Could it even be heaven without them?

Do Dogs Go To Heaven?

-- Bonzo's Cousin (bonzoscuz@yahoo.com), February 28, 2005

Answers

Since dogs do not have immortal souls (but only "material souls"), the dogs that we see today will not be in heaven.

On the other hand, that fact does not prevent God from creating other dogs that could be in heaven.

On the "third hand," though, there is no NEED for dogs to be in heaven, where we will be so blissful that we wouldn't miss their absence.

Thus, it's really not a matter about which we ought to waste any time thinking.

-- (My@Opinion.com), February 28, 2005.

This is the way I look at it: In my heavenly room (world), there will be beautiful waterfalls, mountains, flowers, trees, sunsets, lakes, birds, butterflies, etc. etc. We're led to believe that none of these things have souls, yet God knows that that is what I would love my Heaven to contain. And He knows that I, an inveterate dog lover, would wish to have the companionship of man's best friend (soul-less or not!). Then, truly, will it be heavenly! God, in His greatness, can do anything.

-- Dee (dee@none.sorry), February 28, 2005.

I saw an episode on Twilight Zone where a man and his dog both died and were walking down a road together. The man got to the gates of heaven. He was welcome to enter but no dogs were allowed. So he said that he wouldn't go any place that wouldn't take his dog.

They walked down the road a bit further and arrived at another place that welcomed both him and his dog. It turned out that that was the real heaven. The other place was hell.

-- Bonzo's Cousin (bonzoscuz@yahoo.com), February 28, 2005.

And another man would say he is not going anywhere he can't take his money. But guess what? No choice! We will enter either heaven or hell, and we will not be bringing any earthly possessions with us. That includes both our money and the things, including animals, that we have purchased with our money.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 28, 2005.

Reminds me of the story about the rich man who said to his parish priest, "I've been a good Catholic all my life. Can't I take ANYTHING from this world to the next?"

"No, impossible." said the priest. The man appealed to his bishop and finally to the Pope, but got the same answer. But he kept badgering the Pope until the Pope finally said, "I've prayed to God about this and I've obtained special permission for you to take with you just one standard size suitcase containing items that are particularly precious to you."

So the man went home and packed a suitcase chock-full of gold bars.

He died, and when he reached the Pearly Gates dragging his suitcase, the angel on the gates said "You can't bring that in here." The man said "But I've got special permission from God."

So the angel went and checked with God, then came back and said, "OK you can bring in the suitcase. Let's see what you've brought." The man opened up the suitcase and the angel fell about laughing "Why oh why have you brought paving stones?"

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), February 28, 2005.

They walked down the road a bit further and arrived at another place that welcomed both him and his dog. It turned out that that was the real heaven. The other place was hell.

so the man who rejected God, heaven, and salvation eternal for his DOG is instead rewarded with eternal heaven? wow... abraham was willing to sacrafice his son for God, he must really be burning in hell right now. bonzo, for someone who criticized the salvific message of a priest, your analogy here is more than slightly disappointing.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), February 28, 2005.

If it can be Heaven without our loved ones on earth who have been damned, then it could easily be heaven without dogs.

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), February 28, 2005.

Oh, Boy--DJ,
You really know hw to hurt a guy.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 28, 2005.

You are absolutely right, DJ. As I stated above, "there is no NEED for dogs to be in heaven, where we will be so blissful that we wouldn't notice their absence." Because we will be present at the general judgment, we will be aware of the absence of damned loved ones from heaven, but that will not cause us any pain. There is no pain in heaven.

-- (My@Opinion.com), March 01, 2005.

yes we knwo animals lakc Immortal souls since the peopel ehre say so...

sorry, btu again, the Catholic church does nto teach that Animals lack immortal souls. Nor does she teach that Animals ar emere possessiosn, the same asa our hosue, our car, ect.

Neither does it teach that animals ar emerley aprt of the natural envuronemnt.

There isnt a single scripture, not a single Counsil trahcing, not a single Papal declaration, that said animals lack Immortal souls.

If I present an argument in Favour of animals possessing Immortal osuls, it will be ignored because " We knwo tis not true., the HCurhc said Animals lakc immortal souls."

Bowever, as illustrated int he ast thread baout ANimals haivng souls, NO ONE can show WHERWE God personally said " Animals lack immortal Souls."

not one counsil teaching. Not one Papal decree. not one scripture. Nada.

Paul M derives his "Material osul" formt he brillaint, but not infallable, Thomas aquinas. Teh rest buy into Modern and see Man as seperate form animals, dispite the plain teahcign of scirpture otherwise. ( See ecclesiasties, Chapoter 3, said Man is not preimenent above the beasts...)

Main arugments aotu abimals beign meer automitons and "Bioogical machines" stem form rene desCarte, another Brilliant thinker, btu also not infaable.

Animals, it is my assertion, are likewise God's Creatures, and not emrley a part fo the natural environemnt. They are cared for by God, loved by God, and charished by God.

God created them to live, and all life requores a soul. no passage of scirptue ever relates to differign kidns fo souls, mateiral and immortal. this is man-made.

The artificial distinction ebtween man and animals, thg comforting to many as it makes them feel superor, is, again, spoken against in scrpture where we are repeateldy told over and over that man is part of crfeation himself, and the idea is re-inforced that althoygh God loves man, man is NOT the end all of creaiton.

There is NOTHING any one has shown to show me, or anyone on this board, that the Cahtolci chruch states Anumals lack immortal souls. and every reason to beleive they do, for they have personality, volition, emotions, intellegence, and God provides for them.

They are nto mere automitons and mere possessions. They ar eindependant life forms, capable of their own decisisons.

And before Paul m and steve again try to pen this on emotuonalism and me wantign to take my pets to Heaven and remindign me I cant take my possessiosn with me, tis not how I veiw animals , but you. I neither tink of my Animals as ossessions, nor think I only of tyem in Heaven, btu animals I know not of, from the Long dead tyranosaurus Sue who died some 70 Million years ago , to the lost Beetle iN egypt 4000 years ago, tt he Lone wolf, who lived and died int he savage and unspoiled wilderness of europe long before man vnetured into his domain.

all animals, i maintian, possess Immortal souls, all ar eloved by God, and all enter with him. This based not on meoiton, but on the logic of Gods love and the revelation that they too are cared for, and the knwoeldge that all life requires a soul, and the lack of evidence that animal suls are "material souls", or even for the existanc eof matieral souls, as opposed to regular Immortal ones.

Simpely declarign me wrong, hwoever, will ensure, noenthel,ess, NOTHING wll be presented to show this as the hcurhces infallable teaching.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 01, 2005.

According to one saint (Augustine?),"God became man so that man may become god."

Heaven is a place where God dwells and no one has entry. Angels are also called gods or sons of God. Even among human beings, only those who are transformed into the image of the Son of God can hope to enter heaven.

Heaven is a place for God and His children, not dogs!

-- Leslie John (lesliemon@hotmail.com), March 01, 2005.

> "all animals, i maintian, possess Immortal souls, all ar eloved by God, and all enter with him."

And I state again as I have stated in previous discussions of this topic, a heaven which includes every cockroach, mosquito, leech, tick, tapeworm and body louse that has ever lived upon the earth isn't a heaven I would care to visit, let alone spend eternity in. Not to mention crocodiles, great white sharks, vampire bats and tyrannosaurus. Of course, a cootie in its glorified body might not be as repulsive ...

-- (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 01, 2005.

Well I do not believe animals are created in the image of God but I am hoping they will be in heaven. What is heaven? If it's a spiritual realm then what does that mean? That nothing physical can dwell there? But Christ is now physical FOREVER, So physical things must be able to dwell there. Pesonaly I see creation, ALL of creation in the state of journeying and will one day (the New Heavens and Earth) be a place that has completed that journey where everything will be perfect. No more choices on what's wrong or right. No more suffering for wrong mistakes like eating the forbidden fruit. And perhaps God will re-create one's animal if they asked Him. What, is that too hard for God, or would that be a sinful request to make? I do not believe animals are just created because God was bored, he has a purpose for them. They serve man well and perhaps will in the new heavens and earth.

And please all of you who have said this, stop refering to animals as just material things like "money." That's just heartless if that was your intention.

P.S. I can imagine walking into a place in heaven and seeing ST. Francis of Assisi covered with numerous animals playing with him :)

God give you peace.

-- Jason (enchantedfire5@yahoo.com), March 02, 2005.

I couldn't imagine being fully united with God, and feeling that I still needed a dog or a cat to make me happy.

Tim

-- Tim K. (tk4386@juno.com), March 02, 2005.

well, its too bad aunty Frida didnt get into heaven, but i'm sure glad i got fluffy in the trade-off here.

rather insulting. what is the hangup on people wanting to bring their pets into heaven. i would pray for my enemies salvation long before i would pray for my dog to be in heaven.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), March 02, 2005.

I'm glad to see that some people (e.g., Tim K and paul h) do get the point. I will say again what I said twice before.

there is no NEED for dogs to be in heaven, where we will be so blissful that we wouldn't notice their absence.

There seems to be some kind of problem that affects even some of the best Catholics. They become so incredibly infatuated with mere animals in this life that some part of their brain shuts down and, irrationally, they just cannot bear the thought of living in heaven without them.

As I stated before, God is God, and he could choose to create any kind of plant or animal to place in heaven, even octillions of 'em. BUT, if God chooses to create NO plants and NO animals to place in heaven, that will not decrease one whit the unspeakable glory of heaven (and we will not even NOTICE their absence because we will be so overcome with the "beatific vision"). Heaven will be PERFECT, with or without plants and animals. There is NO point in arguing about it.

-- (My@Opinion.com), March 02, 2005.

paul M, it doesnt matter wat type of heaven you woudprefer God make, all that maters is what god made.

To the rest, this is NOT about our pets in heaven AND MAKIGN US HAPPY.

AS i HAVE STATED REPEATELDY TO NO AVAIL, THIS SINT ABOT ME WANTIGN MY PETS BECAUSE i WOIDL BE SAD WITHOTU THEM.

this is not about me not needign my pets any more. heck, pau H even mentiosn aunt freida, why IS sahe more important? Isnt it Human arrogance to assume the Human is more improtant than the animal to God int he end? and again, God promised to take care of the animals, did he not?

This is nto abotu me takign my possessiosn to Heaven or beign happy becaus emy epts are there.

Every animal, even wild oens that live and die withotu ever encounterign a Human preasence, will be their.

this becase it is injust to do otherwise, to allow a sinful and fallen creature which openly rebels agaisnt God, his creator, a chance at Heaven and redemtion, and yet the sinless creatires who never rebelled are doommed to eternal death.

The God you portray is a cruel one inded,f or he creates souls to perish, and quiet simpley, this is oen of the flaws to Calvinism, that I surly reject.Yet becaus they arent Human, you think you can look down your nose at them, and it makes it OK fr them to simpley face extenction.

This is absurd, and no logic beyind personal preference is ever offered on the matter as regardign the arugment that anumals lack souls.

such claism as " We wont need our pets in ehaven to make us Happy' is still a statement that assuems them as mere property there to make us happy, and her to make us happy.

Pets arent in existance to make us happy. They are God's creatures, not ours, toughw e keep them.

And as god's Creatures, they will not be subject to extinction based ont he notion that Humans are the rreason for creation, a notion forgin to christain thoguth, imported form Hmanist philoosphy.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 02, 2005.

A Catholic who wants to have a proper attitude about animals should read the following paragraphs from the Catechism. These paragraphs do not specifically mention the souls of animals, nor on their presence or absence from heaven. However, it is possible to deduce logically, from these paragraphs and others, that only God, angels, and men have immortal souls. For example, #2417 refers to us humans as beings whom God created "in his own image" (which includes the possession of immortal souls) to be caretakers of animals (who, logically, are NOT made in God's image and do NOT have immortal souls). As I mentioned above, the presence or absence of animals in heaven is immaterial (no pun intended).

2415 The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity. Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man's dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.

2416 Animals are God's creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory. Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.

2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image. Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.

2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.

-- (My@Opinion.com), March 02, 2005.

My last post was not a reaction to what Zarove just posted. I was preparing it while he was posting. However, everyone should notice that Zarove is contradicting some of what the Catechism says. He is not Catholic and is incapable of teaching us reliably here. I suggest that his comments be wholly disregarded.

-- (My@Opinion.com), March 02, 2005.

There's hardly any question in my mind; every pet or other animal we keep in this life is dying and never coming back in the next world. They have no immortal souls.

However, I think a heaven without beautiful animals of every kind; from elephants to whales to dogs and cats --would be inhuman. Because as humans we were permitted to love them and enjoy their animal company. Even dangerous ones like bears, lions, etc, A heavenly glory; life without any more of these creatures would seem diminished as we know it.

But Almighty God is infinitely Good. He will compensate those he loves for the loss of every earthly pet by giving us all NEW ones, created up in heaven for His saints. It's possible they'll all be mere animals, yet living a life everlasting without sickness or fears. Imagine some day-- you, a saint in the glory of Paradise; and your own, loving Black Lab, or Siamese cat-- they are born naturally in heaven; together giving praise and everlasting love to God as well as loving one another in heavenly joy!

Or, try to picture your giant friend in heaven; a mountain gorilla; or a panda; entertaining all the saints, Our Blessed Mother, and Jesus too! God made you and me capable of truly loving a pet here; but with all that, losing him in time. But in heaven death will not be possible, even for an animal.

I think that's the answer; and our faith has never said it shall not be. God holds all Creation in His hand. It has to be just the same during everlasting life in heaven. We should place our complete faith in HIM. He will know just what we want or need; and nothing shall ever be lacking.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 02, 2005.

I'm not thinking about animals going to heaven for OUR sake, but for THEIR sake. In other words, don't some animals DESERVE to go to heaven?

What about a dog who saves a child's life? Or a Seeing Eye Dog?

-- Bonzo's Cousin (bonzoscuz@yahoo.com), March 02, 2005.

You have a point. Hey; I own a very loveable dog. I'm crazy about him, and he loves me.

Nevertheless, his reward is in this life. He feels loved and that's how we repay animals here. That's what they live for, is to be our friends in this life.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 02, 2005.

I'm not thinking about animals going to heaven for OUR sake, but for THEIR sake. In other words, don't some animals DESERVE to go to heaven? What about a dog who saves a child's life? Or a Seeing Eye Dog?

Tjis is the poutnj I keep makign that they ignore.

Most here who rejt animnals haivng immortal souls keep thinkign I wantot take my favurite proterty with me to Heaven...

Animals arent mere possessiosn though, they ar eindividual souls.

So My pisiiton is not that Animals will be in Heaven so my dog scruffy can make me happy, but that even if I don make it to heaven animals will make it, for their own sake.

But alas! No matter how often I reiterate that this sitn abotu me haivng my epts in heaen tomake me happy, they dotn get it and assume tia all emotionalism on my end.

animals have souls, and they have immortal souls. This is my declaration.

paul M declares the posite btu never proves it. Even My Opinion cannto prive it form the Cateschism, and Pope john paul 2 said in 1997 animals had souls.

So I dont think a simpel decree that they are mere property and aprt fo the environemn will settle the discussion.

No logic exists to claim thwy arent Immortal souls, and some arugmen can be made that they will make it to heaven, and again, for thir own sake, not ours, as Boinzo said.

See Bonzo, we agre on soemthing.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 02, 2005.

Zarove,

Did Jesus come to save animals? Can animals sin? Can animals make a rational moral decision?

I am not trying to directly challenge you, but I just want to hear what you think about these questions.

Tim Kirschenheiter

-- Tim K. (tk4386@juno.com), March 02, 2005.

No, Animals cannot sin. As a reuslt of their inabiltiy to sin, they lack the need for a saviour. As a result, they are in god's Grace already and therefore retirn tot heir creator in a oure spiritual state.

Only man needs a saviour.

However, the whole of creation will be redeemed. Not just man.

Animals are rational and intellegent to variaent degrees, containign personalities and volition of heir own, but they lakc the Knwoledge of Good and evil which only adam and eve stupidly got hodl of, thanks to an Animal decievign them. ( Serpent, Genesis 3:1.)

The serpent was obviously intellegent enough...

( And I knwo it s"Really" satan, however no verse proves Satan Temprted eve either...It plainlu reads Serpent.)

Balams ass is an excellen example. The angle woidl ahve spared the Ass's life,a dn killed alam, and Balams ass was allowed to talk.

God cared for Balams ass, why must balam be offered Heaven and not the Ass?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 02, 2005.

Zarove:
Many animals are intelligent in a way. But not rational at all.

You're right about them being sinless, because they have no free will. But not even ONE single animal has ever been in God's grace. God certainly loves them. But His grace is altogether unsuited to animals. We can see this in the laws of nature all around us. And in nature, it's normal to die after a lifetime, however prolonged. Animals are of the earth; and there is no everlasting life here.

Man's soul is not of the earth. Every soul is created for everlasting life; made in the image of God. He Himself has revealed this to us through His Divine Son.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 02, 2005.

> No, Animals cannot sin. As a reuslt of their inabiltiy to sin, they lack the need for a saviour. As a result, they are in god's Grace already and therefore retirn tot heir creator in a oure spiritual state.

A: The same can be said of bubonic plague bacteria. They cannot sin. Will they be in heaven too??

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 02, 2005.

Zarove: Many animals are intelligent in a way. But not rational at all.

This sint entirley true either. They are capable of reason, thus ratonal.

You're right about them being sinless, because they have no free will.

accordign to whom do they not have freee will?

Animals act on their own volition, thus possess free will. after all, if they can act on their own accord, then they do posasess free will, and excersise it.

Why shoudl I beleive contrafy tot he evidence?

But not even ONE single animal has ever been in God's grace.

except Balams ass...

Likewise, grace implies unmerited Favour, if they lack free will they dotn need nmerited favour.If they have free will and have no sin, they do not need unmerited favour.

God certainly loves them. But His grace is altogether unsuited to animals.

Accordig to whom?

We can see this in the laws of nature all around us. And in nature, it's normal to die after a lifetime, however prolonged. Animals are of the earth; and there is no everlasting life here.

Yet man also dies. is man of the earth? Are they also lakcign in eternal life? By this logic man, who is also an animal, mist also lack an immprtal soul.

Again Eugine, no catholic Teachign has ever pronuinced the Animals to be of the earth or lackign an immortal soul or begn excluded form God's Grace. Neither are they seen as natural and Humans not.

Assertiosn do not make facts. Man's soul is not of the earth.

But can you prove animal souls are? Does not Solomon say that Man himself is a beast? and does not man also die?

There is no real distinction between man and Aniaml, man is an animal. I doubt the ssue of their souls is much different either, ecept Man rebels agsisnt his creator, whole animals do not.

You may say they nly do not rebel as they lack free will, btu have certianly no basis for their lakc of free will.

Every soul is created for everlasting life; made in the image of God. He Himself has revealed this to us through His Divine Son.

If every soul is created for everlastign life, the Animals are created for everlastign life, as they, too, have souls.

As to Paul M, all living things have suls, else they woidl nto live.

Simpley thinkign Beubonic plauge is bad and no Human woidl want them in heaven is the end result of an approach that clearly wont work with me, since I am not trign o get my epts to Heaven becUSE i WAN THTEM THERE. AS bONZO SAID, THIS IS ABOTU GETTING THEM THEIR FOR THEIR OWN SAKE.

What do you rellay have agaisnt Beubonic Plauge anyway? In its ure spiritual sttae, it will harnm no one.

so why not?Is makign God's love all encompassing relaly a problem for you? especially sicne you cannot presewnt even one document that supports your claim that Animals are merley aprt of the natural environment and lakc immortal souls, but continually you declare thius as fact?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 02, 2005.

Dear Zarove:
Animals do not ''act on their own volition.'' About 90% of their action is dictated by instinct; and they are unable to pick and choose an alternative. A dog in season MUST find his mates. There's no other way to behave for him. A bird migrates, whales migrate, carnivores hunt and their prey seeks escape; all instinctively, not rationally. All of the remaining 10% action of the animal is self- preservation and attachment to habit, and/or anyplace they can EAT.

Man is physically related to animals, and NOT mentally or spiritually. Men and women are not under any spell of instinct or mechanistic action, as animals are. They know there is a future. Animals merely awaken to eat another day.

GRACE is a gift from Almighty God; to the souls who were created in His image. Balam's ass was a distinct miraculous animal. No other asses are given miraculous license to speak. On the contrary, all asses ignore reason. They are unable to foresee any coming consequence to their action, excep to fill the belly. Like the horse, they only flee helplessly from a perceived danger, into what they call their haven, an enclosure like the barn. They associate the stable with their safety and food. If this place catches fire, and you chase them out, away from sure death, they immediately try to go running back in. Balam's ass would have attempted the same, even as he talked a blue streak. He was an animal. A dog has much more reasoning sense; but cannot lay plans or calculate. Dogs can return your natural love, but only because you represent security and love to them. Otherwise they are indifferent or even hostile.

I'm afraid it's you who make assertions without looking at facts.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 02, 2005.

Dear Zarove: Animals do not ''act on their own volition.'' About 90% of their action is dictated by instinct; and they are unable to pick and choose an alternative.

And we know this how? modern research as well as centurie sof obsercation ted to speak agaisnt this, and this concept, while [[ularised int eh 1700's, is not realy evidenced.

Animals seem capable pof learign, decserign actiosn, and makign choices, so the level of behaviour controled by isntinct is not rellay 90%. Indeed, we dont knwo the exact level, but seems similar to Humans.

A dog in season MUST find his mates.

Not relaly, depression can interfere. and has interfered. I was reading about this in Science the other month.

Likewise, Animals can controle other urges...

There's no other way to behave for him.

at leats in your limited eiw. Hwoever, it turns otu to be far mroe compelxe when we study actual animal behaviour and dotn just asusme them to be Biological machines...

A bird migrates, whales migrate, carnivores hunt and their prey seeks escape; all instinctively, not rationally.

Humans erform much the same way, so I guess Humans dont think raitonallya nd are controled by istinct, thus Humans lakc immortal souls.

Humans mate, seek their own company, and seek food and shelter by instinct.

Thus, Humans, who do this even withotu raitonal rforthought, must likewise be automitns, slaves to instinct, where 90% of their acitosna re wholly predetermiend...

All of the remaining 10% action of the animal is self- preservation and attachment to habit, and/or anyplace they can EAT.

This is not rellay true. Animal psycology alone has revealed that animal behaviour is eqelly as compelxe as Human Behaviour, and claimign that they only repsjnd by instinct and habit is rather foolish. No evidence supports this claim.

Man is physically related to animals, and NOT mentally or spiritually.

At leata gtis is a popular opinion. Neither the churhc nor sicnece agres.

Yoru assertion that 90% of animal behaviour is instinct is not proven by anythign, its assertion based on asumption.

Your claim that Habit and conditionsed repsonce makes upt he remainign 10% is likewise spurious, not supported by any evidence.

Claims that they lack spiritual or mental capacity is likewise missing, espeiclaly sicne the oposite seems true...

Men and women are not under any spell of instinct or mechanistic action, as animals are.

Many have contended the oposite.

However, simpley asserting that Animals act only by instinct and man does not is not proof. Man cna be equelly a deterministic deice, or, more probabely, Animals and man share a common trait in fre will. You may deny this, but simpely assertign that animals are instinct driven machiens is farf form eidence for his position.

They know there is a future. Animals merely awaken to eat another day.

And we knwo animals "Merely awake and eat another day" becausae why? you said so?

ReseaRHC REVEALS aNIMALS POSSES THE ABILITY TO COMMUNICATE, SHARE, LOVE OEN ANOTHER, and plan.

Reason exists in the Animal kingdom apart form man.

Your assertiosn are hollow, and unfoudned.

GRACE is a gift from Almighty God; to the souls who were created in His image. Balam's ass was a distinct miraculous animal. No other asses are given miraculous license to speak. On the contrary, all asses ignore reason. They are unable to foresee any coming consequence to their action, excep to fill the belly.

Again, toyt proof that Animals only live and eat and do not plan and htink is where?

Like the horse, they only flee helplessly from a perceived danger, into what they call their haven, an enclosure like the barn. They associate the stable with their safety and food. If this place catches fire, and you chase them out, away from sure death, they immediately try to go running back in. Balam's ass would have attempted the same, even as he talked a blue streak. He was an animal.

Funny, Ive CUTLAY seen A BARN BUIRN TOT HE GROUND... And he Hroses attmepted to LEAVE the barn, not flee into it... your worng on their reactions here, so perhaps you arent correct in the other assertions?

A dog has much more reasoning sense; but cannot lay plans or calculate.

Uhm, this is false as well. Dogs often plan and premeditate. They leafrn times when their huamn cojutnerparts will wake up, play withthem, and feed them. They likewise make plans to catch prey, or to perform tricks.

Want to see some web links?

Dogs can return your natural love, but only because you represent security and love to them. Otherwise they are indifferent or even hostile.

At leats aCCORDIGN TO EUGINE. hOWEVER, dOGS SEEM CAPABLE OF LOVING A MASTER VEN WHEN THE MASTER ABUSES THEM...

Its simpley not true that they only repsond to your love as you represent security, as yu often do not.

And its patently abasurd to think soeone acutlaly beleives this, except to justify their own unproven posiiton.

Againm what evidence have you?

Real evidnece, not presumption.

I'm afraid it's you who make assertions without looking at facts.

The trouble is the "Facts" presented above arent facts. You basicllay just say Animals cannot reaosn or plan a future. You ddint bakc this up with one iota of evidence, you basiclaly decreed it as truth.

Want to see evidence agaisnt this?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 02, 2005.

http://sztybel.tripod.com/dances.html#obj1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_intelligence

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/animalmind/

http://www.geocities.com/Omegaman_UK/beasts.html

Need mroe, I have more...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 02, 2005.

"Animals seem capable pof learign, decserign actiosn, and makign choices, so the level of behaviour controled by isntinct is not rellay 90%. Indeed, we dont knwo the exact level, but seems similar to Humans."

The general scientific belief is that humans have NO instincts.

Tim Kirschenheiter

-- Tim K. (tk4386@juno.com), March 02, 2005.

It seems Zarove can never concede under any circumstance. When he's opposed, the reason is your assertion is only an opinion, and he refuses to allow it any importance.

When it's his own ''fact'', the rule is reversed. You oppose him out to ignorance. Nice setup. Under Zarove's arrangement nobody has credibility except Zarove.

But animals have no souls. I think Zarove would have a hard time producing even ONE animal soul. Every human being in the world can testify he has one whether anybody cares or not. --I believe in Zarove's soul. I hope he can accept mine. --Who knows? He could insist it's not a fact just because I say so.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 03, 2005.

It seems Zarove can never concede under any circumstance. When he's opposed, the reason is your assertion is only an opinion, and he refuses to allow it any importance.

tHIS ISNT TRUE EUGINE. i'VE CONCEEDED ERROR INT HE PAST, WHAT i DONT CONCEED IS POITNS OF FACT THAT LACK COOBERATION.

when you declared that 90% of animal behaviour is pure instinct, then you are makign a statement that lacks verification. You did nto name any scientific hournals, ppsted no links, offered no doculentation form the Churhc, nothing, to support your position.

Why SHOULD I conceed to this?

When it's his own ''fact'', the rule is reversed. You oppose him out to ignorance. Nice setup. Under Zarove's arrangement nobody has credibility except Zarove.

Also not true. However, you claimed I was ignorant of the facts.

Tge trouble is you claimed as fact that Anumals operate 90% on instinct alone, yet ptroved this by displaying no evidence.

Again, I am expected to conceed to your statements as if they are proven beause you declared them as fact.

Not conceedign tot he facts accoridng to eugine just goes to show my arrogance...

but again, what EVIDENCE do you have to support your claims?

Simpley stateing them as fact is not sufficient to make them fact, and simpely rejectign your personal opinion is not the same as rejecitng evidence and reason.

I posrted LINKS, did you ignroe them?

What did you post?

But animals have no souls.

Can you prove this though?

Again, declarign it fdes not make it a fact.

No scripture says htis.

No Pope has ever declared this, and inded john Paul 2 has declaredthey do, in fact, have souls. Sayign they lack souls is in direct oposition to John Paul 2's claim that they do.

No cunsil teachign has ever taught this.

And your reasn behdn the claim, that Animals cannot think and reason, is clealry refuted by Modern sicnetific investigation, if yo follow the links I provided, the evidence is clear.

Simpley makign his declaraiton and supportign it on assertion is not reaosn for me to conceed, and my refusal to conceed doesnt make me as presumptuous as my cirrent reputaon is becoming.

Now, eugine, liek Paul M you want to make the problem my inability to accpe the truth, but on what? oru word?

Cang you at least try to present soem evidence?

I think Zarove would have a hard time producing even ONE animal soul.

I cant prodice suls, nly God can.

That comment aside, all one need do is look outside, im sure oen will see a Bird or snake or soemhtign if one looks hard enough.

To be alive is to possess a soul. to die is to have the soul leave the body.

All liivng things, including all animals, eugine, by defualt have a soul.

sayign otheriwse contradicts scriptutre and its plain teahcing, for scirpture telsl us Animals have souls.

As does Pope John Paul 2.

Simpley declarign otherwise is not evidence.

Every human being in the world can testify he has one whether anybody cares or not.

No they can't. many peopel deny the existanct of HUMAN souls...

Likewise, Animals MUST have souls as tey are alive and you annot live withotu a soul... and aain, the Pope and the Bible teach that they have souls.

So why shoudl I beleive you?

--I believe in Zarove's soul. I hope he can accept mine. --Who knows? He could insist it's not a fact just because I say so.

Now your beign facicvious, but in neither this post nor our former post have you actually rpesented evidence that Aniumals lack souls. Indeed, you contradic tthe Pope and the Bibel by syaign they ont. even Paul M says they have sousl, just material rather than imortal.

Likewise, your reason for sayign animals lack souls is that they lack reason and ability to paln the future and feel as Humans do. this tells me you ignroed the links I posted as a follow up.

I beleive I did more than merley assert they think and reaosn and plan and feel just as Humans do, I preseed evidence.

You, on the other hand, simpely presented assertion.

Why is it that you find it hard ot beelive animals have immortal suls, eugine, ea;ly? its not beiase f the facts, it must be because of soemthgin else.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 03, 2005.

Zarove,

Eugene hasn't provided any proof that dogs have souls. So?

Can you provide any proof that they DO have souls?

Tim kirschenheiter

-- Tim K. (tk4386@juno.com), March 03, 2005.

Zarove has mentioned twice now that Pope John Paul II said that animals have souls..that is true, he certainly did say that. Will you argue with the Pope??

Do a simple Google search..Pope John Paul II and animal souls.. The Pope did not say, nor infer in any way that the souls of animals go to heaven..but he DID say that animals do have souls.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), March 03, 2005.

Lesley, Catholic theologians, including the pope, have always said that animals have "souls," because the "soul" is the animating principle of living things. Even plants have "souls." However, Catholic theologians have always distinguished between "material souls" (which go out of existence at the death of a plant or animal) and "immortal, spiritual souls" (which continue to exist when human bodies die). Though the age-old theological opinions by now can be considered nearly a certainty, the status of animal and plant souls has not been taught as a formal doctrine probably because it is so trivial by comparison with doctrines that have a real effect on human lives.

Zerove, however, is once again making himself into an unwelcome, obnoxious boor by demanding that Catholic agree with his opinions that animals have immortal souls, that they "deserve" a heavenly reward, that they are not the property of humans (contrary to the Catechism), etc.. Certain Catholics here have been right to try figuratively to pummel Zerove into submission, because Z fails sufficiently to respect Catholic beliefs and people. His incessant, long-winded posts far too often trigger my gag reflex.

-- (My@Opinion.com), March 03, 2005.

Lesley, Catholic theologians, including the pope, have always said that animals have "souls," because the "soul" is the animating principle of living things.

Read up. eugine said "Animals do not have souls." Its right her ein this thread... that is what is referenced.

Even plants have "souls."

As I alway maintianed.

However, Catholic theologians have always distinguished between "material souls" (which go out of existence at the death of a plant or animal) and "immortal, spiritual souls" (which continue to exist when human bodies die).

No they havent. That tradition started with Thomas Aquinas, and is refuted by many Catholci theolgicans, including St. Fransis of asisi.

Not all Catholci theologians agree withthe concept of mateiral Souls for animals and immortal souls for Humans, sayign otherwise is a gross error of fact.

Need I dig up St.Fransis of asisi's works? Or will they be ignroed wile you pretend all Cahtlci theologians agree with you?

Though the age-old theological opinions by now can be considered nearly a certainty, the status of animal and plant souls has not been taught as a formal doctrine probably because it is so trivial by comparison with doctrines that have a real effect on human lives.

This age old and near certainty is a misrepresentaiton. The wya you present it, all Cahtolci theologians agree that Animals lacj Immortal souls, and only Humans possess them, animals and paknt haivng only amteiral souls.

However, several Catholci theoligians disagree with you and agree with me.

this is not my opinion VS Cahtlic theology, its your oponion and soem catholci theologians agaisnt ine and some cahtolic theologians.

Cahtolic theologians ar divided on this matter.

Zerove,

Nice pla on words... especially fom soemone who chooses not to have a screen name...

however, is once again making himself into an unwelcome, obnoxious boor by demanding that Catholic agree with his opinions that animals have immortal souls, that they "deserve" a heavenly reward, that they are not the property of humans (contrary to the Catechism), etc..

AAnd you ar ebeign an unwelcomed,obnocoous bpore by cnstantly du,ping on me.

By the way, I have repeateldy asked for clear Chruch teachigns on the matter, and repeatley this requeast is ignroed. my own researhc reveals NOT ONE DOCUMENT declarign animals lacjk immortal souls.

Likewise, your DECEPTION to leslei this time is simple. You make it appear that Catholic theologians agree that animals lack immrtal souls. Yoru rpesentaiton lends tot he assumption that it is virtually asusred and all Cahtolic theologians agree.

You ignore the fact that many descent form this veiw.

Not all Cahtolic theologians agree with the proposition that Animals lack immortal souls. St.Fransis of assis beign the most notable voice of desce sion. woudl St.Fransis be a Bore and unwelcpmed? widl he be obnoxious? I say nothign he has not said before me, and yet you pretend he does not exist to further your deception that all Cahtolic theologians beleive this and it is virtually asusred as tehcing.

You cannot name names, I cna, yet yours is fact and mien fancy.

what cowardice, what deception, and what unincombered arrogance presents itsself before this baord!

Again, your deceotion here, not mine.

You cnanot een name names or show documentaiton, and ignroe the evidence that speaks agsint you.

And you further use outrGE AND insult aaisnt me.

I am unwlecomed because I dotn let you walk all over me, and you tink this makes you somehow my better.

Certain Catholics here have been right to try figuratively to pummel Zerove into submission, because Z fails sufficiently to respect Catholic beliefs and people.

This, sir, is slander in the first order.

I have respected Catholic teachings, and have repsected Cashtolci peoipole. Your lies know no ned.

Yoru accusatiosn serve only an end to fuirther your deceit.

You decieve when you say thT THIS is a virtually asusred Cahtolci pisiiton, when many Theologians of the Cahtolic faith disagre with you.

You decieve and slaner when you attack my charecter, thsu commiting a grave sin. ( Indeed, your own Catechism lists Slande as a sin, does it not?)

You present no evidence and merely artificially inflate yor argument by clamign majorital support.

You have nothing. No evidence. No documentation. No argument.

You merle insult me, lie abotu me, decieve aboutthe state of theological though througlout history, and pretend this is sifficient.

You dotn lie me, fine, btu at leats prove your case with facts, not assertions.

His incessant, long-winded posts far too often trigger my gag reflex.

So I gues St.Fransis of Assisi wa sa terroble Cahtolic. why is he Cannonised? he taighthe lie that Animals have immortal souls.

