From: davids@c3.lanl.gov (David Simmons)
Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs
Subject: Re: Dogs Don't Have Souls, Do They??
Date: 13 Apr 92 20:31:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: newshost.1992Apr13.203138.22867
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory

In article <kujhogINNqhk@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu>, primeaux@duncan.cs.utk.edu (David Primeaux) writes:
|> In article <167C89A49.X005CB@tamvm1.tamu.edu>, X005CB@tamvm1.tamu.edu (Chris Barnes) writes:
|> |> In article <PREVELIG.92Apr12114738@eastman1.mit.edu>
|> |>      prevelig@eastman1.mit.edu (Peter Prevelige) writes:
|> |>  
|> |> >Besides I'm not afraid of losing him.
|> |> >
|> |> >I know where to find him again.
|> |>  
|> |> I really debated about whether I should reply to this post, but I
|> |> feel very strongly about this topic.  I also know there are people
|> |> that will violently disagree with me.  Also, it is really only a
|> |> question for those people that believe in a supreame being
|> |> (athiests need not read further, and any flames/arguments from
|> |> such will be ignored).
|> |>  
|> |>    The basic question here is "Do animals (pets) have a soul?"
|> |> The answer is an undeniable NO.
|> 
|> 
|> I think:
|> If you wish to deny that animals have souls, that is your right.  To assert
|> that they UNDENIABLY do not have souls and then to say you won't discuss the
|> matter further is, well, arrogant and preposterously self righteous.
|> 
|>   
|> |>    Most people that answer yes to that question are confusing
|> |> a soul with a spirit (or are equating the two).  There are
|> |> three things that make up Mankind (and God).  They are body, soul,
|> |> and spirit.  The body is obvious.  The spirit is that part that
|> |> determines wheather something is or is not alive (ie. a life-force).
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> I find this a simplistic and flippant, gratuitous "solution" to a 
|> very, very difficult philosophical problem.  On what authority do
|> you claim to have found *THE* solution?
|> 
|> 
|> |> The soul is that part that has a determines our relationship with
|> |> God. 
|> 
|> 
|> Can you *possibly* mean that neither our bodies nor what you term
|> our "spirit" has anything to do with our human relationship with God?
|> Surely I misread you.
|> 
|> 
|> |> Since there is only 1 way to have a relationship with God
|>          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> |> (through the acceptance of Jesus Christ) and since that requires
|>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> 
|> 
|> Even though I consider myself a Christian,  I find this outrageously
|> offensive.  It dismisses the possibility that Jews,  followers of 
|> Islam, Buddhists and Hindi (as well as many other "non-Christians") can 
|> have a relationship with God.  Furthermore,  it asserts *for God* that God 
|> will only be open to such a relationship with those who have been exposed 
|> to and accepted the message of Jesus.  What a closed-minded. narrow,
|> biggoted God yours must be!
|> 
|>  
|> |> 1) free will & 2) having been made in God's image, only Mankind
|> |> can have a soul.
|> |>  
|> |>  
|> |> Notes:
|> |>     I know that this topic is *highly* contreversial, and as such
|> |>     I would be very reluctant to have this discussion carry on
|> |>     for a long time.  I will simply ignore any responses that do
|> |>     not DIRECTLY relate to the question of animals having a soul
|> |>     (ie.  any flames directed at me about other religous beliefs,
|> |>     personnal assaults, etc) will be simply ignored.
|> |>  
|> |>     Anyone wishing to carry this topic out to other related subjects
|> |>     not dealing with animals is free to do so to my personall email
|> |>     address (no need cluttering up this newsgroup with things that
|> |>     don't apply to it).
|> |>  
|> |>       ----------------------------------------------
|> |> Chris Barnes            |  "Success is the realization of your
|> |> x005cb@tamvm1.tamu.edu  |       worthwhile dreams" ---  Dexter Yager
|> |> (409) 846-3273 (home)   |  "A goal is a dream being acted upon"
|> |> (409) 845-8454 (work)   |                          ---  Don Wilson
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> Personally, I think:
|> If people wish to believe that animals have souls, that is their right
|> and perhaps this is a comfort to them.  If people wish to believe that 
|> humans have souls, that is their right and perhaps it is a comfort to them.
|> And perhaps some will want to distinguish between human and animal souls.
|> Perhaps some will want to believe that plants have souls. Some will hold
|> contrary beliefs to the above.  But they are *beliefs* and *that* is what 
|> makes faith *faith*.  To present an article of faith as incontrovertably
|> or obviously true is naive and often betrays an unfortunate ethnocentricity.
|> 
|> -- David

A ROUSING "Here Here!" to this.  I sent a similar mail message to the
poster, as I did not want to turn this into religion.pets.dogs.

But I agree that a belief is a belief, a fact a fact and, for the
most part, ne'r the twain shall meet, at least amiably.
-- 


David G. Simmons
davids@lanl.gov

************************************************************
*							   *
*	All I'm asking for is a chance to prove		   *
*      	      that money can't make me happy		   *
*							   * 
************************************************************

"Any resemblance to real opinions is purely coincidental"
Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs