Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?"

___

Ecclesiastes 12:7

"Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it."(KJV)

.......

Ecclesiastes 3:21

"Who knows if the life-breath of the children of men goes upward and the life-breath of beasts goes earth-ward?"

Ecclesiastes 12:7

"And the dust returns to the earth as it once was, and the life breath returns to God who gave it."(NAB)

Revelations 16:3

"The second angel poured out his bowl on the sea. The sea turned to blood like that of a corpse, and every creature living in the sea died."(NAB)

It is interesting to note that the KJV doesnot use the word "creature", but instead uses the word "soul". "...every living soul died in the sea." is the accurate wording (my italics).

Please, I would truly like a Catholic answer.

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 12, 2004.

I used the term accurate within the KJV context, but not in the entire scheme of Scripture transcription.

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 12, 2004.

It depends entirely on the definition of "soul" that you are using.

If you define "soul" as simply a "life principle", that is to say "that which causes otherwise inanimate matter to be alive", then obviously every living thing, even a bacterium, has a "soul" of some sort, and death of an organism means separation of its "soul" or "life principle" from its material body. If we use this definition of "soul", then we must differentiate between the immortal life principle, or soul, of human beings and the temporal life principle, or soul, of animals and lower life forms.

On the other hand, if we incorporate the immortal nature of the soul into its definition - if we define "soul" as "an immortal spiritual component of one's nature" - then humans alone have souls. Animals and lower life forms do not.

Either definition is workable, provided that it clearly and absolutely differentiates between the immortal nature of the human soul and the temporal nature of any other "souls" which may theoretically exist.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 12, 2004.

That sounds clear. Humans have eternal souls. Animals do not have eternal souls. But, Heaven will be inhabited by those souls who have accepted Christ and have obeyed His teachings. Animals cannot have a "free will", but this doesnot mean that Heaven will not be inhabited by animals, yes?

.

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 12, 2004.

Rod,
Heaven eternal. It is a spiritual realm that is inhabited by eternal souls. How can non-eternal souls inhabit such a place? In God, all things are possible, but I think logic may be getting in the way here.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 12, 2004.

Logic?

Well, let's consider that in Genisis, God created the animals for Man's domain. Let's consider that God had created a paradise for man, which included the lower life forms. Let's consider that little part about the lamb that sits with the lion. Logic? or faith?

My question has two parts to it.

I suppose that it is a Catholic teaching that animals have souls, but not an "eternal soul". Let's consider that God breathed life into these creatures, so--even if not eternal--these animals do have "souls".

...

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 12, 2004.

"Genesis", sorry.

What do you mean by "It is a spiritual realm that is inhabited by eternal souls"? And how does that coincide with

Ecclesiastes 12:7

"And the dust returns to the earth as it once was, and the life breath returns to God who gave it."(NAB)

I get the impression that the paradise of Genesis will again exist on earth.

......

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 12, 2004.

I believe that the Genesis story tells of Man's original eternal life condition. The animals did not have the same eternal life? Were these animals going to die while Man lived on? It seems like the original plan was to have eternal life. But, of course, Man did have a "free will" that the animals did not. How can a non-eternal soul live in Paradise with eternal Man?

Yes, logic does seem to get in the way, Bill.

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 12, 2004.

Logic? Well, let's consider that in Genisis, God created the animals for Man's domain.

{Techica;;ly this is false. God did not create the animals for human dominion. He created man tohave dominion over them, a marked difference. In Jewish Understanding, Man wa amde ot serve God By taking care of his creatures.}-Zarove

The above said, I disagree with Bill. I beleive Animals DO in fact have eternal souls, and see no reaosn why they ought become extinct at death, while innocent, and yet man lives eternally.

The free will argument fails me, for animals do, indeed, have free will. I have seen them excersise it. They have thouhts and feeligns, as any who has ever had an animal will attest.

I beleive all souls return ot God in the ned, for judgement tot he humans, and rest for the creatures.

I reject the notion that Only uans persist after death, for it is not provable,and it seems Animals will be in heaven, and God said he cared or them and htier souls.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 12, 2004.

Animals do not have free will. Lower animals function entirely by response to stimuli. More intelligent animals do have the capacity to make certain choices. However, they do not have the capacity to make moral choices, and that is what free will refers to. Free will is the ability to make moral decisions. When we decide which cereal we want to eat for breakfast we are not exercising free will. When we decide whether or not to shoplift an item, we are exercising free will.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 12, 2004.

Free wil is defined in all dictionaries and books of Ohulosophy and psycology as the capacity to make free choices, not free moral choices. By your logic, Adam and eve lacked free will until they sinned, because they knew not what sin was. Like my Cat knows shes not allowed to swing ont eh curtains, they knew they wheren't to eatht e fruit, but knew not the moral distinction until after.

THAT SAID, I still maintain that Animals have souls, and survuve death.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 12, 2004.

Whether or not animals have souls, I like to think Heaven will be populated by all of God's creatures. A tree surely doesn't have a soul, yet I expect to see trees in heaven - as well as mountains, lakes, waterfalls, beautiful flowers etc. etc. etc. All these things are created by God, yet have no souls (or DO they? Who knows!)

Just a thought.

-- Dee (Dee@none.sorry), April 12, 2004.

I cannot accept the idea that animals "go" to Heaven because of their "soul". I do believe that God may "place" animals in Heaven as He chooses. I think that Heaven will be the Paradise that God intended to have as described in Genesis. This is what leads me to the idea or belief that animals were originally created with eternal life--a soul. It seems ironic that Heaven/Paradis would have eternal Man living alongside temporal life. But, I'm not saying that animals must have "free will" in order to have eternal life. Animals, just like Pavlov's dog, only resond to stimuli while Man can degrade himself to the level of an animal, Man still has the "free will" to cope with stimuli.

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 12, 2004.

Innocent animals??

I'm not so sure about animals being "innocent". If we look at the Story of Noah and the Ark, we must conclude that some animals were "unclean" and not to be saved from destruction. My guess is that some mutations of life were evil and needed destruction. My thinking is that today there are animals that fall into this group of mutations that are evil. Some animal breeders and plant growers do fool around with nature and come up with their own ideas of strains of life. So, that dominion over creation by man, or man's duty as caretakers of creation, has produced errors or defects in living things. Well, technically, those living creature may be innocent, but not when man puts his reckless handy work in action.