Seakign of bad Saints, So did Saint Benedict.

Further, so did other Saints.

and I can poull off my shelf books on cajtolic theology that list several arguments in favour of Animals possessing immortal souls.

But they arent real catholics, are they?

Im sorry tyou dislike me and feel the need for personal attakcs, btu your own lies shodil be cut down.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.CM), March 03, 2005.

When you put it all together, Zarove is a good contributor sometimes. His typing is always a little confusing, but we understand the reason. No problem, when the subjects he works on are interesting. Too often he belabors some argument that's not worth the time.

This one was interesting. Our faith in God is more helpful than just scientific proof, as far as I'm concerned. So there's not much I can do but thank Zarove for his opinions. I like the way he connects with animals, because I also love animals. I really wish my own dog had an immortal soul! Zarove must be a very loving person; I respect his feelings. If I can't agree that he knows what he's talking about, it's still easy to sympathise with him. That's the best I can offer you, Zarove. Ciao!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 03, 2005.

> Can you provide any proof that they DO have souls?

It's a matter of philosophical definition. If you define "soul" as the "life principle", and death as "separation of the life principle from the physical substance", then animals by definition have a soul. So do plants and bacteria for that matter, by that definition. But the question is not whether animals have a "soul" but rather whether there is any reason to believe that they have an immortal soul - an immortal life principle. We know that God created man "in His own image and likeness" - the immortal soul, moral capacity and free will, all reflections of the immortal Creator. Nothing else in all of physical creation possesses these characteristics. Nothing else has free will. Nothing else has moral capacity. Nothing else is immortal. Nothing else is created in the image and likeness of God.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 03, 2005.

Pual M, you once again assert as fact your whimsy.

I have been insulted, degraded, and ignored, far too long indeed on this matter.

You claim aniumals lack free will, btu do not prove it with one shred of evidence.

man was not a moral agent prior tot he fall, thus either lacked an immortal soul prior tt he fall, or esle had oen and hus eliminates htis as an argumen agisnt Animals lackign immortal souls.

Declarign animals lack immortal souls, you consistantly pretend this is an authority.

By what authority do youmake this pronouncement? Certianly nto he CHurches, sicne hte churhc does nti twac h this, as I ahv demonstrated in the past.

Can you, or anyone, actlaly present any documentation to prve the posiiton that Man is unique in haivng an immortal soul?

Or are you goign to merley make the asertion repeateldy as if this is sufficient.

You allow me to be c slandered , and yet I persist, can you at elats do me the service of presenting evidence for your claim?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 03, 2005.

Dear Zarove! Please relax??????
''I have been insulted, degraded, and ignored far too long indeed on this matter.''

NOT SO . . . You were merely corrected; and very soundly corrected. If we don't correct something unsound in the matter of the spirit and of GRACE, people will read your error and accept it for fact.

We have one other character in this forum; a good example of your own weakness. Laurent LUG; a Belgian chap who over all is a nice man. But, he says there is NO PROOF for the existence of an afterlife, nor PROOF for God's existence. He doesn't believe his OWN soul is immortal.

So, if he were given the benefit of the odubt here, many faithful people might be hurt. You demand proof at the other end of the spectrum. ''Prove animals weren't given an immortal soul by the Creator.'' That attitude is irresponsible. It's not as perverse as Laurent's, because our own faith sn't questioned. But we cannot INVENT a theological argument where it's not supported by God's own revelation, His Word.

God's Word plainly states Man was created after His own image. Of ALL Creation, only that Man has the distinction. You see an empirical kind of ''distinction'' in the animal who appears to have rationale and ''grace''. It would be SUPER-- to know that for the truth. However we need more than Zarove's say-so. It isn't nearly the truth, I'm afraid.

But we don't want you to react angrily-- ''I have been insulted, degraded, and ignored--'' Just disagree, if it will make you feel better. Nobody has abused you.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 03, 2005.

Dear Zarove! Please relax??????

I am relaxed.trust me.

''I have been insulted, degraded, and ignored far too long indeed on this matter.'' NOT SO . . . You were merely corrected; and very soundly corrected.

1: I was insulted. Check out "Opinions" comments. He has been for the last two or three weeks insltign me and tryign to runme off the forum...

Need I remind you of how he basiclaly called me stupid, obnoxious, and anti-Cahtolic?

2: i have not been soudnly corrected. that woidl requotre evidence.

This si why i am ignroed. and why i dotn wast emuhc time any longer on presntign a full argument.

when I DO present a full argmet, tis ignroed.

eugine, let me ask youm did you relaly present any data, or merely assertion?

Same for Paul M. You may agree with his position, btu carefully read his posst. anythign at all there thayt shows why I shpild accep thtis as correction?

I havent been soudnly corrected, because no one to daye has presented scripture or Cructeaching on the matter.

Basicllay all i get is "Animals lakc immortal souls" repeated endlessly, as an assertion, that I am expected to obey.

if I reject this i reject correciton.

i can show where the Pope said animals have souls, and where the Bibel said the same.

I can show where Cahtolic theologians disagree wih the position you advocate.

I can show Saints disagreing.

yet I am corrected because you say im wrong and dotn even present a case?

If we don't correct something unsound in the matter of the spirit and of GRACE, people will read your error and accept it for fact.

1: Callign me an idiot, anticahtolic, obnoxious, ect, isnt "In the spirit of GrCE". AGAIN,R EAD "oPINIONS" COMMENTS.

2: yOU ARNET CORRECLTYNG MY ERRORS, AND THIS SOUNDS RATHER CONDECENDING SCONSIDERING HOW LITTLE ACTUAL MATEIRAL YOU HAVE RPESENTED.

Again, eugone, simpley saying animals lack Immortal souls does not make it a fact.

Paul M, steve, Opinion, and yourself, you RENT THE final authority on the matter.

No Churhc teahcign has yet been prodiced to say animals lakc immortal souls.

No real arugmens have been presented to even show why this position islogical.

You basiclaly just say I am wrong and then pretend this is soubdly correcitng error.

what if your wrogn though? what then?

We have one other character in this forum; a good example of your own weakness.

My weaknes is that i ave to work ten times harder to even make headway. all yo have to do is say "Animals dont have souls" an that soudnly correxct my error.

I can show you paper afte paper, book after book, scripture after scirpture, and yet its all in ain since you "SOundly correct" me by simpley wavign your hand and syaing " Animals don have Immortal souls."

Paul the 6th, the Pope, disagreed. So does Jon Paul 2.

Scripture disagrees.

Yet presentin this before the board never manages to sink in as the prevaling eiw is that animals lack immortal Souls.

This sin correcting me, as you present no facts to counter my position, this is merley ignorign the alternative veiw.

Laurent LUG; a Belgian chap who over all is a nice man. But, he says there is NO PROOF for the existence of an afterlife, nor PROOF for God's existence. He doesn't believe his OWN soul is immortal.

OK, fine, btu the problem is that now your pretendign yo have proof that the Human soul is immortal and animal souls arent immortal.

so what do i do withthe scirotrues that contradict this?

what about the writtigns of Paul the 6ths and john paul 2 on the matter? scrap them?

again, I present evidenced, not you.

Simpley pretending its the pother way aroudn and evidence is poured in for your sid of the debate and my side lacks any evidence except a zeal base don emotion is absurd...

So, if he were given the benefit of the odubt here, many faithful people might be hurt.

However, yo arent presentign evidence. f Laurent had evidence of his posiiton, one woilb forced to confornt it or become intellectually dishoenst.

His lakc of eidence here is equated with mine. the problem is I have evidene for my posiiton, you do not.

No evidence has yet been presented on this baord ocncernign the position you and others hodl that animals lack an Immoral osul, and I have ecvidence ot he contrary.

My evidnece doesnt prive 100% my claim, byt it odes vendicate it greatly.

You demand proof at the other end of the spectrum. ''Prove animals weren't given an immortal soul by the Creator.'' That attitude is irresponsible.

That atitide wa a last resort.

I origionally tried proving it by usign scirpture an Chruch teachings. but every time I did the inevitable happenede.Paul M owudl show up and say "Animals do not have Immortal souls and htis is CHurhc teaching."

Finally i got fed up withthat claim, so I demanded he proive it.

all he ever did was claim that tis was the Hcurhces official posiiton, btu never once presented official documentation to bakc up his claim.

So, rathe than present my evidence, whnever a posiitve assertion is made on the mater,I demand proof.

My evidence will be ignroed, however, you, Paul M, steve, and pinion neevd to realise that you have no real evidence of your own.

It's not as perverse as Laurent's, because our own faith sn't questioned. But we cannot INVENT a theological argument where it's not supported by God's own revelation, His Word.

ironiclaly enough, the Scirptures where the foundation of my origional argument...

this was Ignored when oaul M stepped in and saud "Your wrong, Animals lakc Immortal souls, the hcurhc has spoken."

Many threads later, not one ounce of evifence has been presented to support the veiw that animals lack Immortal souls, and I have foudn many interestign papal statements that tend to favour my eiw.

Likewise, I have foudn sains and theologians of yhe Cahtolic faith who agree with me.

Whereas I DID do the research and kept this within the framework of the Cahtolci Faith, you and the others havent even bothered considerign this position and dismiss it out of hand.

That is not sound rebuke to error, but a mistake in logic.

God's Word plainly states Man was created after His own image. Of ALL Creation, only that Man has the distinction.

Which does nto prove that animals lack Immortal Souls, i coveed that months back.

God's word said Animals have Immortal souls. Paul the 6ths agreed. john Paul 2 even called them "Bretheren."

Simpley put, eign in god's mage doesnt make man unique in immortaloty.

You see an empirical kind of ''distinction'' in the animal who appears to have rationale and ''grace''. It would be SUPER-- to know that for the truth. However we need more than Zarove's say-so.

I need mroe than eugones say so, no mater how many bakc him up.

Again, I have john paul 2, paul the 6ths, Fransis of assisi, and the Bible on my side.

It isn't nearly the truth, I'm afraid.

The truth is you simpely pretend I have no case and you have presented evidence. Re-read this thread, no oen has presented documentation fo anu claism except me.

and in the past I attmepted this.

I HAVE evidence.

what do you have?

But we don't want you to react angrily--

Opinion merley wants me off the baord... check other threads, hes stated this flatly...

''I have been insulted, degraded, and ignored--'' Just disagree, if it will make you feel better. Nobody has abused you.

Again, check Opinions claims... then chekc other threads.

I am called anti-Cahtolic, an idiot, obnoxious, a boor, ect...

And claim that its time for me to leave the firum has been made...

I issued complaint to he Moderator and he did nothig to haul the attacks on my charecter.

The attacks on my prson I do not hold again ou, eugine, but agaisnt opinion and agaisn th emoderators since they refuse to take ation in oposition to the charecter assasination.

However, I do take issue at presentign the idea htat I have no evidence and plenty is shwon agaISNT ME, iVE DEMANDED EVIDENCE, AND PRESENTED EVIDENCE OR MY SIDE.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 03, 2005.

Do you have a dog, by any chance Zarove?

-- x (fortun@te.com), March 03, 2005.

" incessant, long-winded posts "
See above. Q.E.D.

I believe that FEW IF ANY Catholic theologians who are recognized as great and reliable by the Holy See have EVER said that animals or plants have immortal souls (souls, yes; immortal, no).

St. Francis of Assisi was NOT a theologian and NOT a priest, much less a man with a "magisterium" (a teaching authority exercised by a bishop or pope). San Francesco was an extremely holy man, a founder of religious communities, and a lover of animals. In the unlikely event that he once explicitly said that animals have "immortal souls" (which I doubt that he ever said), I wouldn't care anyway, since it would have been a personal, very fallible opinion of his. Keep in mind that St. Francis was NOT a writer, having put on paper almost nothing that is still extant. We have to be very circumspect in judging any words that are attributed to him by his friars.

I agree with someone who just insisted that Zerove prove, by quoting from the Catholic Magisterium or even from a theologian whom the Church calls "great," that animals have "immortal souls." Let's see the quotations and the authors arguments that "reason to" the assertions.

After carelessly reading my last post, Zerove erroneously accused me of misleading Lesley by stating that ALL Catholic theologians of ALL TIME have rejected the idea of animals having immortal souls. I have no doubt that some Catholic men and women who happen to have theological degrees (loosely speaking, "theologians") have been so influenced by the New Age, by politically correct arguments against "speciesism," or by Eastern pagan religions (e.g., Hinduism) that they have come to believe in the idea of animals having immortal souls (and sometimes even reincarnation).

-- (My@Opinion.com), March 03, 2005.

Zarove: You think, ''ironically enough, the Scriptures were the foundation of my original argument...'' But there is no support in the scripture in ANY place. The examples of the serpent in Paradise and the Baalam's ass are totally irrelevant. Neither the serpent nor the ass had immortal souls. The serpent was a disguised evil spirit; and the ass had no interior knowledge of what he was saying; that was a DEVICE for giving men God's message. Scripture doesn't support your contention. Neither do any Popes or the saints. Love for animals can't be translated into theological license for giving them immortal souls. I wish it were!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 03, 2005.

http://www.all-creatures.org/ca/ark-186soul.html

an interesting read.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), March 03, 2005.

I have no problem with that article, Lesley. I trust that you noticed that the word "immortal" does not appear in it.

-- (My@Opinion.com), March 03, 2005.

Is not man an animal (not counting his soul)? All the intellegence we have, everything we are capable of physicly, it's all because of OUR BRAINS and not a soul. We are very intellegent creatures because of our brains as moderen science shows. So as our physical bodies, an animal evolved from other animals, we are able to make free choices because we have evolved the ability to do it. A master creation of God. Our spirits are different. I do not understand it but believe we have souls created in God's image, obviously. But never the less our intellegence is from that organ in our head called our BRAINS.

I go on walks with my 3 dogs and neighbors two dogs all together every day like a family pack. I can tell you each and every one of their personalities with ease. They behave like young kids from the ages 6-10. Except for Angel the elder dog who reminds me of an intellegent old wizard. Animals when studied, I believeact much more on just 90% instinct. In the wild, they have their own proces of survival. A good one that WORKS so they continue in it. But domesticated animals learn new and different things and can even understand full sentences. But I do not believe that they have souls. Our souls are what make us Human in God's eyes I believe. Ha, I even believe that there were humans besides Adam and Eve in those days that were bodily like humans but lacked God's Image. Perhaps that's who Cains wife was.

God give you peace:)

-- Jason (enchantedfire5@yahoo.com), March 03, 2005.

Opinion ignored other points. IE, Paul, the 6ths and John oaul the Second DO have teahcign auhtority.

Likewise, many, many Cahtolic theologians beleive that animals posses Immortal souls.

As to eugone, the serpent was NOT a disguised evil spirit. Nothign int he text says this.

Likewise, Nothign indicates he lacked an independant will either.

Further, I wasnt merley refeirng to balams ass, bt the hebrew words HaNashish which refers ot animals, as souled beigns. The same words used to descirbe Humanity with NO modifiers.

in Genesis, Jib, and everywhere else where it mentions animals, they are said to have a HaNafish, a Living soul.

The text makes no distinction between that of animasl and that of man.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 03, 2005.

Nevertheless; You are not qualified to explain scripture with authority. Take those passages as you please. Not a single one proves animals have God's grace, nor do they have immortal souls. In the Garden, the serpent stands for Satan. Serpents die as well, and have no immortal souls.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 03, 2005.

1: You have no authority either eugine.

2: You cannot prove staan was the seprent, no passag of scirotuere identifies this serpent iwht satan. Its a tadition that was later appliked, thta lacks foundation.

3: Sayign "Animals lakc immortal Souls" again is not siffocient either. YOU havent presented any authoritarian documentaiton for the claim. Simpely repeating the mantra and acting like tis a proven fact doesnt render it a fact.

4; why woidl a creature who cannot knwo sin need grace?

5: Scripture says all souls retrn to God who gave them, in ecclesiasties, this includes Animal souls.

6: Need I remind you of the lack of evidence of your claims? again, PROOF form your end is needed, as when I offer prooif its ignroed.

So, rather than repeat the claim, try proving it.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 03, 2005.

More and more you and Laurent seem clones. Ciao, Zaroviano! I really hope I was wrong and you were right. I love my fine dog!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 03, 2005.

At keats I do presetn evidence however, unliek those who spoeak agisnt my position.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 03, 2005.

> You cannot prove staan was the seprent, no passag of scirotuere identifies this serpent iwht satan. Its a tadition that was later appliked, thta lacks foundation.

A: Since when do ordinary animals try to trick humans into disobeying God?? What would be their motive, even if they had the capacity? Since when do snakes talk?

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 03, 2005.

Zarove please rember to wipe your feet at the door( rember Oliver told David non-Catholic before)

This is a Catholic forum first. You offer this forum nothing about Catholicism. Time for you-to depart protestant until you WAKE up.

-- shootAdeer (animals@arn't.inheaven), March 04, 2005.

I think the serpant was Satan. He's called a serpant in revelation so I think it was him in Genesis. But I'll admit the verse has always puzzled me.

-- Jason (enchantedfire5@yahoo.com), March 04, 2005.

Zarove please rember to wipe your feet at the door( rember Oliver told David non-Catholic before)

It is this attitude I was askign Pail M to correct.

This is a Catholic forum first. You offer this forum nothing about Catholicism.

The fact that the Pope said animals had souls has nothign to do with Cahtlisism? The fact that many Sais and Catholic theologians agree wiht my position is not Catholic? Really, what a shoick! Why, I didnt relaise the Pope was a Baptist...

Time for you-to depart protestant until you WAKE up.

I am awake more than I sleep, the real queastion is will you see the light...

As to Paul M, and seprents. The Genesis acocunt is clear, the Serpent was changed after the event form his origional sttae to his current state.

If you read the account in an unbiased manner, rather than assume its Satan by conditioning, you will read also God's curse upon the serpent.

As to Motive, rememebr, you are th eone who suffers the notin tnat animals act soley on instinct, and this in direct deiance to modern Scientific research, nto I.

