From: primeaux@duncan.cs.utk.edu (David Primeaux)
Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs
Subject: Re: Dogs Have Souls, Don't They?
Date: 16 Apr 92 21:12:44 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, University of Tennesee, Knoxville
Distribution: world
Reply-To: primeaux@duncan.cs.utk.edu (David Primeaux)
NNTP-Posting-Host: duncan.cs.utk.edu

In article <1992Apr16.164019.11434@cs.cornell.edu>, honig@cs.cornell.edu (Sue Utter Honig) writes:
|> 
|> I've followed this thread, starting innocently enough with the post of
|> the article about dogs having souls, then going on to Chris Barnes'
|> response about how he would answer the question, based on his Christian
|> beliefs.  I've also gone through the numerous posts slamming Chris for
|> his posting.
|> 
|> While I may not agree with Chris, and I may not even think it was
|> appropriate for him to post about his religious beliefs in this
|> newsgroup, I will say that I appreciate that he has done nothing to
|> perpetuate a religious discussion of this question, even in the face
|> of some pretty roughly worded criticisms.  Since I've seen him post
|> about other items since, I would assume he has seen the responses to his
|> note.
|> 
|> I also wanted to point out a counter example.  What if Chris had been
|> a Lakota Indian, who's religious beliefs include respect and a more equal
|> footing spiritually for members of the "four-legged nation"?  What if
|> he had expressed the belief that he would be reunited with his dog in
|> the land beyond this one?  Would he have been vilified as he has been
|> in some posts?  And yet the acts would have been the same - he would
|> have been posting about his religious beliefs.  Admittedly, his
|> beliefs are more incendiary than the Lokotas' (well, I guess that
|> would all depend on your point of view, wouldn't it? :-)
|> 
|> The point to this?  I dunno.  I guess I'm not willing to write Chris
|> or anyone else off because he made a posting I didn't agree with.
|> He's not using the net to try and convert anyone.  Let's just go back
|> to talking about dogs...
|> 
|> Sue Utter Honig
|> honig@cs.cornell.edu
|> 
|> 
|> P.S.  It's interesting that Dog World will be running a series of
|> articles on the Lakota Indians and their beliefs about animals.  It
|> started with the April (I think it's April - it's got a Nova Scotia
|> Duck Toller stamp on the cover) issue.  That's what got me to thinking
|> about what Chris had done.

I can't agree with you here.   The problem for me was not that Chris 
posted his religious beliefs.  That is his right.  However, he claimed 
that his beliefs provided the definitive answer to the question,  at the
same time implying that persons who have not accepted Jesus are without
souls.  *That* I find a problem.  

I am responding to this here for the same reason that I responded to 
Chris's post here -- even though discussion of the topic is probably
best carried on elsewhere.  That reason is that there are insidious
implications in a post such as his, implications which are incompatable 
with *my* understanding of Christianity.  To state that there is nothing
objectionable in his post is either to: 1) accept its implications, 
2) not appreciate its implications or 3) not to care about its implications.

A final note.  I do *not* object to Chris' post because it disagrees with
my opinion about whether dogs have souls.  Personally, I think whether 
dogs have souls is a non-issue.  I am concerned, however, when someone
inplies that some humans do not have souls.

-- David