..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 12, 2004.

I tink thta all things that live have a soul, and this soul persists after death. I am not merely contending that animals will be in heaven, but that sacific livign animals NOW will, when they die, grace Heaven.

and this flows freely form jewish tradition, scriptures, and even early Christain beleifs in many circles.

As to Innocence, we refer here only to the ability to commit sin, not to actions thy have done.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 12, 2004.

Zarove

Then why were animals used for Sacrifice?

How would animal sacrifice justify man through killing of that animal?

......

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 12, 2004.

Why do you thik that Animal sacrifice woudl mean that anmals have no souls?

Does this mean Jesus, who was our final sacrifice, hs no SOul?

I have heard this argument before. Animals cou;dnt have had souls because they where sacrificed. The argumnent , when followed to its loical end, means that Jesus did not have a soul because he, too, was sacricifed.

Why must we only sacrifice things wihtout a soul int eh first place? Might not a souled beong also be seen as capabe of beog sacrficed? Might not it be better to sacricce a souled beign than an unsuled one?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 12, 2004.

Zarove?

If you read what I posted, you would not have made those comments. You might want to re-read my posts.

Also, you might want to answer my questions with answers instead of questions. Are your answers Catholic?

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 12, 2004.

I did read.

My answeres arent Cahtolic, but they are theologically sound. The blood of the Animal was needed for to cover the sins of man because Man's blood was tainted. The animal's blood was not.

but animals cannot sin, Jesus , at leats in thery, could.

What did I misread?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 13, 2004.

Zarove wrote: "Why do you thik that Animal sacrifice woudl mean that anmals have no souls? "

I never said that animals had no souls. I also did not mean to imply that animal sacrifice meant that animals had no souls. If anything, I meant that the very fact that animals have souls and that man would sacrifice them would put man in a predicament of committing more sin.

The whole idea behind animal sacrifice was to serve as a sort of sin payment. I think that the Old Testament revealed the future through the rituals of the times--animal sacrifice. I don't necessarily believe that the animal sinless-ness was the issue. I think that this ritual was a precursor of Christ. Christ--though sinless- would take our sins and become the "sin payment" to cover all sins for all men, for all times. So, the idea that animals have no souls was not my assertion.

........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 13, 2004.

But it seemed as you said that, even in the last post. Also, why woudl man commit more sin?

I know the answer of course. If Animals had souls they woudl be like humans, and we cant kill humans because they have souls.

its a very poor;ly thought out idea however.You see, if Humans have souls, that will endeure forever, and animals do not, then the animals have MORE right to life than we do. Think on it.

This is the only life the animal wil ever see. The only one. All they wll ever be, all the happiness they will ever attain, all they wll ever see or feel, all they will know or experience, is finite. This is the totality of their being, the hwole of hteir existance before olivion.

Man, on the other hand, is only here or a sort perod of his existance. Man will live forever, rather in Hell or Heaven. Man needs not this life and can think and experince and become other things after death.

Man has the right to take away the animals only life, bt no oen can take mans life, because man lives forever. This is rather liek Nathans story to David when he caught him in Adultery.

A certain man had a lamb, wich he loved as if he where hsi own child, where another man had entre flocks. The rich man, when he had visitors, took the poorer mans lamb which he loved and slaughtered it for food for his guests, leavign his own flocks intact.

It reminds me of that because man is seen as more important because man wll live forever, this gives man the ight to exterminate the totality of an animals existance.

In short, because we are rich, we have the right to deny the poor what little they have.

we can take an animals life, because we have this life and the next to go to and this is al they have.

Rathe runfair, and I think that if animals had no soul, as many assert, then the morlaity of killing them woudl be the opposite of their claim. Rather than it being moral for us to kill the animal, because they had no soul and no life after this one, it becomes our duty o prolong their life as long as possible, ebcause this is all they will ever be.

Likewise, I Do not hik it nessisarily sin to kikll a beign with a soul, rather I think it sin to kill another of your kind, or anyhtign for that matter, wihtout due cause.

Killing an animal for sacrifice, or for food, is not immoral, and Certain animals are by nature carnivoures, and kill other animals. The motive of course is whats imortant. The Bible also admonishes us to care for our beasts. We are not to kill them for malice.

But sacrifice is different. Indeed, sacrifice woudl nt be efective if animals had no souls. ( Indeed,if animals had no souls at all then they woudl not be alive, as a Human cannot live without a soul, how much so coudl anyhtign else? Deaht is, after all, defined as the moment the soul leaves the Body.)

Animals neded souls so that their blood couldcovder our sins, they needed a soul so they could carry our sins off, just as Jesus did. But again, Jesus was a perfect sacrifce, becase animals canot sin, as htey lack the capacity to sin. This Humans alone possess. Thus all the innocence o the animal coul do is cover th sin, not elemenate it.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 13, 2004.

Zarove wrote:"You see, if Humans have souls, that will endeure forever, and animals do not, then the animals have MORE right to life than we do. Think on it. "

Your point would have to be made with the acceptance that animals were created as being equal to Man. But, it is not the case. The earth and creatures were created under Man's dominion because we are created in the image of God. The animals were not. So, to say that animals have "MORE right to life than we do" would go against the original intention of our creation. The animals were created for our purposeful use and care, to do with them as we saw fit. This, of course, does not mean that we are to abuse our created world.

I didn't mean to distort the chronology of Creation, but ultimately, Man is stewart of the earth and its creatures under God's authority.

........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 13, 2004.

Rod,

Catholic Dogmatic Theology teaches that animals and plant have souls and this makes since because the “soul” is what gives life. There are three kinds of souls they are the vegetative soul, the sensitive soul, and the human soul. The plants have a vegetative soul and it dies when the plant dies, the animals have a sensitive soul and it dies when the animal dies, we have a human soul that is spiritual and immortal therefore it never dies. Yes this is catholic teaching and the CCC touches this a bit and if you wish I will look it up and send it to you. If you have any questions feel free to let me know.

SS

-- Steven Schneider (steven@schnieder.net), April 13, 2004.

