Do animals have spirit?

[Inquirer]

I have two Italian Greyhounds, here's a picture of them:

Are these animals just lumps of matter or is there something more to them? Is it only people that are not lumps of matter?

[JehovahsWitness]

...

1 Samuel 28:15, NWT:

Then “Samuel” said to Saul: “Why have you disturbed me by having me brought up?” Saul replied: “I am in great trouble. The Phi·lis′tines are fighting against me, and God has departed from me and no longer answers me, either through the prophets or in dreams; so that is why I am calling on you to let me know what I should do.”

NRSV:

Then Samuel said to Saul, “Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?” Saul answered, “I am in great distress, for the Philistines are warring against me, and God has turned away from me and answers me no more, either by prophets or by dreams; so I have summoned you to tell me what I should do.”

DID THE WITCH OF ENDOR SEE A DEAD PERSON TALK?

No, the narrative has "samuel" seen only be a self-proclamed "sorcoress" ? It is for the reader to decide she was lying or fooled. In short, it was a vision (which s like a dream): If you dream of your dog talking to you, does this prove dogs can talk?

[Difflugia]

DID THE WITCH OF ENDOR SEE A DEAD PERSON TALK?

No, the narrative has "samuel" seen only be a self-proclamed "sorcoress" ?

And the narrator says that it was Samuel. The biblical narrator says that.

It is for the reader to decide she was lying or fooled.

Yes. The difference between "biblically" and "theologically" is between what the Bible says and what the reader decides it means.

In short, it was a vision (which s like a dream): If you dream of your dog talking to you, does this prove dogs can talk?

If the Bible says that my dog can talk, does that prove that a dog can talk? How about a donkey?

[JehovahsWitness]

Yes. The difference between "biblically" and "theologically" is between what the Bible says and what the reader decides it means.

Exactly, everybody has to read and figure out what is meant. The narrative has a witch see a vision of "Sameul", the reader has to decide if that means a dead person can actually talk or someone /something can appear like a dead person talking.

Those lacking critical thinking skills need not apply.

[Difflugia]

Those lacking critical thinking skills need not apply.

Isn't that who the scare quotes are for?

[JoeyKnothead]

Exactly, everybody has to read and figure out what is meant. The narrative has a witch see a vision of "Sameul", the reader as to decide if that means a dead person can actually talk or someone /something can appear like a dead person talking.

Those lacking critical thinking skills need not apply.

^My emboldenating

So, those who think some dead preacher rose up to the heavens and'll be back here soon as he finds his sandals?

[onewithhim]

Biblically ....

"Biblically" the soul is sometimes the whole person and sometimes an ephemeral component of the whole (1 Kings 17:21, for example).

The soul is always the whole person or the person's LIFE as a soul. I Kings 17:21 shows Elijah asking for the child's LIFE to return to the boy. There is no ephemeral component to a person.

[Difflugia]

The soul is always the whole person or the person's LIFE as a soul.

"The whole person" is monism.
"The person's life" is dualism.

You're right. Biblically, the soul is always described as one or the other.

I Kings 17:21 shows Elijah asking for the child's LIFE to return to the boy.

If the nephesh is the child in the monistic sense of Genesis 2:7, then nothing went away when the child died. The idea that there's something to return is dualistic.

There is no ephemeral component to a person.

The Deuteronomist disagreed with you, it seems.

[JehovahsWitness]

If the nephesh is the child in the monistic sense of Genesis 2:7, then nothing went away when the child died. The idea that there's something to return is dualistic.

Nothing did literally; to lose ones life is a figure of speech which means to die. It doesnt literally mean there is a seperate comportent called "one's life" which is wandering around lost.

I Kings 17:21 shows Elijah asking for the child's LIFE to return to the boy.

To return to life simply means to recovers from a hear death experience or to come back to life. Nothing is literally moving from one location to another. No more than saying a candle "went out" means candles are sometimes staionary (monism) or they can sometimes have an invisible part inside of them that detaches from the wax, grows legs and ....walk out of the room (dualism).







JW

[Difflugia]

Nothing did literally; to lose ones life is a figure of speech which means to die.

Yes. A dualistic figure of speech.

It doesnt literally mean there is a seperate comportent called "one's life" which is wandering around lost.

That's an interesting assertion. How did you draw the conclusion that the author of 1 Kings didn't mean it literally?

I Kings 17:21 shows Elijah asking for the child's LIFE to return to the boy.

To return to life simply means to recovers from a hear death experience or to come back to life.

That's not the idiom we see here, though. The child didn't return to life, but the life (nephesh) returned to the child.

Nothing is literally moving from one location to another.

That's an interesting assertion. How did you draw the conclusion that the author of 1 Kings didn't mean it literally?

Your entire argument is that we arbitrarily choose one idiom and treat it literally, but the conflicting idiom is metaphor. The only evidence for your assertion that I can see is the desire for a single, unified theology across the various biblical authors. While that may offer a kind of internal consistency within the artificial confines of Witness theology, such an arbitrary distinction can't be properly called "biblical."

No more than saying a candle "went out" means candles are sometimes staionary (monism) or they can sometimes have an invisible part inside of them that detaches from the wax, grows legs and ....walk out of the room (dualism).

That's not what monism and dualism mean, even in an analogy extended to a candle. Your analogy fails even in principle, though. Since the biblical idiom doesn't hinge on what the verb is, but whether the nephesh is something one is or one has. To illustrate with your "put out" or "go out" analogy, we can clearly see the dualist roots of European thought and the English language by comparing these two phrases:

• I put out the cat.
• I put out the cat's life.

If it were our habit to think of an animal and its animus as identical, those two would mean the same thing, but they don't. To illustrate that we don't think of candles that way, compare with this pair:

• I put out the candle.
• I put out the candle's flame.

Those do mean the same thing.

[JehovahsWitness]

The only evidence for your assertion that I can see is the desire for a single, unified theology across the various biblical authors.

So?! Wha's wrong with that? As long as no contextual, lexical or grammatical principles being violated, there is nothing problematic in favoring interpretations that harmonize rather than create artificial conflict.