The serpent may have had any number of reaons to want Man eliminated. Perhaps he thought that if man as taken out of the picture, he coidl asusme the position of domenence. perhaps he asusmed that Humanity was gianing more preemenence than his own race. Maybe he just didnt liek eve.

Motivaiton cannot be ascribed safley as none is offered. You asusme a motive yourself. You asume tis Sata and he wanted man desotryed.

You lack any motivaiton for satan though that is clealry offered int he text, and asusme I must be wrong because I follow what the text says.

Again, serpents may have possessed the ability to commuicate before the fall, likewise, aain I refer you to St.Fransis, who spoke wiht animals, perhaps it is man who lost the ability to talk to them, and not the other way aorund.

What I do know hwoever is this. It is writtent hat a serpent tempted Eve, and even the Apostle Paul said this wa sa seprent, and no mention to satan was made.

as to the Book of revelaitons, this metpahoreical name for satan, the "Serpent of Old" does nto direclty reference Genesis.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 04, 2005.

Zarove This is a Catholic forum first. You offer this forum nothing about Catholicism. Time for you-to depart protestant until you WAKE up.

You are absolutely correct, "shootAdeer." This proselytizer has more than outworn his welcome. On another thread, I just read that Zarove revealed that he is a vegetarian. NOW I understand the whole picture. Just like a Hindu or New Ager, the guy thinks that animals have immortal souls and a "status" equal to ours, so he is unwilling to eat them. Well, I see that you want to kill and eat deer, and that is perfectly OK. Almost every day, I eat something that came from a slaughtered animal. (MAN, IS IT DELICIOUS, ZAROVE!) Jesus himself did the same (eating LAMB on Passover, for example).

The fact that the Pope said animals had souls has nothign to do with Cahtlisism? The fact that many Sais and Catholic theologians agree wiht my position is not Catholic? Really, what a shoick! Why, I didnt relaise the Pope was a Baptist.

Zarove, please try to process these following words, and I mean ALL these words. And then don't post any more, because we are sick and tired of your redundancy. We understood you the first time. We reject your comments, and you cannot force us to agree with you, so please be silent from this point forward.

Now, there are a few Catholics who think that animals have no soul whatsoever. Forget about those few Catholics, whom I (and more importantly the pope) say are wrong.

Now, with few exceptions, Catholics (myself, other laymen, most theologians, bishops, popes) agree with you that animals DO HAVE SOULS.

Continuing to the next point, which you should have understood by now, since it has been repeated to you several times. Almost all Catholics, throughout history, have believed that animals, though they HAVE SOULS, have MORTAL SOULS, but NOT IMMORTAL SOULS. Almost all Catholics have belieived that only angels and human beings have IMMORTAL souls, and that animals' mortal souls die and cease to exist at the same time their bodies die. There is NOTHING that you can say here that would convince anyone to agree with you, if you believe differently.

You cannot prove satan was the serpent. No passage of scripture identifies this serpent with satan. It was a tradition that was later applied, that lacks foundation. read the account in an unbiased manner, rather than assume its Satan by conditioning

This proves, once for all, that Zarove is a proselytizer, a man being used by the devil to trick us, and he should be forbidden to post here. After being here for months (if not more than a year), he still is abysmally ignorant or disrespectful of Catholicism. He should know that we do not have a duty to "prove satan was the serpent," since we have an infallible Church that CLEARLY teaches this to be true. (For example, CCC 397 says, "Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God's command. This is what man's first sin consisted of.")

Zarove should know that we are not "sola-scripturists" and we do not have to give him a "proof text" to show that the tempter of our first parents was satan. How DARE this heretic command us to prove anything to him? How DARE he accuse us of "bias" and falling prey to "conditioning"? Begone, Zarove, thou unwitting messenger of the serpent.

-- (My@Opinion.com), March 04, 2005.

Zarove This is a Catholic forum first. You offer this forum nothing about Catholicism. Time for you-to depart protestant until you WAKE up. You are absolutely correct, "shootAdeer." This proselytizer has more than outworn his welcome. On another thread, I just read that Zarove revealed that he is a vegetarian. NOW I understand the whole picture. Just like a Hindu or New Ager, the guy thinks that animals have immortal souls and a "status" equal to ours, so he is unwilling to eat them. Well, I see that you want to kill and eat deer, and that is perfectly OK. Almost every day, I eat something that came from a slaughtered animal. (MAN, IS IT DELICIOUS, ZAROVE!) Jesus himself did the same (eating LAMB on Passover, for example).

{SO NOW YOUR TRYIGN TO MAKE ME MAD BECAUSE YOU EAT MEAT? woidltn it be wise to learn why im a vegitarian?

Largley tis for health benefits, that and I disliek the taste of meat, and have since I wa a child.

So you clerly do NOT undertsand where my stand relaly is. which is OK sicne as a carnivoure you will liekly die ten years before I do...

an old addage applies. " Learn before you think, and think before you speak"

You may pretend to be a Great catholic apologist, but you arent rellay promoting Cahtolisism by makign eprsonal attakcs and presumptuous statements.

Likewise, can you SHOW me any prozylitising I have done? any at all? Or is this more slander form a liar and a Child of the Devil?

}-Zarove

The fact that the Pope said animals had souls has nothign to do with Cahtlisism? The fact that many Sais and Catholic theologians agree wiht my position is not Catholic? Really, what a shoick! Why, I didnt relaise the Pope was a Baptist.

Zarove, please try to process these following words, and I mean ALL these words.

{More cheap insult agaisnt my intellegence? isnt this childih and sueless of you? To attack a Brother whtout cause?}-Zarove

And then don't post any more, because we are sick and tired of your redundancy.

{If "we" is deined as "me, personally". However, I have posted here successfully for close to two years now, and have not in the slightest offended any, not even you rtelaly. You are merely offended byt he fac thta I am not Cahtolic, and pretend this means I am anti- Cahtolic. Suhc antics as you play now are merley a game to win my removal, dispite my lakc of threat to anyones cahtolic faith.}-Zarove

We understood you the first time. We reject your comments, and you cannot force us to agree with you, so please be silent from this point forward.

{Can I not say the same? isnt this just a tacitc to silence me and force others to agree with you and your position?

You have yet to demonstrate me to be in error, you merely repeat over and voer that I am. You claim I am redundant, yet isnt it redundant to "Correct" me with no facts, and makign the same claism repeatedly with nothign by mean of supoport?

and is it not lawful for me to address my attackers?}-Zarove

Now, there are a few Catholics who think that animals have no soul whatsoever. Forget about those few Catholics, whom I (and more importantly the pope) say are wrong.

{And a few Cahtolcis say animals lack Immortal souls, this doens tmean that either the Majority beelive this, or the Pope teaches this. as yo formerly asserted with no evidnece. It mkes no difference ot who I was replyign to.}-Zarove

Now, with few exceptions, Catholics (myself, other laymen, most theologians, bishops, popes) agree with you that animals DO HAVE SOULS.

{ and many, many, many theologians of the Cahtolci faith agree with me that teir sousl are immortal...}-Zarove

Continuing to the next point, which you should have understood by now, since it has been repeated to you several times. Almost all Catholics, throughout history, have believed that animals, though they HAVE SOULS, have MORTAL SOULS, but NOT IMMORTAL SOULS.

{This is not true.

FGurther, you have not demonstrated it to be true.

Let me expalin in simpel terms for you, sicne you seem to think I am incapable.

Simpley saying "The overwhelming maoirty of Cahtolcis beleive that animals lack immortal sols" doesnt mean that the overwhelmign majority hodkl this eiw. Ubless a census of beelifs was taken, and is substequently shown, then you cannto say this is acutlaly a fact.

Indeed,many historical Cahtlci Theoligians disagreed with your claim, and many modern ones do as well.

Now, i do not claim the ovewhelming majority beleive one way or the other as I have not conducted such a servey, btu cfor you to make such a pompous and unsupported claim, musch liek your other pompous and unsuppoterd claims abotu them not haivng immortal souls to begin with, and toyr pompous slande abotu me ebign anticahtolic, and new age, or ehatever, wihtout so much as offering proof, is beginign to be monotonous.

Can you DEMONSTRATE that this is the majorityal posiiton?

Likewise, wan thte Majorital Cahtlic position at one time pro- slavery?

I dont CARE what the majority of Cahtolics beleif. Only abotu Half beleived in mary's ascension till 1950 when it became Dogmaticlaly deifned.

Majority doesnt rule int eh Cahtolic churhc, but rather definitions of doctorine form the Infallable counsils and the Pope.

Correct me if i am mistaken an its jst a Democracy, which beleives whatever the Majority want to be true...}-Zarove

Almost all Catholics have belieived that only angels and human beings have IMMORTAL souls, and that animals' mortal souls die and cease to exist at the same time their bodies die.

{Oh relaly, answer these two queastions. use small words as im such an iidot.

1: Since when does majority opinion matter?

At one time, a Bishops ilicitly concecrated soem women into hte Prosthood. MOST of the Bishops aroudn the palnet, thogh acknowledgint he act itsself to be both scismatic and ilicit, said the ocncecratiosn themselves where valid.

Note: the concecratiosn byt he majority of Bishops where viewed as CVlaid.

Then the Pope, John Paul 2 I beleive, stepoped in and said otherwise, bullifying the concecrations.

Majority rule is not relevant in this debate.

2: even if majority rule mattered, which it doesnt, can you even demonstrate that this is the beleif of the Majority of Cahtolics? Of coruse nogt, you can make a repeated proclamation and claim I am beign redundant, but yo will never offer proof. this is hwo you pretend ot be a great apologusts. You dot need evidence, just hurl aothe perosnal attack.

But can you DEMONSGTRATE the fact next time?Or is it another of yor lies?}-Zarove

There is NOTHING that you can say here that would convince anyone to agree with you, if you believe differently.

{ Truth matters more than beelif, and I say what I say base don facts.

Thusfar, all you have odne is use personal insult agisnt me, and repeated the same lines.

Simpley decarign that animals lakc immortal souls doesnt make it a fact. Rather or not yo or the majority of Cahtolcis beleive soemthign doesnt make it a defined Dogma of the catholic faith.

Regardless of your claims, your proffesison that the majorty beleive this doent mean the majority actulaly beleive it.

You have no evidence, you are all talk and no proof.

I have in the past presented evidence, what do you present?

It had bettwer be more than "Your an idiot Zarove, im right."

}-Zarove

You cannot prove satan was the serpent. No passage of scripture identifies this serpent with satan. It was a tradition that was later applied, that lacks foundation. read the account in an unbiased manner, rather than assume its Satan by conditioning

This proves, once for all, that Zarove is a proselytizer, a man being used by the devil to trick us, and he should be forbidden to post here.

{No, it does not. It proves only that your propensity for attakcign my charecter is unlimited, and tour ability to show cvil restraint is nonexistant, in your continued attaxcks oin me.}-Zarove

After being here for months (if not more than a year), he still is abysmally ignorant or disrespectful of Catholicism.

{I beg to differ. I jknow more abotu Catolisism now that I did before, and liekwise, more abotu it than most Non-Cahtolcis, and even most Catholi layment who are mere pew warmers.

Unliek yoyr charecterisation fo me and my intellegence, I am a careful siudent.}-Zarove

He should know that we do not have a duty to "prove satan was the serpent," since we have an infallible Church that CLEARLY teaches this to be true. (For example, CCC 397 says, "Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God's command. This is what man's first sin consisted of.")

{the paraprthage you qores doenst say "The Serpent is relay satan." Shoudl I take the word of a fool who sees what he wants to see over reason? This pasage dosnt support your claim.}-Zarove

Zarove should know that we are not "sola-scripturists" and we do not have to give him a "proof text" to show that the tempter of our first parents was satan.

{ Yet you relied on a proof text int he Catechism, and even that wasnt a sufficient proof text... it didnt say the Serpent was saatn himself. een as an Instrment of satan, the seprent can be seen as an individual person.Unless your too much a fool to see it.}-Zarove

How DARE this heretic command us to prove anything to him?

{How dare you cast assertiosn agaisnt a Brother without cause. This is agaisnt Jesus's own commandemrns form his own mouth.

Your slanders are allowed to persist, and I shall not be as forgiving forever.}-Zarove

How DARE he accuse us of "bias" and falling prey to "conditioning"?

{Yet to this day you present no evidence for your claims.

1: You have not rpesented infallable churhc teachign that state animals lack immortal souls. You cliam this is the majority of Cahtolics veiws throgout Hisotry, but havent even demonstrated htis ot be truth. Even if it where, with no Infallable chuhcteahcing, it cannot be said as a fact.

Calling me a heretic for this beleif is, therefore, moronic.

2: You present no evidnece for yor other claims, that this is the majorityal eiw.

3: You present no real evidence that the seprent was satan. You take one passage of the Catechism out of context.

4: You make false accusation agaisnt me, and ocntinually degrade me, and insylt y intellegence and motive for beign here, which is not it he spirit of christ.

Thus, you have deminstrated hwy the weucharist shoidl be denied you,for you ar eno Catholic. Only a fool.}-Zarove

Begone, Zarove, thou unwitting messenger of the serpent.

{ A seprent indeed I am. For did not chirst ask us this? Mathew 10:16 soeas to what I endeavour.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 04, 2005.

it seems wrong that some would seem so sure or even get upset at others really wanting their pets to be with them in heaven.

i do not love the silver fish that lives in my library, nor is it likely that anyone else has loving feelings for that particular creature, so therefore i doubt that it will be in heaven.

however i do love my cats more than i can express. we can only assume that they love or cannot love us back. however, if they can love us, then a loving relationship exists. why would God remove some of the love in our hearts or try to get us to forget it?

what father would take away his children's friends?

-- jen (jen@notyet.com), March 05, 2005.

dear "my@opinion"

you are making unfair and ignorant remarks to zarove about being a vegetarian. i happen to know many catholics and priests that are vegetarian or vegan.

for starters there have been enough studies that show that it clearly is a healthier choice.

but also to eat from producers that unnecesarily perform cruel practices in the name of profit is a sin indeed! if i were starving, yes, i would kill a chicken (as humanely as possible)and eat it. however i would not eat a chicken under factory farming conditions due to the sick and heartless policies performed.

2416 Animals are God's creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory. Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.

2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.

today with so many other food options available, there is nothing NEW AGE about not wanting to contribute to the needless suffering of these animals. nor does it mean that we see them as equals.

why don't you take the time to research factory farming? the horrors are not just silly propaganda put out by PETA, but actual policies set by certain businesses. so please stop dismissing all vegetarians as some flaky new agesters.

-- jen (jen@notyet.com), March 05, 2005.

Jen, your message was unfair to me in two ways.

A. You tried to selectively quote the Catechism against me, but I was the very person who, on March 2 (see above), quoted ALL the Catechism's paragraphs on the subject of animals. I believe the Church's teachings on this and all other subjects.

B. You incorrectly stated that I am critical of vegetarians or vegans. I never said one word against these people as a group. I merely sought to draw a very logical and reasonable link between Zarove's vegetarianism and his belief that animals have immortal souls. My linking these things about Zarove says NOTHING AT ALL about vegetarianism in general or my attitude toward it. (By the way, Zarove now claims that his vegetarianism and his belief in animals having immortal souls are not really linked at all, but merely coincidental. I can believe that as easily as I could believe it if someone told me that Mother Teresa used to drive around Calcutta in a Mercedes.)

Jen, I do NOT dismiss ALL vegetarians as Hindu-ish or "flakey New Agers." Rather, I would dismiss only those people who choose to become vegetarians because they believe that animals have immortal souls or because they consider it sinful to slaughter animals for dining (because they believe in reincarnation or because they believe that animals have a role and dignity that is equal to that of humans). Jen, I really don't care what people choose to eat or to avoid eating, as long as they don't try to tell me that my eating of animals is immoral.

A prayer for Lent

Heavenly Father, forgive Zarove, if he knows not what he is doing.

-- (My@Opinion.com), March 05, 2005.

Jen, your message was unfair to me in two ways.

I htink most draw the same conclusion about you by now...

A. You tried to selectively quote the Catechism against me, but I was the very person who, on March 2 (see above), quoted ALL the Catechism's paragraphs on the subject of animals. I believe the Church's teachings on this and all other subjects.

Her quotes where by far muhc mroe pointent, and do indeed speak agaisnt hwat you tried to say.

Simpley declaring her psot null and void doesnt negete your own errors.

B. You incorrectly stated that I am critical of vegetarians or vegans. I never said one word against these people as a group. I merely sought to draw a very logical and reasonable link between Zarove's vegetarianism and his belief that animals have immortal souls.

Its not "Logical and reasonable". I had stated befre I was a vegitarian numerous times, which you ignroed. Now you draw an artificial parrallel betwen my vegitarianism and my statement that animals have immortal osuls to try to make me into a new age Hippie in order to discredit me.

Thats neither ligical nor reasoanbel. You ddnt even ask why I was a vegitarian, you just asusmed.

isnt Presumption a sin?

My linking these things about Zarove says NOTHING AT ALL about vegetarianism in general or my attitude toward it.

But linkign thiose things aout me wiht no real basis other than you assume one leads ot the other is rather a bit les logical than you are pretending it to be.

(By the way, Zarove now claims that his vegetarianism and his belief in animals having immortal souls are not really linked at all, but merely coincidental. I can believe that as easily as I could believe it if someone told me that Mother Teresa used to drive around Calcutta in a Mercedes.)

So not you accuse me of lying. its obviosu that My vegitarianism and my beleivef anumals ave immrotal sousl ar elinked. its th eonly logical and reaosanble conclusion. And I lied to covere this.

yes, this shows just how petty, bigoed, and childlike your beong.

You cannot admit when your wrong, or even admit the possibilty that you wher emistaken.

To the poitn where yo hurl accusations around agaisnt me to further your inane conclusions.

Jen, I do NOT dismiss ALL vegetarians as Hindu-ish or "flakey New Agers." Rather, I would dismiss only those people who choose to become vegetarians because they believe that animals have immortal souls or because they consider it sinful to slaughter animals for dining (because they believe in reincarnation or because they believe that animals have a role and dignity that is equal to that of humans).