Zarove wrote:"You see, if Humans have souls, that will endeure forever, and animals do not, then the animals have MORE right to life than we do. Think on it. " Your point would have to be made with the acceptance that animals were created as being equal to Man. But, it is not the case. The earth and creatures were created under Man's dominion because we are created in the image of God. The animals were not. So, to say that animals have "MORE right to life than we do" would go against the original intention of our creation. The animals were created for our purposeful use and care, to do with them as we saw fit. This, of course, does not mean that we are to abuse our created world.

{I disagree. Animals whee not crreated for huamn use and care. Rather, man was created to care for God's creation. Yes, Man has dominion, bu this does not mean that Man was the reason for everythign else to exist. No passage in the Bible actually states that Animals where created for mans use. Man may use them, of course, but no where is it said that they where created exclusively as tools for human life.

Thus, I do ot reject the scriptures when I say that it is flly to make such a claim, as my statements are based upon scripture, as well as all traditions of the Jews, as well as the early Christains. Their is a massive difference between the claim that man has dominion, and the claim that animals where created to be dominated by man. No evidence suggests this is a fact.

Now, the idea that Man has a soul and animals doesnt is a new one. Relativley speaking. its most promemnt expounded was Rene desCarte. Until then, the idea of aniumals having souls was a furone conclusion. I also do not see how it can be reaosned that th Human soul persists after death whereas the animal soul perishes. This also is mere speculation based on human Hubiris. I see no real reason hwy this must be accepted.}-Zarove

I didn't mean to distort the chronology of Creation, but ultimately, Man is stewart of the earth and its creatures under God's authority.

{That was not rejected, but as stated above, oen does nto eman the other. Just because man is made steward of the earth des not mean the earth and all its creatures where created spacifically for human use. }-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 13, 2004.

Hi Steven Schneider

I have been looking at the catechism. I did encounter the article about the soul, but I couldn't come to a definite conclusion as to what the Church teaches. Your input (an Paul's) have enlightened my thinking. Thanks, any links to the catechism pertinent to my topic would be helpful.

.......

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 13, 2004.

Just for my reference point, Zarove are you Jewish? And, are we reading the same Bible?

I'm not being sarcastic or anything like that. I'm just wondering about your religious background.

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 13, 2004.

Not Jewish, just well read. I usualy use the King James Bible.

Nontheless, neother Catholic, or prostesant Chruches have any real grounds to teach the extinction of an animal's soul at death.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 13, 2004.

Have a look at Genesis 1:1-31.

......

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 13, 2004.

I have read Genesis 1:1-31 before. Your poin that everythign was created FOR huamnity is not proven in these verses. Only htat he is offered dominion. As I said, humans can have dominion wihtout being the purpose for all creation.So citing passages that call Humanity domenent will not prove that everythign was created for human use.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 13, 2004.

The sole purpose of Man's existence is to be with God. So, the sole purpose of all existence is to support Man's existence to be with God. That's if Man is the only soul with the eternal condition...

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 13, 2004.

If Man is truly a spiritual being, then all other non-spiritual beings are inferior to Man, in the scheme of things. The flesh is nothing. All that we see, hear, and touch will cease to exist, but our soul will live forever. So, it only makes sense that all of creation was made for Man.

This still means that God may place any creation in His Heaven, just like in the Genesis account.

How can it be otherwise? Unless, we are equal to the other creations, but I can't logically accept such an idea.

........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 13, 2004.

Angels are spiritual beings, and I don't see any evidence that they were made for man. We all need to watch out and not get too big of a head on our shoulders.

-bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 13, 2004.

Well, let me rephrase my comment to a more limited space and time. I restrict creation to our earth and the universe, but not the beings already in Heaven. Although, Heaven, too, is meant for Man. The Angels, as I've been led to believe, do watch over us and fight the battles against Evil and Evil's demons. So, there is a full circle to all of this, which connects us all.

.......

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 13, 2004.

Is it a Catholic teaching that Salvation involves not only mortals, but all those in Heaven and earth? I believe the answer is "yes".

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 13, 2004.

Bill?

But, do you see any evidence that supports the idea that our universe and earth, with its inhabitants, were created for Man's existence in God, for God, with God, and (Buzz Light Year's words) Beyond?

Sure, the Angels have their purpose and I didn't mean to include them in this idea/belief.

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 13, 2004.

Afterall, of what need would Angels have for a fleshy world considering that it never existed before the Angels?

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 13, 2004.

Your premise is faulty. You asusme that Animals are not spirtual beings, if they have a soul, then how are they not spiritual?

I reject the notin that all creation was made to help man get close to God, and htat Man was the sole reason for everythigne lse to be created. It is not only Impossible to determine that form scriptures, but rather opposed tot he fact that scripture tells us creation was made ot magnify God. God did not need to create man, nor was the whole Universe made soley for humanity. It was made for God. This includes the Animals.

They wherent made for humans, this is rather an arrogant assumption.It is also one that has problmems. why so big a Universe if it is all for one rac eon one planet? why NOT create a Ptolomaic Universe withthe earht at the Centre? isnt it all for humanity? why do we, as humans, need blakc holes and distant nebulae?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 13, 2004.

You raise some very interesting points, Zarove. But, until we see or witness life beyond our planet, we may as well consider ourselves the center of the universe. Nothing else seems so arrogant in the whole universe, except Man.

"It is not only Impossible to determine that form scriptures, but rather opposed tot he fact that scripture tells us creation was made ot magnify God."

Well, Man is part of that creation; therefore, we too glorify God. My arguement puts Man above all other "worldly" creations because Man is so unique to have "free will". I think that studies in animal behavior still conclude that animals are merely creatures to response and stimuli. Scriptures don't exactly refute that argument.

"why do we, as humans, need blakc holes and distant nebulae? "

Hmm....interesting. I could ask, "why do men need breasts". There must be a reason. Perhaps blackholes are needed in order to keep things....well.....in order. Nebulae generally can result in new heavenly(solid) bodies. The idea of gravitational influences upon distant systems from heavenly bodies does come to mind. Perhaps the galactic systems are dependent upon each other for order. I don't know. Again, why do men have breasts?

"You asusme that Animals are not spirtual beings, if they have a soul, then how are they not spiritual? "

Well, that is what we are trying to resol

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 13, 2004.

