This was beautiful and well-written. Animals and trees have souls I believe. :D

Well I kind of liked it. And I was at first like OHYEY THERE'S A PERSON THAT THINKS LIKE ME IN THIS WORLD. But then I realized, it is a bit un-right(loll)to say that "christians believe in this." They are individuals you know, not a big group of people that all think the same. I happen to know people who don't think like that. So whilst defending animals you are kinda offending christians in the same way as other animals are usually being offended. It's kinda like: They are a big group of species, not different kinds and they are all the same: barbaric without a brain in the case of the thing you call animals. Hm, I'm being dramatic, but do you get it? I know you will probably not even read this review because it offends you and you think I'm offending you. But I am really just bringing forth an argument.

Also, i think the greatest thing you do wrong, is the same everyone else in this world does(exept for me, and I haven't found anyone else that thinks this way...well exept for my dad haha) is that you use the word ANIMALS, just like everyone in the reviews. Well if they are ANIMALS which is a word that is associated with being not-human, not sophisticated, not intelligent or soul-bearing, then what, may i ask, are you?

I think you want to say "other animals" if you really want to defend them that much. -.- And yes I'm dramatic and not trying to be mean...But someone think about it?

Animals...other animals... you seem to forget that you are an animal too, and see yourself as different and more sophisticated. But duh how do we know.

We do not own the world.. We do not RULE the world. We're just stupid enough to think we are, and the only thing we rule is our fickle society. Destroyers. Rulers. There is a difference.

Bleh. I äm sorry for the awfully long review that won't be read.

Live long and prosper

Nice. I really like it. But I must clear something up, lol If you dig into theology, like I do, you will find that every living thing has a soul, as everything was created by God. It may be different than a human soul, but nonetheless they still have one.

Aw . . . awesome.

not all christians believe that animals have no souls, and i find it quite unnecessary for you to say that.

I struggled with that question for a while, because I'm a christian and I love animals. I eventually reached the conclusion that animals have a soul in the sense that they all have different personalities, like humans, but humans have a capacity for abstract thought that animals lack. Animals are instinctive, you don't find them drawing pictures and creating models etc. (Except birds nests and for mating purposes or...um...whatever...).So, in a nutshell:Humans are sentient and can think abstractly whereas animals cannot. This shows the difference between humans and animals, and how God has made humans special. That's not to say that animals don't have souls or can't go to heaven, to be honest I don't know about the heaven thing...anyway...It was a great poem, and I especially liked the last verse. I love my cat.

Well, I'm Catholic and I believe animals have no souls, so don't go judging Christians, okay? It's so rude to judge people on their religion.

~*Toni*~

I am not a Christian, but I don't believe that animals have souls. And though you seem to be under the impression that Christians think animals soulless (I don't know whether that statement is true or not), what you're doing is actually what Christians from the Victorian Era(and before, when people were 'more pious') did. They translated the natural ANIMAL behavior of animals into human behavior, and gave it human meaning, and MORALS. Think of Isaac Watt's poem which starts "how doth the busy little bee..." (Yes, Isaac Watts came way before the Victorian Era). He uses the bee to moralize: Do not be idle; be busy like the bee. But the truth is- are bees really busy b/c they believe that 'idleness breeds evil'? NO, bees don't THINK. They just ACT. It's in their genes, they were PROGRAMMED to act that way.

At first glance it doesn't seem like there are any similarities between what Christians long ago did, and your poem. But it's essentially the same thing.

Victorians (I've already established that it wasn't just Victorians, I'm just using the word as a handle for convenience) used animals to preach their sermons. They talked as though animals had morals. But what it really was was simply an analogy. And b/c you can prove anyway with a clever analogy, that proof has no meaning really.

You both look at animals in a very self-centered (human-centered) way.

The wolf that 'raises an eyebrow in questioning', the lark that sings lullabies of love to the chicks, etc... You applied human characteristics "questioning air", "love of singing" "peace and contentment" etc to natural animal behavior. This doesn't have anything to do with souls.

Yes, cats are sweet, cats are cute. And dogs are loyal to their owners (well, some dogs). But you shouldn't over-interpret their meows and barks, and when they meow for food, interpret it as 'I love you, owner'. Domesticated cats stay with their owners out of comfort, not LOVE in the sense humans think of LOVE.

These translations belong to Disney. In disney movies, yes it's true! Little mice show GRATITUDE to Cinderella for freeing them from traps by making her bed! One could argue, from a literary point of view, that looking at animals too 'scientifically' would take the romance out of everything. But that's not true. Read any of Ernest Thompson Seaton's stories about animals (particularly the grizzly bear)- he writes on a 'bear' level- about bear "emotions", bear "feelings". Yet it is accurate.

Also, looking at it from your point of view, one would have to translate the behavior of mosquitos into what? Dogs are 'good', even though they are parasites in a sense(getting free food with no work), because they show 'loyalty' with their wagging tails. Some cute dogs (like golden retrievers) sometimes look like they're smiling. But this is all looking at things self-centeredly. They're NOT smiling. Following the same train of thought, mosquitos have to be EVIL because they drink human blood. But what if you translated things differently? What if the annoying buzzing was a greeting?

You used writing, and pretty words to move the audience emotionally by using classic images/examples (Which, funnily enough can be traced back to the Isaac Watts era!), such as the 'beautifully singing lark'. The phrases are neat, but this poem is unpersuasive has no logical value.

If kitties and other animals didnt have souls then they would eat us in our sleep. ;-pNice poem, I agree.

Once again, I'm impressed, to the unusual point of not knowing what to say. Lovely.

I find it amazing how some people believe that animals have no soul. They have personality why not a soul?Just because we don't understand them doesn't mean a thing; that would be like saying a person with mental disabilities had no soul because they can not conceive that god exists. There is no proof either way, but I choose to believe according to my heart; isn't that what faith is all about anyway? Bravo to you for making a stand.

Wow. This is really pretty. I'm a christian and I agree with you. That doesn't make sense about animals not having souls.

Beautiful, truly beautiful, in meaning as well as words.

I'm Christain myself (and that's truly as specific as I can get) and I raise an eyebrow and nearly make a rude refferance to their ability to communicate with soulless beings everytime someone says this. How can anything NOT have a soul, I ask. (And how can anyone so closeminded have a chance at knowing?)

Anyway, beautiful in meaning and in writing. This is awesome.

Lovely, Simply Lovely. Your poem is really beautiful. I'm Catholic and I believe animals have souls. I have a beagle Tessa. She shows me love, anyone who denys that needs a new brain. Love does not die. I love Tessa, Heaven is perfect, it would not be perfect without Tessa. (Actually I lost a friend after having this argument with her. She got so angry at me that she stopped talking to me.) Keep up the good work.

Oh, very nice. *applauds* Short, sweet, and you get the message across perfectly. Go you!
You know that some Southern Baptist kid once told me that human clones don't have souls, and cloning is therefore unethical? Why the hell don't clones have souls, if they're exact replicas, huh? Weird.
I'm all for equal opportunity souls. If there is such a thing, all beings should have it, and if there isn't, none of them should.
Anywho, luv it, you must write more like this. I command you!