And I obviously have thos ebeleifs because I beelive Aniamls have immortal souls...

and I only say othereise becuase Im a liar tryign to ide my intent...

again, this is ludecrous assertion on your paert abotgu myt motives.

You never bother to chekc the facts, and when your facts ar ein error, you insist you wher ento mistaken and instead say the primary souce, in this case myself, is whats wrong.

Do you honeslty think claligm me a liar is goign to make yourt asertiosn abotu me sound more true?

Jen, I really don't care what people choose to eat or to avoid eating, as long as they don't try to tell me that my eating of animals is immoral.

And I said this when?

Inded, you beleived I thoguht this and went out of your way to say they where DELICIOUS. in other worlds, just liek yout "Churh of Chirts is a Protestant denominaiton" refrain, you tried to diliberatley HURT me by your eatign meat.

You obviously care little for others views, beleifs, or feelings, and simpley wan tot dominate others.

The odd thing ehre is that I didnt say it was immrotal to eat meat. You just presume this is my beelif,a nd if I say its not, Im lying because you cant possibely be wrong.

A prayer for Lent

Heavenly Father, forgive Zarove, if he knows not what he is doing.

This form a bloke whop doesnt check his facts and hwen corrcted insists hes right, een when hes obiously wrong.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 05, 2005.

Dear Zarove:
Please forgive those who bait you and mistreat you for your hopes. You hope an animal may be given eternal life; because you trust your own heart. I have absolutely no doubt you're in error. But I can't kick at you over something you can't help believing.

Though I tried to change your mind, it wasn't because you're hateful. Forgive them around us who consider you hateful. We need you here as our cause. You must be converted in time to the true faith, because you're a loving soul who believes in God.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 05, 2005.

i know this isn't really the point you and zavrove are discussing, but as far as eating meat goes, doesn't it come down to this...

it is not immoral to eat meat, but immoral to support needless cruelty to get the meat on the table?

if you agree to that then we have an obligation to find out where and how our meat is produced.

"Not to hurt our humble brethren the animals is our first duty to them, but to stop there is not enough. We have a higher mission: to be of service to them whenever they require it."

-St Francis of Assisi

-- jen (jen@notyet.com), March 05, 2005.

You're in the wrong thread. But no one supports needless cruelty. When an animal is slaughtered for food, he dies ONE death. No animal has to live forever in order that we should eat no meat. Men die once and animals die once. Cruelty is a sin. Not eating meat.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 05, 2005.

>it is not immoral to eat meat, but immoral to support needless cruelty to get the meat on the table?

A: It all depends upon your interpretation of "needless". So-called "animal rights" activists would say that all suffering of food animals is needless because it can be prevented by simply not eating meat. The more balanced view is that raising animals for food and slaughtering them is acceptable, and necessarily involves some suffering, but it is immoral to needlessly inflict upon them any additional suffering that is not specifically required in raising and slaughtering them. Similar extremist vs. balanced views would apply to the use of animals for medical research, in zoos, or just about any other legitimate purpose.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 05, 2005.

Jen, I fully agree with what Paul M just told you.

(Please try to ignore Zarove's extreme paranoia, which he exhibits on nearly every thread that he trashes. He wrongly assumed that several things I told you last time were criticisms of him.)

-- (My@Opinion.com), March 05, 2005.

Somehow the subject has become Zarove.

The fact is, nobody can say Zarove is any greater sinner than ourselves. He just takes it all very seriously.

To Zarove, let me just say: DO DOGS EVEN WANT TO GO TO HEAVEN?

I supect most smart dogs would rather play with a ball. Or eat what's on your table.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 05, 2005.

>it is not immoral to eat meat, but immoral to support needless cruelty to get the meat on the table?

whoops i didn't realize i had ended that statement with a question mark. forgive me as i am exhausted.

i frequently encounter extremist vegans screeching at meat eaters and meat eaters poo-pooing vegetarians as liberal flakes. thank you for clarifying that that was not what you meant, but i couldn't help but try to bring peace to the issue. (sorry eugene...i know this has nothing to do with dogs going to heaven, but please indulge me for my last comment on the subject).

animals don't live their lives out till slaughter time now the way they did decades ago. yes there was suffering then, but for the most part the cow, pig or poultry lived fair enough and then was killed. now for some animals, their entire life is misery until death. i'm just begging the meat eaters to have some compassion and TRY to buy meat from farmers that do not partake in such cruel practices. i can't help but think that this is what Christ wants from us. it seems like i get great resistance to this as it is quite a burden to know where our meat comes from and far too convenient to drive through kfc. i don't see animals as equals, but i will do everything i can to make sure i don't contribute to an extra second of pain for them.

-- jen (jen@notyet.com), March 05, 2005.

Dear Jen:

I'll tell you what PAIN is--

Going to hell for your sins forever! Is there even one little toad going there? No.

Animals have it very soft, relatively. You can simper over that poor chicken who lives for the sake of Col Sanders. She has no immortal soul to even worry about. --WE DO!!!! Lol!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 05, 2005.

eugine, yes dogs do want to go to ehaven.

How can you prove otherwise?

All animals want to go home, and oslomon said the spirit returns ot God who gave it. this applies to Animals in my estimation, as I do nto read any evidence for them only haveng mateial souls, as opposed to immortal, even among papal decrees or Magestrum teachings. sO WHY WOIDLTN A SMART DOG WANT TO GO TO HEAVEN? AND EVEN IF THEY LACK UNDERSTANDING, SO DO bABIES AND SEVERELY EMTLALY HANDICAPPED, DO THEY NOT ENTER HEAVEN BY THAT VIRTUE?

Opinion- Its hardly paranoia to say you are attakcing me, and I don trash threads. Your the one who insistsn on makign rude and unkinf remarks and aimign them at me, such as clalign me an idiot, or sayifn "Begone".

Harldy paranoia when one can scroll up and read for themselves.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 05, 2005.

Zarove, You are not a dog. Only people were made in Gods image and given free will to love God, they alone have the possibility and capacity to know God and live in Him. God could have filled the universe with instinctive animals which would do what their instincts were designed to do but who wants robots for friends. You are worth more than many sparrows, not equal to a sparrow.

-- abc (abc@d.e), March 06, 2005.

ABC, Not oly can you not prove animals lack free will and act on insitnct and are nothign but robots, soemthign modern sicnece alone clealry demonstrates the oposite of, but yo cannot prove God loves animals not.

Again, animals lakc free will si a claim. Its not true. Sayign animals are mere robots is stupid, as they clealry each have differign personalities and taste and feelings.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 06, 2005.

Not only that; but Pal Zarove is prepared to argue this to the day he dies; so we ought to stop worrying. We can't convince him.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 06, 2005.

It's less that Im arguieng htis point, its the fact that whenever soemone saud animals operateo nly o insitnct and can thtink or reaosn and are nothn btu biological robots, they base this on presumption, not fact.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 06, 2005.

My Lord! You and you alone never presume anything. You KNOW everything.

Well FINE! Did it ever occur to you there is NOTHING MORE left to argue with you? Think whatever you please and God bless you!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 06, 2005.

Its hardly paranoia to say you are attakcing me, and I don trash threads. Your the one who insistsn on makign rude and unkinf remarks and aimign them at me, such as clalign me an idiot, or sayifn "Begone".

Zarove:
1. It WAS "paranoia" for you to have wrongly assumed that I was attacking you when I was conversing with Jen and actually criticizing some things that were wholly unrelated to you. I shan't waste time listing the things that you misinterpreted. But it was paranoiac, all right, since I never mentioned your name and never brought up those things to you directly.
2. My subjective judgment of what you often do here is "trashing threads." You make many threads repulsive to me, in appearance and (much more importantly) in content. Not ALL threads, but too many for me to tolerate silently.
3. Contrary to your false accusation, I never called you an "idiot." Read the entire thread and prove this to yourself. The only references to "idiot" are within your various false claims that I called you that. Your false accusation is another manifestation of your paranoia. So, do please "begone," or clean up your act.

PS: Dogs do NOT "want to go to heaven." They have no concept what "heaven." They were never once in heaven. They don't even know what "Earth" is, even though they are here. They have only a vague concept of the past (only in the sense of having stored away a few useful memories) and they have no concept at all of the future. They have no free will and thus no ability to sin or to do "virtuous" things. They just act according to instincts and according to what they have "learned" (a la Pavlov) about seeking pleasure and avoiding pain. All of this is fine, because that's all that God intended for them.

-- (My@Opinion.com), March 06, 2005.

1. It WAS "paranoia" for you to have wrongly assumed that I was attacking you when I was conversing with Jen and actually criticizing some things that were wholly unrelated to you. I shan't waste time listing the things that you misinterpreted. But it was paranoiac, all right, since I never mentioned your name and never brought up those things to you directly.

Need I remidn you that this is not the only thread you attack me in. Read the "Bible" thread. You call me an idiot their, "typist".

2. My subjective judgment of what you often do here is "trashing threads." You make many threads repulsive to me, in appearance and (much more importantly) in content. Not ALL threads, but too many for me to tolerate silently.

I seldom make threads to begon with, and usually dont make threads on large scale theological issues. I mean, relaly, what WAS repulsive aboyt the Olde english Bibels thread? I wanted to know about historical translations, thats repulsive?

Your only repulsed because I'm not Catholic, and now you do as a typical bully again, try to make yourself the victim and redirect blame.

3. Contrary to your false accusation, I never called you an "idiot."

Check other threads. you most assureldy did.

Read the entire thread and prove this to yourself.

I was not limited ot this oen thread lad.

The only references to "idiot" are within your various false claims that I called you that. Your false accusation is another manifestation of your paranoia. So, do please "begone," or clean up your act.

Again, need I post links to other threads?

PS: Dogs do NOT "want to go to heaven." They have no concept what "heaven."

And we know this is true for the same reaosn we knwo they lack free will and operat eonly on instinct and are Bilological robots. Because you said so.

we shoudl ignore Modern sicnce, observation, and all other forms of evidence and pretend that Only Humans can think, reason, dream, plan, and feel...

sorry, simpley saying soemthing isnt sufficient.

Likwise, the Bibel says plainly that Animals DO worship god, so they have soem ocncept there...

Ubnless you want to contradict the Scriptures.

Your veiw that animals lack fre will and are midnless automitons opeastign on instinct is a Philoosphical idea based on descarte's principles, and long since dispriven by Modern sicnece.

They were never once in heaven.

Not only is htis not rllay rleevant since, in Catholci theology, man was never once i Heaven till they die, its also not rellay provable that Anumals do nto go to Heaven.

declaration of such doesnt make such a fact.

You have thusfar not proven this as a fact.

They don't even know what "Earth" is, even though they are here.

This is not true. animals are cognizent of their environemnt, therefroe they knwo what earth is.

again, your operatign on the assumption that animal operate 90% on instinct and the ret on conditioning, and cannot think, reaosn, know, or feel anyhting. bioogical robits, thats all they are.

and again, we have taught Parrots to do more than immitate sounds and form communicaiton ( alex the african Grey, as a prime example) taught Chimpanzese to chat on the internet, and dogs to recognise various persons and moods.

And again, I refer tyou to my former links.

The assertio that aniumals are void of any undertsanding and "dont even knwow hat earht is even thoguh their here" is groundless.

Unelss you want me to toss out modern researhc and pesonal observaiton in favur of your Homo-Centric veiws base don humanist philoosphy, that is.

They have only a vague concept of the past (only in the sense of having stored away a few useful memories) and they have no concept at all of the future.

Likewise not true. Recent studies have shown dogs capable of plannign the future, and undertsanding events will take palce at certain times. IE, a dog can elarn his master wll return home form work at 7:00 daly. This is premeditative knwoeldge baed on expeirnece.

Liekwise, ogs have made palns for future events wile operaing in gorups caled Packs.

Dogs can, and do, plan the future, so must have a concept of the future.

They have no free will and thus no ability to sin or to do "virtuous" things.

This is a lie. Its based on the aforementioned concept that they opwerate 90% on instinct. did you even read the links I posted?

the seperation between man an animal isnt as pronounced as once it was thoguth to be, and curent researhc has demonstrated time and again that Animals are NOT merley operaitn on instinct and CAN htink and reason, thus do possess free will.

Simpely declaring as fact that they lack fre will is not sifficient to prove they lack free will.

espeiclaly in light of the articles I posted above.

They just act according to instincts and according to what they have "learned" (a la Pavlov) about seeking pleasure and avoiding pain.

No, they do not.

They have thoguhts, feelings, dreams, moods, and desires.

As i ave demonstrated in the articles abovce.

saying otherwise is not defiending the Cahtilic faith agaisnt me, tis defiendign a Human centred veiwpoitn that relegates animals tot he "Use only" bend, and makes them only robots to eliveate any Human repsoncibility to them.

However, the reality remains that Animals do NOT opwerate 90% on instinct and CAN think, plan, reaosn, and aspire. They DO possess self volition and thus must possess free will which is what causes slef volition.

They have ersonalities, the ability to imaine, dream, contemplate, an dlearn.

And again, I am willing to post articles in ull if the links arent good enouhg.

what do you have to prove they are mere robots who operate on instinct? anyhtign above yor shallow assertions?

All of this is fine, because that's all that God intended for them.

Another shallow asserion. You asusme God made them to operate o instinct alone, and hay they lack fre will, dspite the fact that all evidence is agaisnt htis position, and asume God only made them for man. Just liek when you cruelly said " And hteu DELICIOUS" in an atmeot to harm me, based on your misrepresntaitosn of me, you arent willign t listen to anothers veis, and instead insist that you have crrected my errors with truth and fact.

The toruble is, I have posted articles on animal intellegence. You have not. I hvae posted what current sicnece says. You have made assertion.

I have poitbed out that No Catholci teahcing sates animals lack immortal sols or where made expressly for Human use. This is mere asumotion based on your privat einterpretaiton of he Catechism.

Now, unless you want ot present real evidnece, that God made them only for Human use, and they operate only on Instinct, I siggest you "begone' sicne repeaign the same thigns over and over aain do not convence anyone.

You have no evidnece, and shodl nto exct smeoen to belive y at yur owrd.

Least of all soemoen you have attacked repeatedly.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 06, 2005.

“I dont CARE what the majority of Cahtolics beleif. Only abotu Half beleived in mary's ascension till 1950 when it became Dogmaticlaly deifned.” (Zarove)

This is quite wrong. Pope Pius XII formally defined Our Lady’s Assumption (not ascension) only after, among other things, commissioning and receiving reports from every bishop in the world who told him that belief in Our Lady’s Assumption into Heaven was virtually universal among the Catholic faithful of all of their respective dioceses.

“i happen to know many catholics and priests that are vegetarian or vegan. for starters there have been enough studies that show that it clearly is a healthier choice.” (jen)

A lot of people seem to think “vegan” is just a pretentious modern word for a vegetarian, but it actually means someone who doesn’t eat anything at all that comes from an animal, whether the animal suffers or not.(In fact even if NOT taking it from the animal CAUSES suffering, eg, NOT milking a cow will cause it great pain from being engorged with milk.) Vegans eat not only no meat, poultry or fish, but NOTHING which contains the slightest amount of milk, butter, cheese, eggs, honey etc. Not even anything containing gelatin (which is made ultimately from animal protein.) I find it very hard to believe that “many catholics and priests" are vegan.

(btw "vegetarian" is a rather silly term, as virtually EVERYBODY eats vegetables. What defines vegetarians is what they AVOID. So a more accurate term would be "non-meat-eater" or "meat abstainer" or "meat avoider". Also many so-called "vegetarians" eat fish and/or poultry.)

As to health, it is arguable that vegetarianism is a healthier choice (though not for anyone prone to anemia, as a large proportion of the population, especially women, are). Veganism is definitely not heathier. Although it is possible in theory to get an (almost) properly balanced diet from plant material alone, in practice no vegan is able to achieve this.

As to "cruelty", after looking into the issue, I’m satisfied that our governments are doing sufficient to prevent cruelty and minimize animal suffering to the greatest extent practically possible. In some respects “factory” animals actually suffer LESS than “free range” animals.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), March 06, 2005.

try again

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), March 06, 2005.

""And we know this is true for the same reaosn we knwo they lack free will and operat eonly on instinct and are Bilological robots. Because you said so. ""

In the interests of accuracy and fairplay, it was not My@Opinion who called animals robots, I did.

If you look at some kinds of fish, Zarove, which can camouflage themselves you'll get a sense of what I mean.

Take the Piccaso Triggerfish for example, it's entire body has the appearance of a large fish head (detached from its body) complete with a small section of vertibrae sticking out and with colouring around it matching perfectly not only the colours of slightly decaying fish flesh but also matching its texture perfectly. It also has not just a large false eye on its sides, but its false eye is the perfect representation of an eye-socket and matches its camouflage of a slightly decayed fish head. Its fins are all transparent so as not to interfere with this affect. Other markings and colourings complete the illusion exactly.

What can I make of this- either the fish, with a sense of humour, designed itself, or God designed it. This fish is a type of robot, it was designed to the very last detail, it cannot operate outside its design parameters. It must eat, live and behave as it was designed to or it will not survive. Animals can only do what God has allowed for in His design and who is to say that He can't give an animal an approximation of what we call personality. They are still bound by instinct and they can only obey Gods design, they have no free will to act against God. They are creatures created in obedience to God, they have no immortal souls to be lost or saved [in the way that a person, body and soul can be lost forever in hell, and could never be rescued or recreated] so the animal as a design [or concept] is never lost they could be recreated again in the same way as God created them in the beginning.

-- abc (abc@d.e), March 07, 2005.

The toruble is you mentiolend dogs. dogs arent fish.

And I did post abotu Naimal intellegence. Am I to ignroe all the findings of sicnece to beeive "Animals lack free will and only man can think, feel, and reason' because you said so?

You are NOT being logical here.

dogs can think, dogs feel emotions, dogs reason, plan, and communicate, all fo this has been demonstrated.

so do Cats, whales, dolphines, parrots, Ravens, and a host of other anumals.