You raise some very interesting points, Zarove. But, until we see or witness life beyond our planet, we may as well consider ourselves the center of the universe. Nothing else seems so arrogant in the whole universe, except Man.-Rod

{This is also arrogant. It isnt all abotu lif eon other words, byt rather life in genral. Life exists without mankind. if, hypotheticlaly, all of Humanity where to die this very instant, we woudl still have animals survuviung on their own. Humanity is a part of creation, not the purpose of creation.God is the sole purpose for all things.}-Zarove

"It is not only Impossible to determine that form scriptures, but rather opposed tot he fact that scripture tells us creation was made ot magnify God."-Zarove

Well, Man is part of that creation; therefore, we too glorify God. My arguement puts Man above all other "worldly" creations because Man is so unique to have "free will". I think that studies in animal behavior still conclude that animals are merely creatures to response and stimuli. Scriptures don't exactly refute that argument.-Rob

{Actually the reverse appears true. Animals seem to be alke to learn, form emoitinal patterns, and reply to coices and desires, and ar enot merley run on stimuli.

The Old argument was htta they ran pourly on instinct, and that animals never did have independant htoughts, they ran like machines. Pet owners protested his veiw, sitign their own animals behaviours as guided by reaosn, albeit more limited than Human reasoning. Recetnly, scence has onfirmed this. Animals do, in fact, appear to be compelxe, thinkign animals, and not the mindless automita we presumed them ot be origionally. Repeatedly, animals demonstrate consiousness. we have taught Apes to use sign language, and Birds to chat with us. They trianed a Parot to talk, and detemriend he DID know what he was staign after a grueling series of experiements. Dogs and Cats have siffered form depression and anxiety.

They have feeligns, thoughts, and personalities, and no researhc indicats they run puyrlwy on instinct.}-Zarove

"why do we, as humans, need blakc holes and distant nebulae? "-Zarove

Hmm....interesting. I could ask, "why do men need breasts". There must be a reason. Perhaps blackholes are needed in order to keep things....well.....in order. Nebulae generally can result in new heavenly(solid) bodies. The idea of gravitational influences upon distant systems from heavenly bodies does come to mind. Perhaps the galactic systems are dependent upon each other for order. I don't know. Again, why do men have breasts?-Rob

{Men have breatss to house their inner organs. But God coudl have made a much smaler Universe that sill worled well.}-Zarove

"You asusme that Animals are not spirtual beings, if they have a soul, then how are they not spiritual? "-Zarove

Well, that is what we are trying to resolve-Rod

{The Bibel said they have souls. You agreed. You however tend to want ot say their souls are different in that they arent immortal. Your claim is not base don scripture at all, but form what i see human arrogance. This si what I am contending. Not to offend, but I find it arrogant to think man is the only thing God cares for when he himself tallies the fall of every sparrow.}

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 13, 2004.

Interesting (and also arrogant) perception of Scripture, Zarove.

I do have this observation:

Christ was sacrificed for our Salvation. If the sparrow is equal to the Man, God must surely have sent His only begotten Son for the Salvation of slugs and one-celled microbes, too. But, that would be crazy and blasphemous to believe. So, Man is indeed more important than the entire universe. If we can devour beef at a dinner session, we are like cannibals, unless those creatures were for our survival and only required a soulthat is different from Man.

I remember Muhammad talking to the animals. Surely, Catholicism does not reflect any theology of that kind, yes?

.........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 13, 2004.

"Men have breatss to house their inner organs"

Allow me to be more explicit:

Why do males require mammary glands as part of their anatomy?

I didn't mean chest

I was attempting to present evidence of things that we don't quite understand, yet exist much like heavenly phenomenon and bodies.

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 13, 2004.

italics off

-- (closing@tags.com), April 13, 2004.

Nipples, not breasts. Men have htem because we inherwi them form our mothers. They arent useless. Jjst superfluous on men, but as men have X Chromosomes and half their mothers genetic makeup, they have nipples.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 13, 2004.

Zarove?

If it is true what you say about other lifeforms existing without sin, then what make you of Scriptures--there is no one without sin? Surely, this would include your poor sparrow, yes?

If what you assert to be true about animals not made for Man, what say you about the following?

Genesis 2:18-20.

Yahweh God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make him a helpmate: So from the soil Yahweh God fashioned all the wild beasts and all the birds of heaven. These he brought to the man to see what he would call them; each one was to bear the name the man would give it. The man gave names to all the cattle, all the birds of heven and all the wild beasts."

This is also a big problem for me in determining whether these animals would have eternal life along with Adam and Eve. Again, we have the descision of whether the animals would have eternal souls or temporal souls. Of course, this becomes a moot issue when Adam and Eve fall from the Garden. In which case, we are gonna have to blame Man for the fall of these animals, too.

.......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 13, 2004.

Genesis 2:18-20. (The Jerusalem Bible)

...................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 13, 2004.

The mammary gland on males issue must then be evidence of that mutation or deviation man has brought to himself as a result of the fall from Grace/Garden. That's if we can't figure out why men have that particular "useless" gland, that is.

Is that proof of the "fall" or a significant proof of "evolution"?

......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 14, 2004.

Zarove? If it is true what you say about other lifeforms existing without sin, then what make you of Scriptures--there is no one without sin? Surely, this would include your poor sparrow, yes?

{The famus pasage you refer to is in romans, and refers only tot he Human race, not nonhumans.}-Zarove

If what you assert to be true about animals not made for Man, what say you about the following?

Genesis 2:18-20.

Yahweh God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make him a helpmate: So from the soil Yahweh God fashioned all the wild beasts and all the birds of heaven. These he brought to the man to see what he would call them; each one was to bear the name the man would give it. The man gave names to all the cattle, all the birds of heven and all the wild beasts."

This is also a big problem for me in determining whether these animals would have eternal life along with Adam and Eve. Again, we have the descision of whether the animals would have eternal souls or temporal souls. Of course, this becomes a moot issue when Adam and Eve fall from the Garden. In which case, we are gonna have to blame Man for the fall of these animals, too

{The animals where created before Adam in Genesis Chapter one. This was merley God creatign newer ones for companionship. There is a difference. And still, no sign of a lack of permemence o their souls.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 14, 2004.

nIPPLES, NOT MAMRY gLANDS, AR EON hUMAN mALES. hUMAN mALES STILL CANNOT mILK THEIR YOUNG.

