Spirituality
17 Jan 07
19 Jan 07
Originally posted by lucifershammerThen both Augustine and Aquinas were wrong about their conclusion because their premise that animals are not rational is false.
There is no Church teaching (definitive or otherwise) on the matter. However, both Augustine and Aquinas held that animals had souls like humans do except that those souls are not immortal as they were not rational.
19 Jan 07
Originally posted by lucifershammerJust to be clear: it would be equally 'Catholic' to believe that animals
There is no Church teaching (definitive or otherwise) on the matter. However, both Augustine and Aquinas held that animals had souls like humans do except that those souls are not immortal as they were not rational.
have eternal souls, ephemeral souls, or no souls, right?
If one were to adopt the theologies of Sts Augustine or Thomas Aquinas,
would you say that these mindsets need revision, given that we can
demonstrate that many 'higher' animals show pretty advanced notions
of rationale (e.g., chimpanzees, dolphins, or elephants). That is,
what reason would we have for rejecting the immortality of their souls
if rationale was the basis for their exclusion?
Lastly, it seems pretty evident that the Church believes that all humans
have souls, but there are many humans that are not rational. By that,
I don't mean the sort of blithering irrationality that Ivanhoe shows from
time to time, but specifically people born with severe mental conditions
which make them incapable of even rudimentary rationale.
Nemesio
19 Jan 07
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioWhen speaking of rational souls (or rational nature more precisely), one is talking about the species (which may or may not be the same as biological species) as a whole -- not just the particular individual involved. Therefore, severely mentally handicapped human beings have a rational nature even if that nature is deficiently expressed in their particular situation.
Just to be clear: it would be equally 'Catholic' to believe that animals
have eternal souls, ephemeral souls, or no souls, right?
If one were to adopt the theologies of Sts Augustine or Thomas Aquinas,
would you say that these mindsets need revision, given that we can
demonstrate that many 'higher' animals show pretty advanced notions
of rationale (e. vere mental conditions
which make them incapable of even rudimentary rationale.
Nemesio
(That's from a philosophical standpoint. From a Christian eschatological standpoint, of course, there is the resurrection and glorification of the body to come as well.)
The question of whether animals are rational is still a matter of debate (no one seriously disputes that some animals are intelligent [1]) but, regardless of that, the philosophical argument that rational souls are immortal could be flawed or challenged. This still wouldn't make a difference to the theological argument for the immortality of human souls (which is by virtue of our being made in the image and likeness of God).
But yes, it wouldn't be un-Catholic to believe that animals have eternal souls (I don't know what "ephemeral souls" are and, if you're basically arguing from a Cartesian dualist standpoint then I would dispute that).
[1] For a nice discussion of the difference between 'intelligence' and 'rationality' see http://eis.bris.ac.uk/~plslh/papers/Rational_Animals_introduction.doc
20 Jan 07
Originally posted by amannionWhy do you think that's hilarious? The body gives one world consciousness, the soul gives self consciousness, the spirit gives one God consciousness. You are a living soul. It's who you are. The body is the vehicle.
That's hilarious.
Can you define soul and spirit for me?
20 Jan 07
Originally posted by josephwHmm.
Animals have a body and a soul, but no spirit.
In Genesis 2, it says that God 'blew into [man's] nostrils the breath of
life.' I assume this is what you mean by spirit as distinct from soul.
However, Psalm 104 says the same thing of all living things:
All of these [living created things listed in the previous verses] look
to you to give them food in due time. When you give to them, they
gather; when you open your hand, they are well filled. When you hide
your face, they are lost. When you take away their breath, they perish
and return to the dust from which they came. When you send forth your
breath, they are created, and you renew the face of the earth.
This seems to clearly indicate that the 'breath of life' (Pneuma in Greek
and Ruach in Hebrew) is present in all living things.
Nemesio
20 Jan 07
I believe we are made up of three parts - the physical body, the soul (which includes our personality - the bit that makes us who we are) and our spirit. it is our spirit and soul that God knows and thats what goes to heaven or hell when the body dies
animals have personalities and therefore i would say they have souls but whether they go to heaven i dont know. In Genesis it says that we are different from the animals because God breathed His spirit into Adam
21 Jan 07
Originally posted by wonderwomanHow does your spirit differ from your soul?
I believe we are made up of three parts - the physical body, the soul (which includes our personality - the bit that makes us who we are) and our spirit. it is our spirit and soul that God knows and thats what goes to heaven or hell when the body dies
animals have personalities and therefore i would say they have souls but whether they go to heaven i ...[text shortened]... Genesis it says that we are different from the animals because God breathed His spirit into Adam
You assert the soul makes us who we are: do neither the spirit nor the body have any part in this?
If my personality changes due to a brain injury, does the changed part go to heaven, or the original part?
21 Jan 07
Originally posted by josephwSome parts of my body do not gve me any consciousness at all, like my liver.
Why do you think that's hilarious? The body gives one world consciousness, the soul gives self consciousness, the spirit gives one God consciousness. You are a living soul. It's who you are. The body is the vehicle.
I think you mean the brain gives you consciousness.
But, if so, why can't the brain give you self-consciousness or God consciousness too? Why do we need a soul or spirit to do that?
Suppose some LSD crossed your blood-brain barrier: might that enhance your God consciousness?
Or suppose some organophosphates crossed your blood-brain barrier; might that impair your God consciousness?
21 Jan 07
1 edit
It is unforunate that there is nothing that comes even close to a consensus on the definition of soul...If there was then I doubt that many atheists would not be up to the task of undermining it. As it stands the best you can do is enter a long winded discussion against one person at a time where any contradictory implications of their belief are quite often evaded, the conclusions of such debates having little merit elsewhere.