Sayign all animals operat eon instinct aloine and cannot operat eoutsise their designed parametres and cnanot think or reaosn and hus lack free will is an assertion not base don fact, but Humanist Philosophy.

Again, read the links on animal Intellegence I provided, not your self absorbed Conclusions.

Simpley declarign somethign as a fact doesnt render it a fact.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 07, 2005.

>"Sayign all animals operat eon instinct aloine and cannot operat eoutsise their designed parametres and cnanot think or reaosn and hus lack free will is an assertion not base don fact, but Humanist Philosophy".

The higher animals do possess some measurable degree of intelligence, directly related to brain complexity; and not surprisingly a few of the most intelligent animals do demonstrate a certain level of reasoning. For example, a few individual gorillas in captivity, (probably the "geniuses" of the species), after intensive training by humans, have shown reasoning capacity roughly equivalent to that of a normal 2-year old human child. It is likewise true that higher animals can demonstrate emotions, and can communicate in a variety of ways. However, these characteristics have absolutely nothing to do with free will, which is a specifically moral capacity with which God has endowed those created in His own image and likeness, and which no animals possess. Free will doesn't simply mean the ability to make choices, like eating a banana vs. eating an apple. It means the ability to choose between moral good and moral evil. No animal can make any such choices because they are amoral (not immoral) beings.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 07, 2005.

""They are still bound by instinct and they can only obey Gods design, they have no free will to act against God. They are creatures created in obedience to God, they have no immortal souls to be lost or saved [in the way that a person, body and soul can be lost forever in hell, and could never be rescued nor recreated] so the animal as a design [or concept] is never lost they could be recreated again in the same way as God created them in the beginning. ""

If you have a specific problem with any of this sentence please let me know.

No evidence from animal behavior can contradict this sentence.

Dont waste time worrying about animals.

-- abc (abc@d.e), March 07, 2005.

Chesterton mused on the caves of Altamira; where the cave- dwellers of pre-history left beautiful drawings of living animals on the walls and ceilings. You can see them even today, in Spain.

He said something wonderfully apropos this discussion. That science was now trying to persuade us we are descendents of primates, relatives of monkeys. And then he thinks: Here is the painting on a ceiling in a cave; painted by a man. A real artist! Where are we ever going to find anything painted by an ape?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 07, 2005.

worry less of animals than you, and plenty contradict that sentence.

Again, did you read the links I provided in full?

animal congition is actually a proven fact. They are aware of their enviornemt, can think, dream, reaosn, hope, and apsire, and do have self volition.

it is th einescapable fact of their neutology.

They possess the traits tyou cliam they do not.

and yet you deny this.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 07, 2005.

You know that seems true about animals dreaming coz sometimes my dog would sleep and go like 'WHOOOOOF!............WHOOOF!' (go figure if it's a nightmare or perhaps something of an erotic nature *grin*).

Anyway God knows best but I think He would care enough for his creations if He spoke to a donkey. Also wasn't there that bit about the Tsunami and how all the animals survived?

God bless,

-- Mark (-dont@inform.me), March 09, 2005.

Do dogs go to heaven? FOR ONCE AND FOR ALL TIME.

Will the person who KNOWS the answer please stand up and say yes or no?....and we paws for an answer...

-- abc (abc@d.e), March 09, 2005.

undoubtedly......

......unless they know that the Catholic Church is the One True Church yet refuse to remin within Her Bossom.

and that probably only damns clever dogs such as Lassie.

goofing over, i'm amazed that anyone cares about this subject. absolutely amazed.

they don't have a soul.

maybe we should consider plants?

then completely inanimate objects?

do rocking chairs go to Heaven?

slugs? snails? carrots? Carbon Dioxide molecules? H2O?

do bacteria go to Heaven?

i wouldn't eat something of if thought it might go to Heaven - or had already done so.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 09, 2005.

Many leading computer scientists believe that computers can think. Should we then believe that computers will go to Heaven?

-- Tim K. (tk4386@juno.com), March 09, 2005.

People have tremendous love for their pets. Its normal to want to see them again. I had a Boston Terrier for many years. He died and I'm sure he went to Boston.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), March 09, 2005.

TRhe torible is ocmptuers arent rellay intelelgent in any wya and arent by anyones consideraiton "alive". They do as commanded.

animals are self willed. ( dispite the cliam that they are biological robots who operat eon insinct alone, this being refuted by Modern researh as I linked above, and not mentioned in any official chruch teachings.)

all life must have a soiul, or else its nto alive. God cares for all animals, this is written in the scriptues. Joh Paul 2 said they had souls. He called them "Bretheren."

I see nor rason to lay down and accept the notion that animals lakc mmortal souls on the say-so of a few popel who clearly do not possess the authority to make such a pronouncement, nor do I find aruments compellign that cossit enturley of dictaiton of truth with no substantiaiton.

I may not be able to prove 100% animals have souls, but in the past,I have presetned a case forf such, and one dya in the future, I will provide my case once again.

Likely on "ask Jesus", as that will be free form heavy handed declaraigosn of suposed anti-Catholisism.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 09, 2005.

We must've all heard of some faithful dogs who moaned or silently lamented their departed masters. An animal bereaved and heartbroken after having his best friend die.

That must mean dogs can feel great loves. I know in the past I've come to tears when my dog died.

But there's no problem with that. It's OUR LOVE which indeed rewards these animals in the temporal world. God loves them and makes others love them in a natural context. They yearn for NO MORE.

It's not that insignificant, that an earthbound animal gets to feel the natural animation of deep love for another creature. They are justly rewarded in this life. They've loved and have been loved.

A faithful soul created in God's own image loves with holy and mystical love, as befits those who love a Divine Lover. Say, as Saint Theresa of Jesus loved Our Saviour, with ecstatic desire for Him. She felt her own heart pierced by the lance of Christ's requited love. This is how souls will all love God in heaven. Only someone created in God's image can love in that way. They are rewarded with infinitely more than this life's affections. They're raised to heaven for everlasting bliss and divine love; the greatest love of all.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 09, 2005.

Of course higher animals have brains and can think, dream and make choices. That doesn’t mean they have an immortal soul.

“God knows best but I think He would care enough for his creations if He spoke to a donkey. Also wasn't there that bit about the Tsunami and how all the animals survived? “

Of course God cares for all His creation. That doesn’t stop Him from letting entire galaxies (possibly containing millions of planets supporting trillions of living creatures) exploding in supernovas. Some animals survived the tsunami, because their INSTINCT told them to head for the hills when they felt the earth move. They certainly didn’t reason it out, much less decide that it would be morally good to do so. “i wouldn't eat something of if thought it might go to Heaven - or had already done so.” (Ian) If you’re still a Catholic you’re obliged to do this at least once a year.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), March 09, 2005.

The proble, is steve, as I demonstrated itn eh past clealry, no hruhc teachign says animals lack Immortal souls, so one shoidkl be free to hodl this veiw and not be told he is plainly worng when no oen can provide vlaid evidence.

That is central to my posts here ont he matter. I canot demnstrate that Animals do have immortal souls, but neither can you demonstratre that they dont, as it is not Church teaching.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 09, 2005.

... Boston.

Loved it, Jim Furst! Thanks.

Steve, please do not let Zarove fool you. He is not Catholic, so I seek no control over what he believes about animals and their souls. The only thing I care about (which has compelled me to do combat with him above) is that he not have any success in proselytizing any Catholics into adopting his "hindu-like" beliefs. (Note: I do not call him a hindu, but only say that he and hindus share at least one erroneous belief in common.)

Since Zarove wants to convince all Catholics that animals have immortal souls, he says that there is no Catholic teaching that animals lack immortal souls. He is probably right to say that there is no explicit teaching statement, using those specific words, in a magisterial document. However, as I showed much earlier in this thread, there are implicit teaching statements to that effect in the Catechism. Zarove conveniently ignored them, or he lacked the intelligence to deduce those implicit teaching statements when he read the Catechism paragraphs.

Steve, not for Zarove's benefit (since his skull is thicker than the Berlin Wall), but for your benefit and that of lurkers, I would like to highlight the key statements from the Catechism.

2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image.

NOTICE: Man is "created in" God's "image," but animals are not. Part of being "created in" God's "image" is to have an immortal soul! Catholics are hereby implicity taught to believe that animals do not have immortal souls. This is confirmed by the statement about man's "stewardship" of animals. A person cannot be the "steward" of someONE who has an immortal soul, but only of someTHING that has either no soul at all (inanimate objects) or has a material/mortal soul (a plant or animal).

2417 [continued] Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure.

Again the Church implicitly teaches that Catholics must believe that animals do not have immortal souls, since man could not be permitted to exploit (for food or clothing or domestic work/leisure) someone who has an immortal soul. Only something inanimate or having a material, mortal soul (a plant/animal) can thus be exploited without our sinning.

2417 [concluded] Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice ...

Again the Church implicitly teaches that Catholics must believe that animals do not have immortal souls, since man could not be permitted to do "medical and scientific experimentation" on someone who has an immortal soul without that someone's consent! Only something inanimate or having a material, mortal soul (a plant/animal) can be sinlessly experimented upon without the obtaining of consent.

2418 ... One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.

Again the Church implicitly teaches that Catholics must believe that animals do not have immortal souls, since the quoted sentence shows that animals are not "persons," while humans are. And only "persons" (men and angels) have immortal souls.

Case closed. [GAVEL! Zarove has been dismissed by the wise judge to the dank gaol known as "Ask Jesus Forum."]

-- (My@Opinion.com), March 10, 2005.

"..Zarove has been dismissed by the wise judge to the dank gaol known as "Ask Jesus Forum."

Oh No. Not the "dank gaol" with the three stooges with Frank, Elpido and Rod.

-- Zarmike (dismissed@stooges....), March 10, 2005.

Steve, please do not let Zarove fool you. He is not Catholic, so I seek no control over what he believes about animals and their souls. The only thing I care about (which has compelled me to do combat with him above) is that he not have any success in proselytizing any Catholics into adopting his "hindu-like" beliefs.

My beleifs arent rellay Hindu like, nor am I proslytising. thats a concept you invented to apply to this situation. However, as I noted, many Cahtolic theologians in full counion withthe Pope agree wiht me here.

Unelss, again, you wan tot ignroe St.Fransis as he had "Hindu like beleifs". Or many contemporary teologians wihtin the Cahtolic chruch. do I need to name names?

(Note: I do not call him a hindu, but only say that he and hindus share at least one erroneous belief in common.)

No, they do not. They beleive anials possess mmortal souls, they do not hwoever share the reasons why or my beleifs. You infer too much ased on your predjudices.

You also assume its an erorr to beleive animals have immortsl souls.

But as I have asked repeateldy, can you present even one shred of evidnece ofr htis to be true? if the churhc dont teahc it as a fact, whihc you yourself admited aboive, then instead of sayign I am in erorr and proslytising peolel to hindi-like beleifs, perhaps it woidl be best not to make claims about how factual your claism are until the time fcoems when a dogmatic declaraiton is mad eon the subject. Otherwise, you may find yourself with your foot in your mouth.

Since Zarove wants to convince all Catholics that animals have immortal souls, he says that there is no Catholic teaching that animals lack immortal souls.

AS opopoed to you who want to spread the flat out lie that the Cahtolic Churhc yeaches animals lakc immortal suls and to beleive otheriws eis an error and hindi-like in beleif.

Again, many CATHOLIC teologians beelive animals have immortal suls, so its not a concept forign to catholsiism, and its nto eclty a prosylitising tool since its compatale with catholisism.

Do I need to post links before you stip with your gratitous insults to my charecter? hen again, I didhtis toprovethat aniamsl dont just operat eon instinct and you ignored t. hekc the Pope was ignored till fairly recently.

He is probably right to say that there is no explicit teaching statement, using those specific words, in a magisterial document.

If Im not, you habetn exalcty been rapid in showing otherise. Indeed, that was one of the main problems I had with Paul M and steve makign the declaraiton that aniasl alcked immrotal suls. lakc of proof. You just cntinue on in THEIR error.

However, as I showed much earlier in this thread, there are implicit teaching statements to that effect in the Catechism.

Implicit only if you are predisposed to this beleif.

Again, not all Cahtolcis agree with you, notall cahtolci teologians agree, and I zm not convenced ony uor say-so that ost cahtlic theologians say so.

You arent that convenicng when you make foolish claims wiht no support.

How do we knwo I am spreaidng error with defiendign tis beleif which I admit I cannot prove? oiw do you knwo you arent in error?

Because yoy think its true thats why. You rely on personal intepretation, and then force it as fact.

Zarove conveniently ignored them, or he lacked the intelligence to deduce those implicit teaching statements when he read the Catechism paragraphs.

I igroed nothing, and slammign my intelelgence doent win you many firneds.

However, the Catachism is far form clear on the matter. Again, you only intepret the catechism troh your world-veiw, and arrive at its support for your claim.

That doesn tmean it implies as you say.

so again, I ask, hwo are you so sure you aren the oen spreadign error?

Steve, not for Zarove's benefit (since his skull is thicker than the Berlin Wall), but for your benefit and that of lurkers, I would like to highlight the key statements from the Catechism.

Once again yo insult my intelelgence. Is this nessisary oin any way?

I am not as stupid as you persistantly claim, nor am I rlelay as new age or hindu in thogut as you inist.

You however, spread the error of slander, which I beelive is a sin. correcg me if I am wrong in that regafrd, slanderer.

You persist in slandering me, so what does the Catechism sya on that. Its far form ambiguois. neex I post it?

2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image.

Note the word "Stewartship'. Soemhtign you ignore. I think this part of the Catechism is right, and you are distortign its meaning.

NOTICE: Man is "created in" God's "image," but animals are not.

Noticed that it said "Stewartship' and not "Anials where created for man." stewartship asumes soemone else owns them.

They wherent created explressly and soley for man. that is acoridng to the above anyway.

Fort xomeone who both said I igored the catechism and was too stupid to undertsand it, you certainly fixate on a limited part of it that no one contested and gnored the central crux. Man is a steward of creaiton, ot the purpose for creation.

Part of being "created in" God's "image" is to have an immortal soul!

But does htis mean all thins not in God's image lakc immortal souls? Nohtign int eh Catechism says this.

before you clal em too stupid to see it, try presentign evidence for yout false claims.

Catholics are hereby implicity taught to believe that animals do not have immortal souls.

No, they ar enot. tge implication stems form your gross disgtortion of the text of the catechism to suit your own agenda. but their is nothign int he cagechism that even aliudes tot his in the passage you just quited.

This is confirmed by the statement about man's "stewardship" of animals.

No its not. indeed, the term "stewartship" tend to disavow the idea that animals where created for man. as you asserted earlier they where.

Animals wherent created for man, man was entrusted to care for them.

Qwuiet a contrary sentement.

A person cannot be the "steward" of someONE who has an immortal soul,

Yes they can. heck parets are stewarts of their children and Kings tot heir people...Unless children and subjexct have no immortal souls then your comment is an absurdety.

but only of someTHING that has either no soul at all (inanimate objects) or has a material/mortal soul (a plant or animal).

At leats if you grossly distort the meanign of the term stewart...

which you gladly do.

for someone clalikgm me an idiot you certianl,y coudl use a good dictionary.

2417 [continued] Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure.

Which I didnt disagree with.

Again the Church implicitly teaches that Catholics must believe that animals do not have immortal souls, since man could not be permitted to exploit (for food or clothing or domestic work/leisure) someone who has an immortal soul.

Man isnt exaclty llowed to exploit animals either. However, usign for food and clohtign isnt "Exploiting" in the sence that its merley usign the native pattern of preditor and prey.

No more so than wolves "exploit" sheep.

Likewise, no passga ein the Catechism actulaly says that if soemthign has an immotal soul it cannot be killed. Natural patterns of use arent equel to denial of immortal souls.

Indeed, your whoe logic is absurd.

we cannot kill aniumals if they have immortal sul and live forever.

but if this is the only lifetime they will ever have, and all they will ever be in contined soley in this workd, we can end their life.

Isnt it MORE cruel to end the life of an animals that lakcs immortal existance? After all, i have dispelled yor lie ( wich at this poitn it must be called such, sicne you have been shown the turth) that aniamsl cannot think or reaosn and do not know the world arudn them. they are mor than biological machines.

They have all the same emoutins and mental atrtobutes as man, just not to as great a degree.

If this si the only life they will ever live, it is immoral to use them for food, becaue in so doign, you permenently cause the exginciton fo teir suls.

If, on the other hand, i am correct, an they DO have imortal souls, then, ligiclaly, by killng ne for food, all yo do is release their sul intot he hereafter. Thus it is less reprehensable.

You seem tot hink that if they have imortal sousl we cnanot kill then, but why shodul we be allowed to kill soemthign that cannot share in immortality in the next life?

Isnt that basiclay syaing that we get to live forever, an they dont, so we can take what little they have?

Its like sayign becayse a poor man lacks money its OK to steal form him. But a rish man that cna afford the loss, its worng to take his possessions.

Suhc avares is insane.

Only something inanimate or having a material, mortal soul (a plant/animal) can thus be exploited without our sinning.

Ani,als arent to be expluted acoring to the Pope and curnt catechism.

and as noted, if they lack immortal osuls and cannot shar ein immortality, it is mroe cruel to kill them. since this is the only worlkd they will ever know, we have no right to take it form them for our use. espeiclaly since we are vblessed with immortality and they are not.

2417 [concluded] Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice ...

I like how you parpahrase this.

ou ignore the parts of the catechsim about not causign undue pain and suffwerign to aniumals... but can partially quote this paraphage. This is deception on yor part, makign yo a liar and fraiud.

Again the Church implicitly teaches that Catholics must believe that animals do not have immortal souls, since man could not be permitted to do "medical and scientific experimentation" on someone who has an immortal soul without that someone's consent!

This is, agaun, specious logic.

and again I ask, if they do not have immortal souls, why is it Ok to ji.ll them or subjec tthem to death? If this is the onlyworld they will ever know, why is it OK to kill them?