Also, it proves only that we inheret half ourr genetic sequence form our mothers. Nothing more.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 14, 2004.

You slice your interpretations with multi-sided cleavers, Zarove. So, the animals must be divine being without sin and having a pure soul. No wonder India worships so many animals. Such animals are not equal with Man, as you've asserted, but they are actually higher. For no man can surpass the purity of the animal soul. God must surely favor His animal creations by providing them with Grace by default, yet Man must struggle with his own Salvation and risk eternal damnation.

Is this your basic belief--in a nutshell--concerning the eternal souls of animals when compared to Man?

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 14, 2004.

"Also, it proves only that we inheret half ourr genetic sequence form our mothers. Nothing more. "

Doesn't that strike you as rather bizzarre that we should inherit something "useless"? If it is "useless" and proves "nothing more", then are you saying that somethings just don't need explanations or reason?

If it is meant to be and not a freak of nature, then what is its purpose? Or, would it be best just not to question it a make like it isn't there?

We have a disturbing choice to make: 1)God makes mistakes, 2) God does not make mistakes, 3)Man brought these anomalies on himself.(I did allude to Man's doing earlier.)

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 14, 2004.

Befre I answer yu again, can you try to post all your replies in a single post. I can understand occassionally wantign to add soemthign after you alreayd posted, but almost every post of yours takes two or three posts to acocmlish its end. Thansk. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------

You slice your interpretations with multi-sided cleavers, Zarove.

{Not really. I just employ simple logic.}-Zarove

So, the animals must be divine being without sin and having a pure soul.No wonder India worships so many animals.

{Thier is a difference between Animal sinlessness and divinity. Need I remind you that as a Catholic you think Mary was wihtout sin, thus Jack Chick must be right and you Cahtlics think shes divine. Really the only thing I said was that Animals cannot sin because they lack the capacity. Theyare like Adam prior tot he fall, in a state of innocence not diinity.}-Zarove

Such animals are not equal with Man, as you've asserted, but they are actually higher.

{Nope, just not fallen, though they are effected by humans falling away, as was all creation.}-Zarove

For no man can surpass the purity of the animal soul.

{Actually thanks to Jesus's atonement we can/}-ZaROVE

God must surely favor His animal creations by providing them with Grace by default, yet Man must struggle with his own Salvation and risk eternal damnation.

{Animals arent recipiants of Grace. Grace is favour bestowed on us in spite of our sins. Animals have no sins to cover by Grace.Ani,als are innocent because they have no concept f sin and thus do not need Grace or salvation. Like Adam and eve where, before the Fall.}-Zarove Is this your basic belief--in a nutshell--concerning the eternal souls of animals when compared to Man?

{No, its a diliberate distortion that attempts to erect a straw man then knock it dwn and say you are right. But as I asked earluer, how can you claim Mary was sinless? woudl this not make her a god?isnt that a moot point?}-Zarove "Also, it proves only that we inheret half ourr genetic sequence form our mothers. Nothing more. " -Zarove Doesn't that strike you as rather bizzarre that we should inherit something "useless"? If it is "useless" and proves "nothing more", then are you saying that somethings just don't need explanations or reason?

{we inherit a lot f useless things, like an apindix.}-Zarove

If it is meant to be and not a freak of nature, then what is its purpose? Or, would it be best just not to question it a make like it isn't there?

{either opton is foolosh. Acknowledge them, but they are useless on Men. They are what we get form our mothers. reminders we come of her somb, you could say.}-Zarove

We have a disturbing choice to make: 1)God makes mistakes, 2) God does not make mistakes, 3)Man brought these anomalies on himself.(I did allude to Man's doing earlier.)

{OR... we can say that God allowed this o appear on man as a reminder of his birth, OR it can be because God wants us to be mindful of our inheretance.Heck, of yu follow your logiuc, we must ask this of the apindex, again}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 14, 2004.

You attribute many interpretations on my table, yet my table has only but a few actual beliefs, which I have made very clear. I merely ask questions for your answers.

BTW, the apendix(sp?) does collect bacterium that must be of some use in our digestive systems.

But, escape my questions by working around the answers.

Why the reference to Jack Chick and his confused fodder?

Mary is in Heaven, so I suppose all arguments about here sinless-ness is already an open and shut case, yes?

So, let's continue with your belief that animals also have eternal souls. I gather that perhaps this was once true--see Genesis--in tha past, but I'm focusing on the present and future.

I wish could could constrain my thoughts to one post, but I'm only human--my thoughts are sequential to our discussion.

.........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 14, 2004.

My thoughts are alos sequentiol, but I maange to arrange them before posting.

But is it not Catholic Doctorien that Mary was sinless in life as well as now in heaven? The reason I brign this up is beause it is not so alein to see a sinless life, nor is a sinless life automatcaly divine. Especuially n the case of an animal. Animals dotn sin becaus they havent the concept of sin, whihc renders sin impossible.

Its less that they are divine and ore that they lack that aspect of consiosuness. Thoughhey think and reason, they do not have the capacity to know good and evil. Only Humans have that.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 14, 2004.

For no man can surpass the purity of the animal soul.(rod commenting on Zarove's comments.)

{Actually thanks to Jesus's atonement we can/}-ZaROVE

Then, would this allow for Mary and the rest of us to have a pure soul? Why only your animals?

.........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 14, 2004.

I didnt say only animals could. You did, in an attempted rebuff of my claims.

-- ZAROVR (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 14, 2004.

Well, then it is perfectly alright to say that Mary was pure, yes? That is the logic that you've handed me. I didn't say that Mary was pure, but you have made that theology rather clear with your assertions.

..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 14, 2004.

I suppose that a sinless life may border on being divine, or at the very least Saintly. But, of course, inevitably reserved to the Heaven destination.

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 14, 2004.

The point you miss.

Catholic Dctorine states thta, while alivee and nto in Heaven Mary was sinless.

Catholci doctorine does not render her a divinity.

Thus, a sinless life can be lead that is not divine.

Hence, animals can be sinless without beign divine.

Animals lack the ability to sin, this si why they are sinless. Jesus, as a man, had the capacity to understand sin, theefore he had the ability to sin in theory, thogh it woudl contradict his own nature thus he never did.

Jesus differed form the animals in capacity to sin, and in udnerstandong of sin. Animals woudl never be a perfect sacrifice because they where lackign this. Jesus was not.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 14, 2004.

