Nephesh/soulish creatures

[RickD]

Split from this thread:http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 3&start=30

Domokunrox wrote:
Animals and inanimate objects do not have a mind.

Are you sure you don't want to retract this statement? Do you really believe all animals don't have a mind?

[domokunrox]

Domokunrox wrote:
Animals and inanimate objects do not have a mind.

Are you sure you don't want to retract this statement? Do you really believe all animals don't have a mind?

Not at all.

Perhaps you're confused as to what a mind is. Hint: A brain is not a mind

[RickD]

Domokunrox wrote:
Animals and inanimate objects do not have a mind.

Are you sure you don't want to retract this statement? Do you really believe all animals don't have a mind?

Not at all.

Perhaps you're confused as to what a mind is. Hint: A brain is not a mind

Dom, I'm talking about soulish creatures. Creatures created with a mind, will and emotions. Perhaps this will help you understand what I mean:
http://www.reasons.org/articles/origin- ... sh-animals

[domokunrox]

Domokunrox wrote:
Animals and inanimate objects do not have a mind.

Are you sure you don't want to retract this statement? Do you really believe all animals don't have a mind?

Not at all.

Perhaps you're confused as to what a mind is. Hint: A brain is not a mind

Dom, I'm talking about soulish creatures. Creatures created with a mind, will and emotions. Perhaps this will help you understand what I mean:
http://www.reasons.org/articles/origin- ... sh-animals

I am fully aware of of Aristotelean soul theory. I however, reject it.

Giving animals, soul, mind, will, and emotions is not only an enormous problem in philosophy. Its an enormous problem for a Christian worldview. We are not in the position to say animals have souls.

In my view, there are only 3 catorgories of existence.
1. God (Perfect in all ways)
2. Human minds and souls (non physical, imperfect, mental substance)
3. Physical objects (spatial extension, physical objects)

Animals fit in category 3

[RickD]

Domokunrox wrote:
I am fully aware of of Aristotelean soul theory. I however, reject it.

Dom, I have no idea what the "Aristotelean soul theory" is. And, I don't think we have to know what it is, to be able to understand what a soulish creature is, and perhaps why God created soulish creatures.

Dom wrote:
Giving animals, soul, mind, will, and emotions is not only an enormous problem in philosophy. Its an enormous problem for a Christian worldview.

Dom, did you even read the article I linked? The Hebrew word "Nephesh" is translated as "soul".

Genesis 1:21: 21 God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind ; and God saw that it was good.

The word "creature" is Nephesh, which means soul. Genesis says God created soulish creatures, so I'm not sure how you think that's a problem for "a Christian worldview". Perhaps you could explain what you mean.

We are not in the position to say animals have souls.

Dom, the bible says it. I'm not pulling animals with souls out of thin air.

In my view, there are only 3 catorgories of existence.
1. God (Perfect in all ways)
2. Human minds and souls (non physical, imperfect, mental substance)
3. Physical objects (spatial extension, physical objects)

Animals fit in category 3

Dom, soulish creatures have a body, and a soul. The soul is comprised of a mind, will and emotions. Soulish creatures were created to be able to form relationships with other soulish creatures, and humans. Any owner of a dog, cat, or even some kinds of birds, can attest to the special bond we have with our "soulish" pets. Humans also have a body and soul. But humans also have a spirit, which allows us to be able to have a relationship with God.
1 Thessalonians 5:23:
23 Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely ; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Animals don't have spirits. They can't understand the concept of God, because they aren't spiritual creatures.

Perhaps you are confusing spirit and soul.

Genesis 1 describes three transcendent miracles: the creation of the universe in verse 1, the creation of "soulish" animals in verse 21, and the creation of human beings "in the image of God" in verse 27. These passages represent the only ones in Genesis 1 where the Hebrew verb, bara ("create"), appears. They imply that the origin of life has three components: the origin of physical life, the origin of soulish life, and the origin of spiritual life.