Because we ge tto live forever we can take the small measure of life form them? because we ae rich we can steal formt he poor?

Only something inanimate or having a material, mortal soul (a plant/animal) can be sinlessly experimented upon without the obtaining of consent.

At leats in yor cruel, narrow minded, and obtuse interpretation fo the catechism which lacks substance.

2418 ... One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.

But noetheless, by remvign them form the realm f immortaity, you make it MORE queastionable of rather or nto killig them is OK, sicne this is the only life they shall have...

Again the Church implicitly teaches that Catholics must believe that animals do not have immortal souls, since the quoted sentence shows that animals are not "persons," while humans are.

So because you can distort the wording to fit yor preconived notons, all cahtolcis must be as cruel and shrot tempotered as you.

what aprt of the catechism says its OK to call soemone an idiot whoi disagrees withy or prnoudnementts?

And only "persons" (men and angels) have immortal souls.

At leats accordign to you. Nohtin int he catechism actulaly says this explicitely or even implicitely. You agve to lie and distort to make it read so.

Case closed. [GAVEL! Zarove has been dismissed by the wise judge to the dank gaol known as "Ask Jesus Forum."]

IF the cas eis closed, the it mus close in my favour, since you have not presented any evidene that animals lack immortal souls, left the queatsiknof why killign w,mehting that lacks imotlaity is OK, and havent realy presented anyhtign at al except gross distortions fothe catechism.

Fromt he catechism, which you ignored.

2416 Animals are God's creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory. Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.

Man may not explit animals. Naturalpredition is not exploitation, nor is use of hide for clohting.

Man may not, hwoever, influct undue harm to animals without legitimate cause. Animals are God's creatures, not mans.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 10, 2005.

2416 Animals are God's creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory. Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.

Here is the PARTIOAL quote toy supplied in context, liar.

2457 Animals are entrusted to man's stewardship; he must show them kindness. They may be used to serve the just satisfaction of man's needs.

Another sin of ommision form the lair who woud distort the catechism.

2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image. Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.

Here is one you mised. man may exploit animals as they lack immortal souls, or so said opinion.

But the Catechism says man cannot exploit animals.

Who to beleive?what Opinion says of the catechism, or the catechism itsself?

2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.

HE omited the vital parts ot this paraphrage to vreate a faLSE STATEMENT, TO PRETEND THE CATECHISM SAID ANIMALS ARNE TIMPROTANT AND CAN BE EXPLOUTED.

In full light, the catechism merley asserts that Humanity takes prescedence, it does NOT say that anumals may be freely exploited. the implicit spulessnes sof animals is a lie.

Read the full paraphras, not the distortions and out of context portions of frauds who seek to force his opinion as fact.

As withthe Bibel tisself, quotes t fo context are dangeorus.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 10, 2005.

For soemoen who posted the full wuotes above, you shoidl ave known better than to try to devicieve us here wiht fragments.

Taking the quites out fo context is bad taste, and you clealry had an agenda in the portiosn you cited.

none of them support your view.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 10, 2005.

Zarove,

"It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly."

Yes, the Church is saying that animals can not be exploited, just as the previous poster said. There is a difference between using animals in a way beneficial for humans and needlessly exploiting them.

Secondly, notice the wording in this quote. It is contrary to HUMAN dignity, not ANIMAL dignity. If the Church in any way believed that animals had immortal souls, then the needless death and suffering of the animals would be contrary to ANIMAL dignity.

I would guess that the reason there is no formal Church teaching on animal salvation is that no respected theologian in Church history has ever made such claims.

-Tim

-- Tim K. (tk4386@juno.com), March 11, 2005.

The reason there is no formal Church teaching on "animal salvation" is the same as the reason there is no formal teaching on plant salvation or bacterial salvation, or the salvation of rocks or soil or water or air. Namely, it is absolutely a non-issue. The Church has taught from the beginning that we can't take our earthly possessions with us when we enter eternity. Nothing more needs to be said.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 11, 2005.

Paul,

I agree completely.

-- Tim K. (tk4386@juno.com), March 11, 2005.

"It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly."

Yes, the Church is saying that animals can not be exploited, just as the previous poster said. There is a difference between using animals in a way beneficial for humans and needlessly exploiting them.

Acvtually he abive poster said we COULD exploit animals. I made this correction to him.

Secondly, notice the wording in this quote. It is contrary to HUMAN dignity, not ANIMAL dignity.

This isnt relevant, sicne the wordign does not teach anmals lack dignoty or immortal souls.

again you are begnnign wihthte presupposintion that animals lakc immortal osauls, then reading into a quote what is not their.

If the Church in any way believed that animals had immortal souls, then the needless death and suffering of the animals would be contrary to ANIMAL dignity.

AND, as the Catechism sttaed, it is morlaly wrong to cause the needless death of any animal for their own benefit.

Need I re-ppst the paraphraph?

Again, their is no Chruch teachign in the matter.

So beelf that Anials posses an immortal soul si not contrary to Catolic teaching, and thus peopel who do shoudnt be beaten down for this beleif. least of all shoudl they be caleld thick skulled or Hindu-Like in their beleifs. ( Unelss saint Fransis of assisi was hindu-Like in his beleifs.)

I would guess that the reason there is no formal Church teaching on animal salvation is that no respected theologian in Church history has ever made such claims.

This is not true. many contempotrary Catholic Tgeologians CTUALLY do Beleive that Animals possess immortal souls, and many in the past did as well. if you woudl like I will list more names than Francis.

Conrary tot he veiw presented on thsi baord, the fact is several Cahtolic theologians have rejected thimasism and accepted animals as possessing Immortal souls.

This doesnt prove my point, but it does disprive the arugment form majority claim.

Npow, Paul M-

The reason there is no formal Church teaching on "animal salvation" is the same as the reason there is no formal teaching on plant salvation or bacterial salvation, or the salvation of rocks or soil or water or air.

Once again you basiclaly equate Anials with rock and soil and air. innanimate objects. After all, Animals are just aprt fo the environment.

do you reay beleive Anials ar eno dfferent form rocks? come on, their living beinga with a mind, not rocks...

Besides, your wrong, the Cahtolci chruhc, acoridng tot he catechism, said all creation will be redeemed. which oddly enough includes rocks.

Nonehteless, I do not beleive rocks have immortal souls, nor do I think it is fair to equate animasl with rocks.

its liej the other argument. we will be so blisxful in heaven we wont miss anumals, so their is no need for them in heaven. Its a self centred veiw.

Its nto about US missing anumals and wating our pets in ehaven, but abotu th animals own sake.

And anuamls are not just bilogical robots, nor are they merley aprts f the enviornment, Tbinkign this way is actulaly quit arrogNT, ESPECIALLU FOR gOD'S steward OF CREATION.

Namely, it is absolutely a non-issue.

Clearly it is an issue of I have to be subjected to nameclalign and we are still debatign it. an lest I remidn you, so do many repsected Catholci theologians.

Try doign a google search.

I am harldy a lone voice here.

The Church has taught from the beginning that we can't take our earthly possessions with us when we enter eternity. Nothing more needs to be said.

Once again you make the arrogANT PRESUMPTION THAT THIS IS ABOTU ME TAKING MY PETS TO HEAVEN, AND ONCE AGAIN YOU REDCE aNUMALS TO MERE POSSESSIONS.

AGAIN THIS IS THE " WE WON WANT outr pets in ehaven anyway as we will be so blessed that we wont miss them" routine.

its a stupid argument.

again, I will repeat, animals possessing immortal sousl is not for OUR benefit, but THEWIR benefit.

This isnt abotu us taking our possessions with us, its baotu animals possesisng immortal souls.

You are th eone who falsely claism they are merely aprts of the envirfonment.However, if they havde immrtal souls, they cannot be merley aprt of the enviornent. een with mateiral sousl only they arent merley parts of he environemnt.

And by makign the above sttaement about us not beogn abe to take our possessions wuth us to heaven, you overlook the simple fact that I dont want to take my possesisons with me to heaven. I make the case that anumals go to heaven FOR THEIR OWN SAKE, they DO NOT GO TO HEAVEN FOR OUR SAKE, but FOR THEIR OWN SAKE.

Do you rlelay think this is all about us taking our possesisons? are you rellay that self-centred, that arogant as to think anuamls are merley things?

Again, Animals are NOT possessions, and this is NOT about us takign our possesions to heaven. even WILD ANIMALS that NEVER ONCE SAW A MAN will have immortal souls.

So stop using a tired argument that doesnt work with what I hve cklaomed.

I will repeat one last time emphaticlaly. The topic f aniumal souls sint rendered moot by the claim that we cannot take our possesiosn to heaven with us, nor is it true that "Nothing else need be said". Such a claim is not sufficient to answer the topic, sicne such a queasion assumes that the ponant proposed anumals only go to ehaven for mans sake. I do not beeleive every action God takes is for mans sake.

So you cannot overturn my arugment wiht such a ludecrous and Homocetnric veiw.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 11, 2005.

-------------Ad nauseam.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 11, 2005.

Zarove,

Through all of the Church's teachings, even when it says it is wrong to needlessly hurt animals, it says this because it detracts from HUMAN dignity. It does not say it detracts from ANIMAL dignity. You point is that it somehow detracts from ANIMAL dignity which is never taught explicitly or implicitly by the Church.

C'mon, you can have your wacky beliefs, but do not try to convince us that the Catholic Church supports the notiuon of animal salvation.

-Tim

P.S. Have fun responding to my post sentence by sentence, thus removing the cohesion that a logical step-by-step process takes. Respond to the whole notion, not to indivudal words and phrases taken out of their context.

-- Tim K. (tk4386@juno.com), March 11, 2005.

Through all of the Church's teachings, even when it says it is wrong to needlessly hurt animals, it says this because it detracts from HUMAN dignity. It does not say it detracts from ANIMAL dignity. You point is that it somehow detracts from ANIMAL dignity which is never taught explicitly or implicitly by the Church.

iT SI ALO AGAINT hUMAN DIGNITY TO HARM ANOTHER hUMAN, NOT BECAUSE THE HARM INFLICTED but because the human inflicitng the pain.

Again, the woeding doesnt preclude Animals possessing immortal souls. that is merley your own interrpetaiton, not a fact taught by anything in the catechism, or any chruch document.

C'mon, you can have your wacky beliefs, but do not try to convince us that the Catholic Church supports the notiuon of animal salvation.

Why ar emy beelifs whacku? because you disagree wih them? to date no one, and I mena no one, has supported any o the assertions that anuals lakc immortal souls. Oaul M even said they wher elike ricks, tis clealry isnt true.

Likewise, many Catholci theologians agree iwht me, are htey whacky too? why don't you stop thinkign my ideas are wholly itside of cahtolisism and try to prove it?

Likewise, I never used the term "salvation" merley that anumals had immrotal souls. and before Paul M starts wiht his " we cant tak eour possessiosn to heaven" routine again, I will remind him that this is abotu their souls, not us takign anything, but for thier own sake.

P.S. Have fun responding to my post sentence by sentence, thus removing the cohesion that a logical step-by-step process takes.

Since I reprodice entire posts, cohesion sint lost.

Thats just stupid to say...

Respond to the whole notion, not to indivudal words and phrases taken out of their context.

What did I take out of context, exaclty?

Again, you ar t eone saying my beleifs ar whacky without even a shred of eidece, and to date I have been fair in askign for evidence, even tot he poin of beign slandered and attacked.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 11, 2005.

Ok I assent that calling your beliefs wacky is my personal opinion and not a proven fact. And the use of out of context meant removing the statements from their conhesive unit, not that you actually changed any of the meaning of what I said. To remove the statments and take them point by point removes a great amount of their impact.

OK, I am going to try another approach...understanding your position in more depth.

Are all animals saved automatically? Does this extend past the animal kingdom into nature's other kingdoms? Do you believe that all living organisms will be saved?

-- Tim K. (tk4386@juno.com), March 11, 2005.

I would also like to add that I am sorry if you have answered these questions earlier, but this is quite a long series of posts and I have not read them all.

-- Tim K. (tk4386@juno.com), March 11, 2005.

Saved form what? If they arent born with origional sin, then how on earth can they be saved form sin?

Midn you, saying 'They din need ot be saved" ois NOT the same as saying "They lack immortal souls."

I beleive all life has a soul, or else it is not alive, and as ecclesiasties chapter 12 puts it, all the spirits ( Of all living things) retirns to God who gave it.

Only Humans are judged for their sins hwoever, a sonly Humans are sunful.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 11, 2005.

Ok I understand your point about salvation, but do you believe all members of the animal kingdom will one day be in Heaven? Does this extend past the animal kingdom to other groups of organisms?

-- Tim K. (tk4386@juno.com), March 11, 2005.

Could you also explain how Ecclesiastes 12:7 supports your point? Two different versions I have just read seem to imply that this involves humans.

-- Tim K. (tk4386@juno.com), March 11, 2005.

No need to explain the Ecclesiastes quote. It says "And the dust returns to the earth as it once was, and the life breath returns to God who gave it." In Genesis, the only creature that receives the life breath of God is man. So, your use of this passage to support your point just doesn't work at all. But please answer my other questions about your specific beliefs.

-- Tim K. (tk4386@juno.com), March 11, 2005.

Invovles humans, but nt limited to.

I beleive only that all spirits, no matter what body they occupy, are God's. And all wll return to God in the end.

( This is why oaul M's staements abotu us not takign animals misses the point, since it is for their sake, not ours, thatt they persist in my veiw.)

In short, all living things possess a soul. This is evident since a soul is needed for life and confrmed in scrioture. the word "Nephish" and the word "Ruach' are both used in conjunction to anials, and other livign things.

There is no distinction between a Neohish in a Human and one in an animal in scirpture or any Chruch teachign to lead me to conclude Humans are unique in persisting after death.

God recalls all spirits he formed to him according to ecclesiasties.

Man has no preimenence above the beasts according to ecclesiasties chapter 3.

God cares for anumals, this is seen in the goslels, and in job, Isaiah, and Genesis.

Animals did not sin agsint God and thus never removed themselves form God's graces.

So, why woudl they NOT be permitted eternal life?

I admit my veiw isnt proven, but neither is the veiw that they where merley made for humnans, or are merley aprt of the natural environment.

All I rellay wanted was fredom for myself and others of this veiw to expres it without heavy handed lables of beign wrong.

My veiw is based on sound logic and doesnt cotradict Cruch teachigns, and thus oen shoidl be at liberty to speculate.

My case can be made deper f course, this is just preliminary as its 11:43 as I type this and I am readt to retire for the evening.

But I just dot think God only loves Humans, nor do I think Animals where made for huamsn alone, or that they are part of the nagtural enviornment alone.

And yes, this extends to all animals and all LIVING things.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 11, 2005.

I will always stand by what I posted last time (quotations from CCC and analysis thereof, proving that the Church teaches that non- human/non-angelic creatures do not have immortal souls), as well as everything I posted earlier in the thread.

Zarove's latest attempt to refute what I stated (just like all his previous attempts) is half-illegible, while the other half is vacuous. His maniacal obsession of re-posting previous people's words and trying (but failing) to refute them shows that he is an anti-Catholic barbarian whose continued presence here serves no purpose but to further the aims of hell.

Thank you, Tim K, for supporting at least part of what I posted last time. It's too bad that you lacked time to read the whole thread, for I am sure that, had you read it, you would not have taken Zarove seriously as an interlocutor for further conversation. I will just give you one example of his lunacy, from earlier in the thread:

ZAROVE SCRIBBLES: Animals cannot sin. As a reuslt of their inabiltiy to sin, they lack the need for a saviour. As a result, they are in god's Grace already and therefore retirn tot heir creator in a oure spiritual state.

PAUL M. REPLIES: The same can be said of bubonic plague bacteria. They cannot sin. Will they be in heaven too??

ZAROVE SCRIBBLES: Simpley thinkign Beubonic plauge is bad and no Human woidl want them in heaven is the end result of an approach that clearly wont work with me, since I am not trign o get my epts to Heaven becUSE i WAN THTEM THERE. ... THIS IS ABOTU GETTING THEM THEIR FOR THEIR OWN SAKE. What do you rellay have agaisnt Beubonic Plauge anyway? In its ure spiritual sttae, it will harnm no one. so why not?

One of the few legible things that Zarove wrote in his last post to me was this: My beleifs arent rellay Hindu like, nor am I proslytising. thats a concept you invented to apply to this situation. However, as I noted, many Cahtolic theologians in full counion withthe Pope agree wiht me here. Unelss, again, you wan tot ignroe St.Fransis as he had "Hindu like beleifs". Or many contemporary teologians wihtin the Cahtolic chruch. do I need to name names?

The above is just another crock of Zarovian manure, a repetition of errors he had stated earlier in the thread. It deserves no respect, because of the following things that I wrote, earlier in the thread -- a challenge that Zarove ignored by failing to produced any quotations that could undergo analysis:

I believe that FEW IF ANY Catholic theologians who are recognized as great and reliable by the Holy See have EVER said that animals or plants have immortal souls (souls, yes; immortal, no). St. Francis of Assisi was NOT a theologian and NOT a priest, much less a man with a "magisterium" (a teaching authority exercised by a bishop or pope). St. Francis was an extremely holy man, a founder of religious communities, and a lover of animals. In the unlikely event that he once explicitly said that animals have "immortal souls" (which I doubt that he ever said), I wouldn't care anyway, since it would have been a personal, very fallible opinion of his. Keep in mind that St. Francis was NOT a writer, having put on paper almost nothing that is still extant. We have to be very circumspect in judging any words that are attributed to him by his friars. I agree with someone who just insisted that Zarove prove, by quoting from the Catholic Magisterium or even from a theologian whom the Church calls "great," that animals have "immortal souls." Let's see the quotations and the authors arguments that "reason to" the assertions.

Tim K, I hope that you will either bow out (realizing that talking to Zarove is a waste of time) or that you will silence Zarove (although he is so obsessed that he would probably post messages by typing with his toes if you broke all ten of his fingers).

-- (My@Opinion.com), March 12, 2005.

