03 Nov 08
Originally posted by ivanhoeDoes anyone know whether the Catholic Church officially believes that animals other than humans have souls or not?
"The distinction between a simple living being and a spiritual being that is capax Dei, points to the existence of the intellective soul of a free transcendent subject. Thus the Magisterium of the Church has constantly affirmed that “every spiritual soul is created immediately by God – it is not ‘produced’ by the parents – and also that it is immortal” (Catechi ...[text shortened]... ts to the distinctiveness of anthropology, and invites exploration of it by modern thought."
[/b]
03 Nov 08
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThere are clearly non-factual elements in the Epic of Gilgamesh that require "the suspension of disbelief" that you mention above.
Could you rephrase that ... (the Epic of Gilgamesh, I think ... )
I meant a story that, although fictional, does not have the supernatural, paranormal, etc.
03 Nov 08
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaOh right -- 'realistic fiction'. Technically, of course, all fiction requires suspension of disbelief ... But I'd say the Satyricon. The characters may believe in gods, but the author clearly doesn't, nor does he expect the reader to.
There are clearly non-factual elements in the Epic of Gilgamesh that require "the suspension of disbelief" that you mention above.
I meant a story that, although fictional, does not have the supernatural, paranormal, etc.
Any older candidates?
03 Nov 08
Originally posted by Bosse de NageNot that I can think of... It's interesting how recently one has to go to find an example. I just thought that this fact might be of interest to this conversation.
Oh right -- 'realistic fiction'. Technically, of course, all fiction requires suspension of disbelief ... But I'd say the Satyricon. The characters may believe in gods, but the author clearly doesn't, nor does he expect the reader to.
Any older candidates?
It's funny that you mentioned the Epic of Gilgamesh. I was in the British Museum this weekend and it's unbelievable how advanced Sumerians were for the time. The contrast with the Egypt of the same era is immense.
03 Nov 08
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadCatholics do have a day marked for the blessing of animals. Everyone that has pets brings them to the church to be blessed by the priest. I couldn't say for sure if they believe they have souls or not. I'm not catholic.
Does anyone know whether the Catholic Church officially believes that animals other than humans have souls or not?
Most fundamental Christian churches teach that they do not. But this goes contrary to scripture in my view.
To make a very long synopsis short,
Scriptures tell us that there is, and will be animals in heaven.
It also teaches us to be kind and loving to our animals.
Jesus also compared us to sparrows. Saying we are worth more than them, But not in anyway saying sparrows are worthless or that they don't have souls. In fact He says that not one sparrow falls to the ground without God knowing about it.
There's several other scriptures that point to the fact that animals do have meaning and most likely have living souls.
There's nothing in scripture that even remotely says animals don't have souls.
Heaven wouldn't be complete without my cat. It just wouldn't. 😀
03 Nov 08
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaI would have mentioned Thucydides' account of the Peloponnesian War, but it was an explicitly factual, historical account.
Not that I can think of... It's interesting how recently one has to go to find an example. I just thought that this fact might be of interest to this conversation.
It's funny that you mentioned the Epic of Gilgamesh. I was in the British Museum this weekend and it's unbelievable how advanced Sumerians were for the time. The contrast with the Egypt of the same era is immense.
I think disbelief in gods is relatively recent, so it stands to reason that such fiction should also be.
Why'd you think the Sumerians were more advanced than the Egyptians?
03 Nov 08
3 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de NageBosse; "The fish is an age-old symbol of transformation. A literal interpretation of Jonah misses the point; ... "
Suspension of disbelief is essential across the narrative spectrum from fairy-tales to theogonic allegory -- and beyond!
The fish is an age-old symbol of transformation. A literal interpretation of Jonah misses the point; by the same token, a literary reading of the Gospels does far more for me than accepting them as literal truth, with all the mental gymnastics around contradictions that entails.
Exactly.
I can't believe there are people both from the religious side and the secular side, who interprete the story in a literal way and then either whether they are religious or secular accept and vehemently defend or reject and vehemently attack their own flawed interpretations.
Secular fundamentalists often draw the conclusion, based on their own flawed literal interpretations, that "religion contradicts science". On the same basis they can also draw the conclusion that "literature contradicts science".
03 Nov 08
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage"More advanced" is maybe more categorical than what I meant, but since I'm not a scholar I'm not too ashamed at being a bit partial to the ancient Mesopotamian cultures. 🙂
Why'd you think the Sumerians were more advanced than the Egyptians?
Here's an interesting example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_mathematics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_mathematics
03 Nov 08
1 edit
"There is one interpretation, and one only: Mine.
Any other interpretations are false.
You are not allowed to have inerpretations of your own at all, because if they differs from mine they are by default wrong.
Some people actually have the same interpretations as I have, they are intelligent people."
03 Nov 08
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThat's not what I meant. It's just that for a long time a story wasn't a story if it didn't include something extraordinary. It's only natural then to expect more "fantasy" from the older texts.
I think disbelief in gods is relatively recent, so it stands to reason that such fiction should also be.
03 Nov 08
2 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnasTruly spoken by a atheist. At least you're honest about it, I'll give you that.
"There is one interpretation, and one only: Mine.
Any other interpretations are false.
You are not allowed to have inerpretations of your own at all, because if they differs from mine they are by default wrong.
Some people actually have the same interpretations as I have, they are intelligent people."