According to the Bible, soulish life includes creatures in which God endowed mind, will, and emotions so that they can form relationships with members of their own species as well as with human beings. God designed soulish animals so that each kind serves and/or pleases humanity in its own distinct way. The Bible claims that before humans even existed soulish animals were preprogrammed by God to relate to and to serve and please human beings.1

The Bible defines spiritual life as a God-given capacity in creatures to discover and to form a relationship with Him. In the same manner that He designed soulish animals to serve and please humanity, He made humans to serve and please Him.

http://www.reasons.org/articles/origin- ... sh-animals

[Ivellious]

Regardless of what the Bible has to say on the topic, there are many non-human animals that pretty clearly have intelligence, communication abilities, the ability to learn, emotions, distinct personalities, and even complex social structures in nature. Throwing in these animals with inanimate object seems pretty ignorant to me unless you have simply never bothered to look at the issue in any detail.

[domokunrox]

Thanks for splitting the thread, Rick.

I am not sure why you decided this was a creation topic. Though I guess it would depend on what you think the mind is and how you know that.

First and foremost, a reminder that you asked this question in the philosophy section. So, yes, you do need to understand what aristotlean theory is when you are in the philosophy section is. Unless of course you want to assert some absurd eastern view regarding nature, zen, and a slew of other contradictions there. Believe me, you don't want to go there.

Second, there are enormous problems with your assertion that Gen 1:21 calls for. Exactly, what is "living", "creature" , and "moves"? I could argue that vegetation fits into this category as well. Your grammar skills are actually quite bad here. In fact, your context is actually quite bad as well. Where does it talk about animals having minds?

In what way does the "soul" move? That doesn't even make sense. Let's go ahead and just stick to the translation here "creature". This doesn't tell us that the creature has a "soul". In fact, you're looking at this from an empiricist view, which is fine but you don't get metaphysical explanations like what a "soul" is from purely physics. That's just backwards thinking especially from something so ancient like Genesis 1.

We have absolutely nothing to go on to say animals have "soul". If you think the "soul" is compromised of mind, will, and emotions then boy we got bigger problems.

Mind is non spatial, and we have NOTHING biblically or scientifically to say animals have one.
Will? You can't be serious, right? What kind of will do they have? This is the most absurd claim so far.
Emotions is also quite odd to attribute to animals because even though it may seem like they react appropriately, you cannot confirm they understand. Actually they don't because we domesticate animals, but their nature is driven entirely on animal instinct. Emotions are a whole lot more complex to simply state understanding of them. Just because you react appropriately and blend in socially doesn't mean you understand emotions or have them.

The text you pasted from that site quite literally says "preprogrammed". You can't argue that animals have a mind, "soul", will?, and emotion with that. That's pretty much calling them machines at this point, and that's exactly what I call them as well.

As for the "soul" where does the "soul" go?

When Christ sai (NASB)Matthew 11:28-29
"Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. [29] "Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS.

When Christ said "Soul", what is he referring to? And where does the "soul" rest?

In your view, if animals do have a "soul", where do their "souls" rest?

[Ivellious]

Mind is non spatial, and we have NOTHING biblically or scientifically to say animals have one.

What is your definition of a mind? As far as I'm concerned, a mind is simply the ability to think and learn. A working understanding of theoretical physics is not a requirement for a mind. For thousands of years humans presumed that we were the only beings capable of any kind of thought. In recent years, we have found that many animals (mostly mammals) can recognize shapes and pictures, solve 3-dimensional puzzles, remember faces, and that animals have distinct personalities....All things that I attribute to having a mind. Perhaps not of the same capacity as humans, but I have no idea what definition of a "mind" you are using to make this assertion.

Will? You can't be serious, right? What kind of will do they have? This is the most absurd claim so far.

Again, what is your definition of will? The dictionary defines will in this sense as:
1. the faculty of conscious and deliberate choice of action; volitionRelated: voluntary , volitive
2. the act or an instance of asserting a choice

Are you asserting that all animals other than humans are incapable of ever making choices based on personal preference?

Emotions is also quite odd to attribute to animals because even though it may seem like they react appropriately, you cannot confirm they understand. Actually they don't because we domesticate animals, but their nature is driven entirely on animal instinct. Emotions are a whole lot more complex to simply state understanding of them. Just because you react appropriately and blend in socially doesn't mean you understand emotions or have them.

So basically, you admit that animals demonstrate emotions, but you fall back on the "but even though they show it, you can't be sure" argument. Many animals mourn when a family member dies. Many mammals have been shown to console other individuals close to them after the death of a relative. I've seen videos of a grown lion who was brought back to Africa after being taken from there many years before, and once the lion found its original family they "attacked" each other in elation. There was clearly more to that moment than instincts, which govern the "I must eat and reproduce" functions. These instances hold no biological or instinctive functions.

