On the Nature of Non-Human Entities.

[Zabdi Premjit]

Do animals have souls? Plants? Bacteria? Non-living entities? :confused:

If the don't, are they conscious of God? And how is that possible without a soul? :confused:

Animals can clearly make choices, so do they have Reason? And can they obey and/or disobey God? And if so, does such a choice make them righteous or sinful? :confused:

[angrylittlefisherman]

Animals do not possess the higher aspect of a soul. They possess a nature that operates similar to what we have and call the passions. But they cannot really reason right from wrong. They understand anger, fear, comfort, basic emotions that allow them to survive or attempt to avoid pain and discomfort for as long as possible, but do not expect to see Fido in heaven.

[JustinHesychast]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that the Church teaches that spirit and soul are distinct. And that animals have spirits but not souls, as man does.

This said, while "Fido" cannot go to Heaven, it is very reasonable to believe that due to God's love for us and our pets' love for us and our love for our pets, that animals will be resurrected on the new earth.

[Zabdi Premjit]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that the Church teaches that spirit and soul are distinct.

The spiritual principle in man which is opposed to the body is designated in Sacred Scripture by two terms which are almost equal in significance: “spirit” and “soul.” The use of the word “spirit” in place of “soul,” or both terms used in exactly the same meaning, is encountered especially in the Apostle Paul. This is made evident, for example, by placing the two following texts side by side: “Glorify God in your body and in your soul, which are God's” (1 Cor. 6:20); and “Let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit” (2 Cor. 7:1). In addition, there are two passages in the writings of this Apostle where soul and spirit are mentioned side by side, and this gives occasion to ask the question: Is the Apostle not indicating that, besides the soul, there is also a “spirit” that is an essential part of human nature? Likewise, in the writings of certain Holy Fathers, particularly in the ascetic writings, a distinction is made between soul and spirit. The first passage in the Apostle Paul is in the Epistle to the Hebrews: “The word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Heb. 4:12). Another passage from the same Apostle is in the Epistle to the Thessalonians: “Your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thes. 5:23). It is not difficult, however, to see that in the first passage the spirit is to be understood not as a substance that is separate and independent from the soul, but only as the inward and most hidden side of the soul. Here the relation of souland spirit is made parallel to the relationship between the members of the body and the brain, and just as the brain is the inward part of the same bodily nature, or is a content as compared to its container, so also the spirit is evidently considered by the Apostle as the hidden part of the soul of a man. In the second passage, by “spirit” is evidently meant that special higher harmony of the hidden part of the soul which is formed through the grace of the Holy Spirit in a Christian: the “spirit” of which the Apostle says elsewhere, “quench not the spirit” (1 Thes. 5:19), and “fervent in spirit” (Rom. 12:11). Thus, the Apostle is not thinking here of all men in general, but only of Christians or believers. In this sense the Apostle contrasts the “spiritual” man with the “natural” or fleshly man (1 Cor. 2:14-15). The spiritual man possesses a soul, but being reborn, he cultivates in himself the seeds of grace; he grows and brings forth fruits of the spirit. However, by carelessness towards his spiritual life he may descend to the level of the fleshly or natural man: “Are ye so foolish? Having begun in the spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?” (Gal. 3:3). Therefore, there are no grounds for supposing that the thinking of the Apostle Paul is not in agreement with the teaching that the nature of man consists of two parts. This same idea of the spirit as the higher, grace-given form of the life of the human soul is evidently what was meant by those Christian teachers and Fathers of the Church in the first centuries who distinguished in man a spirit as well as a soul. This distinction is found in St. Justin Martyr, Tatian, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa, Ephraim the Syrian, and likewise in later writers and ascetics. However, a significant majority of the Fathers and teachers of the Church directly acknowledge that man's nature has two parts: body and soul (Sts. Cyril of Jerusalem, Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom, Blessed Augustine, St. John Damascene). Blessed Theodoret writes: “According to the teaching of Apollinarius (the heretic) there are three composite parts in a man: the body, the animal soul, and the rational soul, which he calls the mind. But the Divine Scripture acknowledges only one soul, not two, and this is clearly indicated by the history of the creation of the first man. God, having formed the body from the dust and breathed a soul into it, showed in this wise that there are two natures in man, and not three.”

(Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky)

[Dorothea]

Animals don't have souls. They were not made in the image of God.

[Dorothea]

This said, while "Fido" cannot go to Heaven, it is very reasonable to believe that due to God's love for us and our pets' love for us and our love for our pets, that animals will be resurrected on the new earth.
I sure hope so!!

[Zabdi Premjit]

Animals don't have souls. They were not made in the image of God.


I thought animals have material souls, while we have immaterial souls. Material souls are not rational, and therefore wouldn't be in the image of God.

[ArmyMatt]

I think y'all are saying the same thing and just using different words.