Zarove?

Was Mary pure or not? That is if we agree that Christ died and arose again while taking our sins with Him? Is this the real point that you have made or not?

Let's get this issue cleaned and out of the way, so that we may make the animal soul clear and obvious.

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 14, 2004.

My point is clar and Obvious.

I will restate, Minus the Mary thing

Animals did not partake he forbiden fruit. Man did. Man then became capable of Sin. Animals did not.

This si the extent of why I say Animals are sinless. They lack the capacity to sin.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 14, 2004.

It would seem fair for you to acknowledge your belief of Mary's sinless or sinful soul, yes? Afterall, you did open the door to that issue. Will you please give me an answer to Mary's purity?

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 14, 2004.

ZAROVE, Man had an immortal soul and free will before the fall, what happened during the fall is that man sinned. Animals don't have immortal souls to begin with, therefore they cannot sin, nor go to heaven.

bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 14, 2004.

Rod: I opened that up to show the Concept. I don hold Mary's sinlessness as a Doctorine becuase as I said, I am not Catholic. I only used it to illusrate why Divinity is not equatabel to sinlessness.

Bill: You make the assertion that Animals lack an Immortal soul and frer will. This is only Assertion, and not provable in Scripture. The Bible does not say that Humans ar eht eonl htings wiht Immortal souls or free will.

Free will is the capacity to act on ones own volition, which, dispite claims that animals run only on instinct, animals seem to possess, both by Observation and scinetific study this has been confirmed. Likewise they think and have feeligns to acocmpany this will.

They have souls. This was agreed upon. why shoudl Ibeleive they do NOT have Immortal souls? No plac ein the Bible tisself, or any other known soulrce, makes a definitive statement liek this that holds proper auhtority. Simpley declarign them without an Immortal soul is not sifficient to prove the point.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 14, 2004.

Well, I should admit that Mary and her history has intrigued me very much. Let me reveal my thoughts and beliefs about Mary:

1. She was born Immaculate.

2. She received God's offer and received the Holy Spirit in the virginal birth of Christ.

3. She was pure and remained perpetually pure.

4. She is in Heaven.

I'll stop there because to go further would not be an accurate account of my beliefs.

........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 14, 2004.

Zarove:

I'm sure I speak for many others. From the replies others have made to you, you seem to have had some interesting things to say, but I find your contributions impossible to read. For goodness sake use your spell-check!

-- Peter Kennedy (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), April 15, 2004.

Zarove

I have truly enjoyed your debate/discussion with me and this forum. I did have to stumble through your writings, but I'm sure that some have struggled with mine, too. Sometimes we don't get the luxury of time and peace while posting our thoughts. Sometimes our thoughts can be so elusive that we rush to type them out before they become a peculiar taste in our mouth. So, language is in the eye of the beholder. I don't mind bending backwards to make cents ov aniwunz lakk ov vokabularry or grammar or sintax. We should all try our best, I supppose.

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 16, 2004.

Peter you certainly can speak for me. I have yet to get through anything Zarove has posted here and that is saying a lot, in light of the substantial number of posts he has contributed. Having a disability is one thing, but refusal to utilize the tools available for spell checking is simply laziness and lack of courtesy toward others.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), April 16, 2004.

My grandfather couldn't speak a stitch of english, yet he broke through those barriers and , "voila", I'm a product of his struggles. Lazy? hmm.....

........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 16, 2004.

Peter and Ed,

Some people have slow computers on which they cannot run too many programs at once, so doing a spell check would be very difficult or impossible. I don't know whether this is the case with Zarove. But in any case, I'm not sure how much spell check would help a person with dyslexsia if he cannot see whether his words are indeed spelled correctly, or which alternative would be correct. Some words would not be recognized by the computer if they are not distinct enough. I have not had any substantial difficulty reading Zarove's posts.

God bless,

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), April 16, 2004.

Ed, I'm gonna be real honest with you. You can delete my post cuz you have that priviledge.

The english language is not the only language people mutilate. Some of us posters can speak and mutilate a number of diffferent languages, not just english. Also, some people are much smarter than others, while some are borderline geniuses. I find it rather arrogant and offensive when an intellectual begins to dictate over another person's lack of language arts. It is intimidating for some to post, especially when their compositions reveal their level of language skill or talent.

I picked up on Zarove's writing and assumed the benefit of the doubt. So, I bit my intellectual pride and made the effort to decipher his writings.

I say drop the high and mighty english requirement and let the people write it the best they can. That requirement is just another oppresive action against those who have a different system.

Of course, you are always welcomed to delete my post. You are the man.

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 16, 2004.

Gosh! this reminds me of a funny story:

This guy walks into a coffee shop. He says, "Hi! keeand Uh have uh cafay latty eh uh donut, poleez?"

The servant replied, "Uh cafay latty eh uh donut, wite uh way"

Then this other guy walks in and orders, "My dear chap, this pleasant morning I would truly care to indulge in a cup of jo, please."

The servant replied, "Oh wonderful! a cup of jo for our dear patron and a pleasant morning to you!"

The first guy looks at the servant with confusion, "Uh yew making fun uh mee and how uh talk?"

The servant answers,"Nuh.....uh making fun uh heem and how hee talk!"

I guess its all on which side of the fence we live in.

..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 16, 2004.

Ed,

Now do you see why I stood up to you when you wanted to stop "bad spellers" from posting in this forum a few months ago? Whats next blond hair and blue eyes?

Rember that rule you suggested?

Can I be your "HUCKLE BERRY" ED? :-)

-- - (David@excite.com), April 16, 2004.

I certainly did not intend to sound "high and Mighty" or to be uncharitable to Zarove, or to make fun of or discriminate against anyone. I apologise for any offence. Maybe it's due to MY lack of READING skills, that I can't read Zarove's contributions.

Zarove, I would like to share your thoughts, but if it is impossible for you to present them more legibly, that's fine, I'll just have to miss out on them.

-- Peter Kennedy (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), April 17, 2004.

Could it be that the "rule" is flawed, the intentions are righteous, and the application of the rule situational to the poster?

This ain't no perfect world.

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 17, 2004.

Peter! your post should be deleted for errors:

"I apologise[apologize] for any offence[offense]."