And again, how do you explain complex social structures of primates and elephants? Are the very "human" aspects of how they live purely coincidental?

[RickD]

domokunrox wrote:
I am not sure why you decided this was a creation topic.

Dom, I put this in the Creation forum because the topic of "Soulish creatures" has its biblical roots in the creation narrative in Genesis. Specifically Genesis 1:21: 21 God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

First and foremost, a reminder that you asked this question in the philosophy section. So, yes, you do need to understand what aristotlean theory is when you are in the philosophy section is.

Dom, I asked the question in the philosophical forum, because that's where you made your statement: "Animals and inanimate objects do not have a mind".
And no, people don't "need to" understand "aristotlean theory", in order to participate in the philosophical forum. It is open to any member, regardless of their knowledge of specific philosophical theories.

Second, there are enormous problems with your assertion that Gen 1:21 calls for. Exactly, what is "living", "creature" , and "moves"? I could argue that vegetation fits into this category as well.

Dom, here is Genesis 1:21KJ:
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.


And, here's Genesis 1:21 from blueletterbible.org. It shows the Strong's numbers with the words:
And God 430 created 1254 great 1419 whales 8577, and every living 2416 creature 5315 that moveth 7430 , which the waters 4325 brought forth abundantly 8317 , after their kind 4327, and every winged 3671 fowl 5775 after his kind 4327: and God 430 saw 7200 that [it was] good 2896.

What I'm referring to is the word "creature", which goes with Strong's 5315. Here's what Strong's says about (Creature/5315/Nephesh):http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex ... 5315&t=KJV

Lexicon Results
Strong's H5315 - nephesh
נֶפֶשׁ

Transliteration

nephesh


Pronunciation

neh'·fesh (Key)

Part of Speech

feminine noun


Root Word (Etymology)

From נָפַשׁ (H5314)

TWOT Reference

1395a
Outline of Biblical Usage

1) soul, self, life, creature, person, appetite, mind, living being, desire, emotion, passion

a) that which breathes, the breathing substance or being, soul, the inner being of man

b) living being

c) living being (with life in the blood)

d) the man himself, self, person or individual

e) seat of the appetites

f) seat of emotions and passions

g) activity of mind

1) dubious

h) activity of the will

1) dubious

i) activity of the character

1) dubious

So, according to Strong's, Nephesh refers to Humans, and certain animals. Plants are not included in Nephesh or soulish creatures.

dom wrote:
Your grammar skills are actually quite bad here. In fact, your context is actually quite bad as well. Where does it talk about animals having minds?

Dom, look at the blueletter bible link I posted. I even Highlighted "mind" so you can see for yourself that it has nothing to do with my "bad grammar skills", and "bad context". The Hebrew word "nephesh" has the meaning. I didn't randomly assign this to the word "creature" in Genesis 1:21.

In what way does the "soul" move? That doesn't even make sense.

Dom, Genesis 1:21 doesn't say the soul moves. It says God created "every living creature that moves". And again, "creature" is the Hebrew word "nephesh", which refers to soulish creatures(see Strongs reference above).

Let's go ahead and just stick to the translation here "creature". This doesn't tell us that the creature has a "soul"

Of course it does. Nephesh refers to man, and in this case, specific creatures that God created with a soul.

We have absolutely nothing to go on to say animals have "soul". If you think the "soul" is compromised of mind, will, and emotions then boy we got bigger problems.

Refer to Strong's 5315 above, and again here:nephesh.

The text you pasted from that site quite literally says "preprogrammed". You can't argue that animals have a mind, "soul", will?, and emotion with that. That's pretty much calling them machines at this point, and that's exactly what I call them as well.

Dom, this link I posted:http://www.reasons.org/articles/origin- ... sh-animals says :

According to the Bible, soulish life includes creatures in which God endowed mind, will, and emotions so that they can form relationships with members of their own species as well as with human beings. God designed soulish animals so that each kind serves and/or pleases humanity in its own distinct way. The Bible claims that before humans even existed soulish animals were preprogrammed by God to relate to and to serve and please human beings.1

This means that God preprogrammed certain creatures to relate to and to serve and please human beings. If you read it in context, it's not saying that these nephesh creatures are preprogrammed to act without mind will and emotions, like machines.

When Christ sai (NASB)Matthew 11:28-29
"Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. [29] "Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS.

