Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: jmoon@lehi3b15.csee.lehigh.edu (Jonggu Moon [890911]) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: do dogs go to heaven ? Message-ID: Date: 9 Jan 91 08:14:32 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: CSEE Dept. Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA Lines: 54 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu What about dolphins ? What about chipmunks ? What makes you so sure ? The Bible never says "Dogs do not have souls". ^>*<^jmoon [This gets into a lot of controversial issues on the nature of humanity and our relation to the rest of creation. The traditional view, which I believe most Christians still believe, lodges our spiritual nature in a soul or spirit (which some people distinguish, using arguments that I've never been able to make any sense out of), which is more or less separate from the body, and surives its death. There's a critique of this view that seems to have gained wide circulation only in the 20th Cent. A classic reference is Nygren's "Agape and Eros". The critique points out the the concept of immortality of the soul is really Greek, and not Biblical. It is based on the Greek idea of preexistent souls that become entrapped in the material world. At death the souls go free and ascend back to the heavenly realms. The Hebrews knew nothing of this. The Hebrew word translated "soul" really means the whole person, and appears in the OT many places that are not translated soul. This view has been summarized as "man doesn't *have* a soul, he *is* a soul." As far as Christian doctrine, we believe not in the immortality of the soul, but rather in the resurrection of the body. Christ was resurrected, and appeared in a glorified body. There is no clear teaching that requires us to think of a disembodied soul. There are a number of passages that talk about soul, spirit, etc. Some interpreters come up with analyses of humanity based on these, claiming precise definitions of what each part is. This assumes that the terms are being used as specific terms for different parts of the human nature. However one can just as well read them as referring to function. That is, we all agree that people have minds (though sometimes I have my doubts about some of our users). But we don't expect to localize the mind to some specific organ, nor do we expect the mind to survive death of the brain. It's a function, not a part of the body. If you accept this analysis, then you don't necessarily have the sharp demarcation between entities that have souls and those that do not. If you think of the soul as a term for our spiritual functions, rather than as a separate thing that one could in theory remove surgically if only the surgeon had an appropriately metaphysical knife, then it becomes possible to imagine a spectrum of "soulfulness". Different kinds of animals could have different levels of responsibility and different qualities of spiritual life. Since one of the participants in this group is of the canine persuation, perhaps he would be interested in commenting on this issue. As moderator I would certainly not wish to put myself in the position of denying Brandy a soul. And I confidently expect to meet him in heaven. --clh]