Do you get my point, Peter and all? It isn't that we do thing to be a problem for everyone. The point is that we are only human and make mistakes without even realizing it. I say, "So what!". The main thing is that we get the meaing behind the superficial errors in our posts.

Did you use a 'spell check', Peter? Who has time for a spell check when it might crash the program or zap the post?

Sorry for using you as an example, Peter. I had to prove my point at your expense, please forgive me.

........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 17, 2004.

I find Zarove's posts wonderful to read! I like the twists, turns, and fantastic surprises of his sentences ... never boring. He sheds new light and dimension to English words ... he stretches the limits of pronunciation.

-- richard (richardeb7@hotmail.com), April 17, 2004.

Try to read through the Pilgrim's Bible--The Geneva Bible. Once again, it isn't the errors, but the meanings that were important.

.........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 17, 2004.

Hey! imagine using a text that does not use any punctuation at all. Take that same text and extract a modern Bible from it. Oh, wait a minute, that's already been done.....never mind.

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 17, 2004.

Peter! your post should be deleted for errors: "I apologise[apologize] for any offence[offense]."

To be fair, neither of these words where origionaly misspelled. its just the British Spellings, which I also use. ApologiSe, and OffenCe. Just like we spell it Colour, Centre, Theatre, ect...

However, the notation of my condiiton is accurate. I have used spell checkers before when on a mailstrimng agaisnt a Sceptic ( Spelled correctly, again British Spelling) , and I got terms like "Crimsoning the Galaxy". I did not know I had misspelled the word origionaly. The spell checkerrendered the word Crimson, which made no sence. ( The word was "Crusading"). It takes me time to re- proofread, which could take half an hour to an hour n on a msall post.

This si why it takes me over three weeks to write a new chapter to a bookw hen I wirte. I can usualy finish the chapter in a day, but proofreading it after spellcheck takes time.

On an internet post, I don't have time to simpley sit and correct every spellchecker errror.(sic)

I try to make my posts readable, however, unlike some message baords, i cannot post them,then run them through a spell checker to edit them after mroe reflection.

I appologise if I am too impossible for some peopel to read, but I do try my best.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 17, 2004.

Well, then...

It isn't "I guess its all on which side of the fence we live in."

That should be:

I guess its all on which side of the ocean we live in.

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 17, 2004.

"I try to make my posts readable, however, unlike some message baords, i cannot post them,then run them through a spell checker to edit them after mroe reflection. "

That is more reason to leave things along in this forum, unless this forum will have a full time editor who is infallible. American or British, paper or plastic, patato or spuds.......get it?

Is Ebonics acceptable here?

................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 17, 2004.

The whole idea behind techology was to allow man the task of spontaneity of thought and creativity without the loss of momentum by doing the mechanical activities that bogs the human mind away from that brain storm of enlightenment. Whew!

In other words, we can forget what we were saying cuz the word processor distracted us. Uh.....where was I?

...........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 17, 2004.

Ah! Yes. Animals are spontaneous, even if rather primitive. Humans can fall into the trap of not seeing the trees for the forest, or the converse.

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 17, 2004.

Dear Zarove, thank you for trying your best. That is all I ask. And thank you for being more charitable and understanding to me than some others have been. I will redouble my efforts to understand what you have written.

Yes, words are just a means of conveying our thoughts. But if they are not accurate they can fail to convey them, or worse, even convey a totally different meaning to what was intended.

BTW I am Australian, not British. Our spelling conventions generally follow the British ones but not always, for example "Skeptic" is the normal spelling in Australia.

-- Peter Kennedy (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), April 17, 2004.

I'm not going to get into free will but I will say the difference between animals and human beings is that human beings are created in the image of God, animals (although loved by God) are not. Hey, I'll never ever understand what being created in the image of God means. Nor can I understand how God has just always existed and exists in three persons but one God. So many mysteries.

Animals although are innocent. They did not sin like the fallen angels and mankind did. In the old testament some animals are called unclean by God and I believe it's due to health reasons and perhaps MAN'S intersession. But animals are not cast into hell nor will be like some humans and angels will. All of nature is under the curse of sin. God did not create meat eaters to tear apart flesh nor posionous venomous creatures, nor give animals the desire to have sex with one another while being the same gender. That all is a result of the curse because of man's sin. God's not going to give us a perfect world if we are going to turn our backs on him. I do believe animals will be in heaven and all will be like it was supposed to be from the creation. No suffering or death.

But although I love animals dearly, human beings are still much more important, even to God because we are created in his image.

-- Jason (Enchanted fire5@aol.com), April 18, 2004.

Jason, et. al, Animals don't have an immortal soul, so by definition, they cannot sin. Sinning is turning away from God with a punishment of eternal damnation.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 18, 2004.

Well, maybe this time you will respond to me, Bill?

Genesis started out as an eternal paradise, I'm guessing. Do you think that all life was meant to have eternity alongside Man or not (in the Garden of Eden)?

If so, wouldn't it make sense that the animals were to have eternal life, too(making them eternal souls)?

I notice that you don't exaclty trade thoughts with me too easily. Or is it just my paranoid feeling...

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 18, 2004.

Well, maybe this time you will respond to me, Bill? Genesis started out as an eternal paradise, I'm guessing. Do you think that all life was meant to have eternity alongside Man or not (in the Garden of Eden)?

If so, wouldn't it make sense that the animals were to have eternal life, too(making them eternal souls)?

That would have been an earthly life, not a spiritual life in heaven. Different thing altogether. Again, animals don't have spiritual souls that live on in heaven. An animal's soul is what keep them alive on earth. When the soul dies, the animal dies.

In the case of plants and animals the soul goes out of existence when the organic life dies. Because of this, animals of incapable of sin. In the case of man, the soul remains in existence because of its nature. Human souls are spiritual in nature (immaterial). So they are different from the souls of animals in two respects. First, within human souls is the capability to reason, it is where we have our intelligence and from where we know right from wrong. That is why a man is held responsible for his actions in a way that animals are not. Secondly, the human soul is immortal. Since it belongs to the spiritual realm, and is a thing which has no physical parts it cannot fall apart, poisoned, crushed or taken out of existence. So the souls of the saved will always be aware of themselves as enjoying the vision of God for all eternity, and the souls of the damned will endure eternal ‘punishment’.