When Christ said "Soul", what is he referring to? And where does the "soul" rest?

Dom, Jesus is talking specifically about people in the Matthew 11:28-29 verse you quoted. He's not referring to "nephesh creatures" here. Just "nephesh" humans.

[1stjohn0666]

Soul/Nephesh ... I like to make a note on Gen 2:7 that it is important to know that the text does not say "man was given a soul/Nephesh" but rather "man became a living soul/Nephesh" In the animal world the same principle is at work, animals do not "have" souls.... animals "are" souls. So like man... man does not "have" a soul but rather "is" a soul.
Did I help any?

[RickD]

Soul/Nephesh ... I like to make a note on Gen 2:7 that it is important to know that the text does not say "man was given a soul/Nephesh" but rather "man became a living soul/Nephesh" In the animal world the same principle is at work, animals do not "have" souls.... animals "are" souls. So like man... man does not "have" a soul but rather "is" a soul.
Did I help any?

That's what I'm saying, John. A soulish Creature is a creature with a soul, or as you said, a creature that is a soul. Six of one, half dozen of the other. Potato, Potahto. Tomato, Tomahto.

[domokunrox]

Ivellious,

The mind is non spatial. Do you understand this word?
A mental substance that does not take up space.
Res Cogitans
This is why I do not understand why anyone comes into the philosophy section and object to things they have no idea what we are talking about.

Animals do not have a will. They have animal instinct for survival purpose alone. They don't have the ability to analyze truth or rationalize it. Domesticated animals are conditioned by intelligent beings BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE INTELLIGENCE.

Animals that are domesticated also do not mourn. They whine, not mourn. Domesticated animals are conditioned for their behavior. To try to say anything more than animals have a custom or habit is invalid.

Rick,

1. So what?
2. Yes, if you're going to make an objection in the philosophy forum you need to know what we are talking about otherwise you are wasting my time. Yes, its open to everyone, but you need to be prepared to talk philosophy. You can go ahead and do so, but you're just wasting other people's time.
3. So, Nephesh. So what?
4. No, according to Strong's, Nephesh has a whole slew of meanings. You're trying to argue your view with semantics. Point is, you don't really know, and biblical scholars interpreted it as "creatures". You've added context that is not explicit.
5. No, rick, Nephesh does not mean the word has all those combined meanings. At best you can only say that Nephesh means 1 of those things. You have no justification to say it means a combination of them all. That's just a guess, not factual. Again, interpretation from bible scholars say it means creature. That's it.
6. No, Rick. The soul is non-spatial. If you're going to say that animals have a substance that does not take up space, you're going to have to do epistemology for that claim.
I am using the would soul in that instance, Rick. Again, you're free to come to the philosophy section. That's no problem at all, but you're going to need to learn what I am and others are talking about. If you need clarification, ask first.

[Canuckster1127]

Dom, dial back the ego a few notches. Not everyone has the same level of training in philosophy and even those who do differ in approach and definitions. This isn't a place to try to win an argument for it's own sake. If you think you can help others see things better then try explaining it with a goal to other's understanding and consider as well that others may just have something vaild to say without having to conform to your expectations and standards.

[RickD]

domokunrox wrote:
Animals that are domesticated also do not mourn. They whine, not mourn. Domesticated animals are conditioned for their behavior. To try to say anything more than animals have a custom or habit is invalid.

Oh really?
http://blogs.discovery.com/daily_treat/ ... -seal.html

[Kenzel]

Domokunrox wrote:
Animals and inanimate objects do not have a mind.

Are you sure you don't want to retract this statement? Do you really believe all animals don't have a mind?

Not at all.

Perhaps you're confused as to what a mind is. Hint: A brain is not a mind

Dom, I'm talking about soulish creatures. Creatures created with a mind, will and emotions. Perhaps this will help you understand what I mean:
http://www.reasons.org/articles/origin- ... sh-animals

I am fully aware of of Aristotelean soul theory. I however, reject it.

Giving animals, soul, mind, will, and emotions is not only an enormous problem in philosophy. Its an enormous problem for a Christian worldview. We are not in the position to say animals have souls.

In my view, there are only 3 catorgories of existence.
1. God (Perfect in all ways)
2. Human minds and souls (non physical, imperfect, mental substance)
3. Physical objects (spatial extension, physical objects)

Animals fit in category 3

So, what category would angels fit into?