For more information on how the Church sees animals, check the Catechism of the Catholic Church 2415-2418.

I notice that you don't exaclty trade thoughts with me too easily. Or is it just my paranoid feeling...

Sorry, it is not intentional.

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 18, 2004.

-the answer is NO.

to quote the catechism:

"363 In Sacred Scripture the term "soul" often refers to human life or the entire human person. But "soul" also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him, that by which he is most especially in God's image: "soul" signifies the spiritual principle in man."

-man only...

further:

"Respect for the integrity of creation

2415 The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity. Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man's dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.

2416 Animals are God's creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory. Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.

2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image.198 Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.

2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.

Daniel////

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), April 18, 2004.

Ah! thank you, Bill and Daniel. That is what you meant earlier, "Heaven eternal". I had never considered the physical reality of existence on earth seperate from the eternal existence. I considered them as one and the same. That does make for more to ponder about.

....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 18, 2004.

I'm referring to the Genesis account, not to our present condition.

.....

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 18, 2004.

The problem with Bill, and others, syaign that Animals have no eternal, spiritual sopu; is that it is not relaly scriptural. As I said.

Again, shoudl I accet that animals, when they die, simpley die where animals don't, because you said so? Bill, especially, simplety repeats over and over again " Animals do not have Immortal souls". This is not sufficient proof that they don't.

Nor is quoting one version of the Catholic Catchism. ( Of which I have seen others.)

Can you show me form the Bible, or any actual binding scripture the "fact", or is it just a supposition?

I beleive ANimals DO have eternal life. Thsi is because they DO have a soul, and they ARE God's creatures.

Their is NO reference to Humanity beign the only life form that persists after death. None. its notint he text. Their is absolutely NO reasonable argument for saying " Animals do noy have Immortal souls>" Least of all will repeating this like a Mantra convence anyone.

Indeed, even your own Catholic Philosophers have said they DO have eternal life. Need I look up all the references? Smpley appelng to the authority of a Catchism is inadequate in light of others who hce disagreed.

Least of all is it binding on me. Or on the ruth of ht ematter, which is a seerate entity altogather form mere beleifs.

Now, wihtout jus repeating " Animals do not have immortal souls" can you SHOW ME why I shoudl beleive this, as the information is not scriptural, and not relaly proen by anyhtign bt assertion.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 18, 2004.

It would seem like the Holy Bible does not have a reason to show that animals have or do not have eternal souls. The Holy Bible is concerned with Man's Salvation. So, The Bible is not going to prove what we are trying to assertain.

You have mentioned the serpent talking with Eve. Satan took on the image of the serpent, not that the serpent spoke; it was Satan. If I am allowed to present Muhammad, he had a camel come to speak to him. The animal, presumably, was not posessed by a demon. Was the camel posessed? If not, then their doctrine puts animals higher than Christianity does. I understand the the animals prophiseid the birth of Muhammad. I guess what I'm alluding to is that the Quran may have some insight to this discussion. But, that's another forum, not this one.

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 18, 2004.

We continue to consider the following Scriptures:

Ecclesiastes 3:21
"Who knows if the life-breath of the children of men goes upward and the life-breath of beasts goes earth-ward?"(NAB)
Ecclesiastes 12:7
"And the dust returns to the earth as it once was, and the life breath returns to God who gave it."(NAB)

..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 18, 2004.

It would seem like the Holy Bible does not have a reason to show that animals have or do not have eternal souls. The Holy Bible is concerned with Man's Salvation. So, The Bible is not going to prove what we are trying to assertain.

{However, the Bible does mention Animal Souls, and their is no authoritative statement which conclusively said they do not have Immortal souls. Plenty of Verses say God cares for Naimals though...}- Zarove

You have mentioned the serpent talking with Eve. Satan took on the image of the serpent, not that the serpent spoke; it was Satan.

{Was it? I have heard that all my life. "Satan tempted eve, he was the Serpent". Hoeever, this beelif is not in th Bible either. No where does it say that Satan assumed the form of a Serpent and tempted Eve.Likewise, it does not say Satan possessed the Serpent. The beleive that Satan was the Tempter of eve, in fact, is not really preasent in the scriptrues. Paul the Apostle likewise said "Serpent" rather htan Satan. Surely, He woudl have said Satan tempted Eve if he had. The Idea that the Serpent was relaly Satan is a lot youner than the Bible itsself. Isee no reason to accepthe standard Christyain veiw that Satan tempted eve,even though most Protestnats also beleive this. In fact, Jews use this to prove Christaisn don;'t knwo hat thir tlakign about.

Second Coritnthians 11 : 3

3. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be }-Zarove

If I am allowed to present Muhammad, he had a camel come to speak to him. The animal, presumably, was not posessed by a demon. Was the camel posessed? If not, then their doctrine puts animals higher than Christianity does. I understand the the animals prophiseid the birth of Muhammad. I guess what I'm alluding to is that the Quran may have some insight to this discussion. But, that's another forum, not this one.

{Well that is interesting, btu I don't knwo if anyone else on the board will let it fly. After all, I dont think the Quaran is seen as scripture that is binding.}-Zarove

We continue to consider the following Scriptures: Ecclesiastes 3:21 "Who knows if the life-breath of the children of men goes upward and the life-breath of beasts goes earth-ward?"(NAB) Ecclesiastes 12:7 "And the dust returns to the earth as it once was, and the life breath returns to God who gave it."(NAB)

Actually, that isnt a very good translation job, if I may...

First, the KJV

Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?

Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

Now the DR, so as to rpesent a balanced eiw form a Cahtolci Bible.

Who knoweth if the spirit of the children of Adam ascend upward, and if the spirit of the beasts descend downward?

And the dust return into its earth, from whence it was, and the spirit return to God, who gave it.

No Life-Breath here.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 18, 2004.

Yes, Zarove, I did provide both KJV and Catholic versions of those verses at the beginning of this thread. You are gonna get a ton of flak on the remark about the translation---"Actually, that isnt a very good translation job, if I may... ". I'll cover my eyes and ears; tell me when it's over. :)

Well, it may not be binding for Catholics, but some may use it for this argument.

.......

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 18, 2004.

Its not a good translation. And its not like I just posted protestnat Bibel versions, i sued the DR as well. I am not a fan of the NAB.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 18, 2004.