-- (My@Opinion.com), March 12, 2005.

Zarove,

I will admit that I did not know much of Ecclesiastes until researching tonight, so thank you for this opportunity.

Let me quote from the introduction of Ecclesiastes.

"He (the writer of Ecclesiastes) could not understand the ways of God, who controls human destiny."

This book seems to be written by a man in despair who believes that life is useless. Notice what is said after he states that men and animals are equal.

"A human being is no better off that an animal, because life has no meaning for either."

Does this sound like a man making a theological proclamation or a man in despair?

-- Tim K. (tk4386@juno.com), March 12, 2005.

Zarove lives in the United Kingdom. I have to wonder if he's an East indian by birth or descent? In the hindu culture are seen many manifestations of the sort we can identify in Zarove's adamant defense of animalistic spiritism. A people who take all life so unconditionally sacred that it's not permitted to fight off flies, or eat any meat (Zarove is a vegetarian,) or harm the lowest creature--

Stems from pagans' belief in Karma and transmigration of the spirit.

(The chicken in your pot was a man or woman in some previous life.) The very idea that Zarove expects dogs to live in heaven after this life is absurd, since upon death a dog might just go on to a cat's existence, or something else. Karma would determine the reward coming after the animal passes away. --But everlasting life??? Not even Hindus care to speculate. If Zarove would care to tell us; what kind of animal were you, in your previous life? Are you east Indian, now living in Britain?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 12, 2005.

I will always stand by what I posted last time (quotations from CCC and analysis thereof, proving that the Church teaches that non- human/non-angelic creatures do not have immortal souls), as well as everything I posted earlier in the thread.

Even if proven wrong by later Crch pronouncements? As I have demonstrated, your interpetation fo the Catechism is self serving. And, as I have demonstrated in the past, NO Chruhc teachign actually teaches animals laxk immortal souls. Saying otherwise is both premature and Irrelevant ersonal opinion, not evidence that the Church teaches Animal lack immortal souls.

Zarove's latest attempt to refute what I stated (just like all his previous attempts) is half-illegible, while the other half is vacuous.

This form soemone who took out of context statements in order to prove his point.

In reALITY, YOU CANNOT ACTUALLY PROVE THE HCURHC TEACHES ANIMALS LAKC IMMORTAL SLS, SO INSTEAD YOU RELY ON SAYIGN YOU PROVED IT CONCLUSIVELY AND INSULTING ME ON A PERSONAL LEVEL. tHIS SHOWS A LACK F BOTH ACADEMIC HOINESTY AND CHARITY ON YOR PART.

His maniacal obsession of re-posting previous people's words and trying (but failing) to refute them shows that he is an anti-Catholic barbarian whose continued presence here serves no purpose but to further the aims of hell.

I ma an anti-Cahtolic barbarian for pointignout that your "Clear evidence that the churhc teaches non-human and non-angelic beigns lack immtal sols" is uter rubbish?

The reality is many cahtolci theologians in the past support my claims. You may not like my beleifs, but they certianly are compatable with Catholicicms, and considerign how little love you show anyone who disagrees with ytou, and the consideable patience I ahve displayed n the apst askign repeateldy for clear cjruhc teaigns on the topicnly to arrive at none revelas not my attakc on the Hcurhc so much as your own willingness to force your opinion into churhc dogma.

At let I limit mine to beelif, you try to make yours infallable teahcings by msitreptesentin asages form the Catechism.

And if I am prven correct int eh future, what then?

I dohbt evn an apology form you.

Thank you, Tim K, for supporting at least part of what I posted last time. It's too bad that you lacked time to read the whole thread, for I am sure that, had you read it, you would not have taken Zarove seriously as an interlocutor for further conversation. I will just give you one example of his lunacy, from earlier in the thread:

In other words, you are now continuing your fine traditioj of personal attakc to discredit someone, rather than actually addressing his concerns.

After al, I "Scribble" whereas "Paul replies."

Isnt this childish at best?

ZAROVE SCRIBBLES: Animals cannot sin. As a reuslt of their inabiltiy to sin, they lack the need for a saviour. As a result, they are in god's Grace already and therefore retirn tot heir creator in a oure spiritual state.

PAUL M. REPLIES: The same can be said of bubonic plague bacteria. They cannot sin. Will they be in heaven too??

ZAROVE SCRIBBLES: Simpley thinkign Beubonic plauge is bad and no Human woidl want them in heaven is the end result of an approach that clearly wont work with me, since I am not trign o get my epts to Heaven becUSE i WAN THTEM THERE. ... THIS IS ABOTU GETTING THEM THEIR FOR THEIR OWN SAKE. What do you rellay have agaisnt Beubonic Plauge anyway? In its ure spiritual sttae, it will harnm no one. so why not?

See, Paul replies, you repsect him. O scribble because yo don respect me.

My beelifs are pagan and barbariana nd I am attmepting to destry the church, whereas paul and you defe it.

be realistic, your pwesonal insults do not make your case stronger, any mor than your misrepresentations fo the Catechsim.

One of the few legible things that Zarove wrote in his last post to me was this: My beleifs arent rellay Hindu like, nor am I proslytising. thats a concept you invented to apply to this situation. However, as I noted, many Cahtolic theologians in full counion withthe Pope agree wiht me here. Unelss, again, you wan tot ignroe St.Fransis as he had "Hindu like beleifs". Or many contemporary teologians wihtin the Cahtolic chruch. do I need to name names?

The above is just another crock of Zarovian manure, a repetition of errors he had stated earlier in the thread.

No, it is not.

Its only "Zarovian manuer" because I don lay down and play dead when you appear and start slammign my charecter.

So tou rpreepat how I am an anti-Cahtolci barbairan serving SaTAN IN AN ATTMEPT TO BULLY ME INTO SUBMISISON AND ACCEPT YOUR OPINION AS INFALLABLE CURHC TEACHING.

You, however, are not the Pope, and havent proven anything.

It deserves no respect,

Neither do you at this point, for your degenetate attacks on a poster who psots in good will. Or your continued slander and laible leveled agaisnt a fellow chrisain.

because of the following things that I wrote, earlier in the thread -- a challenge that Zarove ignored by failing to produced any quotations that could undergo analysis:

I failed on nohting. I only have so many hours int he day, this sint my life you know.

I did tell tim I wuld post next week my full case. Have you no patience?

I believe that FEW IF ANY Catholic theologians who are recognized as great and reliable by the Holy See have EVER said that animals or plants have immortal souls (souls, yes; immortal, no).

Prepair to be surprised and proven wrong...wait a few days, and see how you are overturned.

St. Francis of Assisi was NOT a theologian and NOT a priest, much less a man with a "magisterium" (a teaching authority exercised by a bishop or pope).

I never said he was. i only said hiw beleifs are as Hintdu-Like as mine.

St. Francis was an extremely holy man, a founder of religious communities, and a lover of animals. In the unlikely event that he once explicitly said that animals have "immortal souls" (which I doubt that he ever said), I wouldn't care anyway, since it would have been a personal, very fallible opinion of his.

Much liek yor opinion that animals lack immortal souls is a persoan, and veryfallable opinion, not that yo will nessisarily admit this since you lieke to pretend its inflalble churhc teaching.even though its not.

Keep in mind that St. Francis was NOT a writer, having put on paper almost nothing that is still extant. We have to be very circumspect in judging any words that are attributed to him by his friars. I agree with someone who just insisted that Zarove prove, by quoting from the Catholic Magisterium or even from a theologian whom the Church calls "great," that animals have "immortal souls." Let's see the quotations and the authors arguments that "reason to" the assertions.

This I shall provide,then what shall you do?

Tim K, I hope that you will either bow out (realizing that talking to Zarove is a waste of time) or that you will silence Zarove (although he is so obsessed that he would probably post messages by typing with his toes if you broke all ten of his fingers).

In other words, you post an entire post for the sole purtpose of denegratign my charecer, and tfr the stated aim of silencin me.

You don care abouthte truth or civil discussion, anyone disagreing with your personal beeleif and ieprrtation si automaticllay a barbarian anti-Cahtolci serving Hell and deserves no repsect and only to be slenced.

You are a coward, sir, for your refisal to even listen and admit you codl be wrong torself.

I never claimed mine was inflabel chuh teahcing, you do, and yet cannot prove it. You instead insist on attakcign peopel who diverge in beelifs from you.

I have been insulted long enough, cease your attacks on ,y charecter,or leave.

Your insults and unwillgnness even to listen is a large reaosn why I havent gone into extraordenary detail aout my beleifs and thie undation, as it woidl be a wast eof time.

But you say you don have to listen to emy"Scribbles" snce you have infalalble churhc teahcign on tyour side.

Such idiotic and false claims themselves deseve refutation.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 12, 2005.

Well every time I tryied to present an arugment int he past, what happened was aul m widl step in and "Correct" me by sayin g"Animals lack immortal Souls."

I admited eeven on this thread I do not have absolute proof of anything. However, neither do my oponants.

Pretending that My veiw is clealry againt chruch twacherings doesnt make magiclaly Chruch teahcigns support their claims.

Liekwise, can we drip the idea that my ideas are Pahgan and desirved form Hinduism, I mean, do I need to be insukted over and over again? Do you rellaytink thta by insultugn me my claism are made less relevant?

I am a pagan animistic psiritist, well outside of Orthodox Christendom lie my beleifs, therefre I shoidl be listened to. aials lakc immrotal souls, th case is setltled, Zarove is to be ignored and shunned and better yet, banned!

His beleifs dotn agree with peoel ehre, een if they cant rove that imals lakc immortal suls, we must beelive the chruhc teaches this and to ay otherwise is to be a Pagan.

relaly, i DO NOT DESERVE SUCH.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 12, 2005.

Dear Zarove:
I only INQIURED about your background; I didn't slander you, or state what you are. I said it seemed you could be Hindu-- and your roots to the UK would lead one to think of India right away. I was just WONDERING; not self-assured about you.

Your vegetarianism was further clue to the ''spirit'' in all animals; and I thought it might be a sig of some past tradition in your family; i.e., transmigration of souls.

If I'm wrong, I don't insist I was right. There's no harm done to your reputation or to you.

One part of these monotonous posts of yours is very consistent. You have deep feelings of persecution. You take everything as insulting or unfair. I for one never insult you; even when I think you're talking nonsense. I want to stay friendly7, and even rebuked oothers who were extreme in their attacks on you. Maybe they have caused your paranoia. But since you have absolutely opposed everyone without any cause, it may just be what you had coming. You don't seem to be a forgiving person to me. Your last posts are all nothing but bitterness.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 12, 2005.

AS I said, Ive been hit on form 8 threads now.

heck, Opinion even called me both anti-Cahtolic and a barbarian, and said I was under satans employ.

That is enough to end ones friendliness, especally since this is an old issue.

I eman no bitterness but tire of the personal attacks. I may have reacted harshly but I didnt intend such, so I apoligise for that.

as to my family, most are ardent meat eaters. I am the only Vegitarian in the family.

Persoanlly, I dont see the appeal to meat. its messy, tastes bad, and contains freeradicals.

it is also less healthy.

Fish I woidl think woudl be more of a move in our society, fewer freeradicals, helpful to your heart, and not as offensive to smell while cooking.

Nonetheless, in addition to personal taste, and health benefits, their is no real rleigious reason for my vegitariansim.

Besides, it makes NO sence to me to think that eatign meat is OK sicne animals lakc immoral suls.

As i said above, if animals lack mmortal souls, then this is th only life they have. if humans have mmortal souls, they liv eon int he next life.

so why di humans have the righ to end an animals one and only life, by virtue of them persisting after death?

The logic is that of a poor man and a rich man. The rich man, because he has much wealth, is allowed to steal form the poor man, because the poor man has less than he.

Makes no sence.

If I beelvied as you do, that animals laxcked mmortal souls, I owudl be far more of an animal rights activist, sicne man woudl have no moral right to end the life of somethign that has nly oen life.

iN LIGHT, THAT IS, OF MANS OWN IMMORTALITY.

As it stands now, I beleive its mroally acceptable to eat Animals, sice they DO have immortal souls.

I just choose not to.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 12, 2005.

VERY STRANGE, Zarove! You say, ''Makes no sense.''

How could anybody say that compared to meat, Fish I think is not as offensive to smell while cooking--???

Makes no sense. Fish makes a house smell worse than all other food. But I love eating fish; and love meat as well. That makes sense. I love animals, too.

One great sin men commit against nature and animals is killing a beautiful elephant, taking the ivory and leaving the dead carcass to rot.

Let me tell you what makes sense: Those men are going hell for committing that sin; unless they repent someday. God will avenge the elephant; even if the elephant was without a soul or everlasting life. But the man, with his immortal soul will be damned for those atrocities against animals.

If the elephant goes wild and kills ten men he will not go to hell for it. He can't, since he is not immortal. His soul will just die here, and he will become another dead animal, just like the chicken in the barbeque. --Isn't God great ??? And I wouldn't have it any other way!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 12, 2005.

I disagree on everythign you just posted.

for starters, I cannot stand the smell of beef at all. cookig in a frypan it makes the entire houe smellfar, far, far from pleasant...

In additio to this, the elephant actulaly is immortal, or at leats I beelive this. You beleive otherwise. Neither of us can prove it one way or another.

The bulk of my argument though is to allow for divergent veiws to be voiced without totolitarian heavy handedness interfering, since the issues often have NO magesterial teaching supportign them one way or the other.

so, I beleive animals possess immortal suls, and htis doesnt ocntradict Cahtolic Teahcings ( or make me a barbarian, see opiions post above.)

You beleive otherwise.

However, both shoudl be allowed to voiced their veiws, and not silenced or ridicuked for their veiws.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 12, 2005.

Part of my last message was this:

One of the few legible things that Zarove wrote in his last post to me was this: "... many Cahtolic theologians in full counion withthe Pope agree wiht me here. Unelss, again, you wan tot ignroe St.Fransis as he had 'Hindu like beleifs.' Or many contemporary teologians wihtin the Cahtolic chruch. do I need to name names?"
The above is just ... a repetition of errors [Zarove] had stated earlier in the thread. It deserves no respect, because of the following things that I wrote, earlier in the thread [ACTUALLY, 'WAY BACK ON MARCH 3] -- a challenge that Zarove ignored by failing to produce any quotations that could undergo analysis: I believe that FEW IF ANY Catholic theologians who are recognized as great and reliable by the Holy See have EVER said that animals or plants have immortal souls (souls, yes; immortal, no). St. Francis of Assisi was NOT a theologian and NOT a priest, much less a man with a "magisterium" (a teaching authority exercised by a bishop or pope). St. Francis was an extremely holy man, a founder of religious communities, and a lover of animals. In the unlikely event that he once explicitly said that animals have "immortal souls" (which I doubt that he ever said), I wouldn't care anyway, since it would have been a personal, very fallible opinion of his. Keep in mind that St. Francis was NOT a writer, having put on paper almost nothing that is still extant. We have to be very circumspect in judging any words that are attributed to him by his friars. I agree with someone who just insisted that Zarove prove, by quoting from the Catholic Magisterium or even from a theologian whom the Church calls "great," that animals have "immortal souls." Let's see the quotations and the authors' arguments that "reason to" the assertions.

To this, Zarove replied: This I shall provide, then what shall you do?

I need not answer "what" I "shall ... do," because Zarove "shall" not be able to "provide" what was requested of him NINE DAYS ago, after he had foolheartily claimed to be able to provide it.
To meet the challenge, Zarove must provide the following, as stated above: quotations from the Catholic magisterium or from Catholic theologians "who are recognized as great and reliable by the Holy See" and "who have ... argued that animals or plants" surely "have immortal souls."
In other words, I will not accept just some loose comments from a theologian or two,
and I will not accept anything from theologians who are not "recognized as great and reliable by the Holy See,"
and I will not accept anything that lacks the assertion that "animals have immortal souls,"
and I will not accept anything that merely speculates about the possibility of "immortal souls" (rather than firmly positing the idea),
and I will not accept anything that merely asserts that animals have immortal souls, while not providing the convincing "reasoning" behind the assertion.

If Zarove has a quotation allegedly from St. Francis Assisi, but it does not contain the words "immortal soul," it would be a waste of time for him to post it. If a quotation does, however, tend to show that St. Francis believed that animals have "immortal souls," I'm sure that some folks would find it interesting -- but no one could find it convincing, since that great saint was neither a trained theologian nor a man with a magisterium nor a man who himself wrote down what he preached.

-- (My@Opinion.com), March 12, 2005.

BLASTED ITALICS! Let's try that again.

Part of my last message was this:

One of the few legible things that Zarove wrote in his last post to me was this: "... many Cahtolic theologians in full counion withthe Pope agree wiht me here. Unelss, again, you wan tot ignroe St.Fransis as he had 'Hindu like beleifs.' Or many contemporary teologians wihtin the Cahtolic chruch. do I need to name names?"
The above is just ... a repetition of errors [Zarove] had stated earlier in the thread. It deserves no respect, because of the following things that I wrote, earlier in the thread [ACTUALLY, 'WAY BACK ON MARCH 3] -- a challenge that Zarove ignored by failing to produce any quotations that could undergo analysis: I believe that FEW IF ANY Catholic theologians who are recognized as great and reliable by the Holy See have EVER said that animals or plants have immortal souls (souls, yes; immortal, no). St. Francis of Assisi was NOT a theologian and NOT a priest, much less a man with a "magisterium" (a teaching authority exercised by a bishop or pope). St. Francis was an extremely holy man, a founder of religious communities, and a lover of animals. In the unlikely event that he once explicitly said that animals have "immortal souls" (which I doubt that he ever said), I wouldn't care anyway, since it would have been a personal, very fallible opinion of his. Keep in mind that St. Francis was NOT a writer, having put on paper almost nothing that is still extant. We have to be very circumspect in judging any words that are attributed to him by his friars. I agree with someone who just insisted that Zarove prove, by quoting from the Catholic Magisterium or even from a theologian whom the Church calls "great," that animals have "immortal souls." Let's see the quotations and the authors' arguments that "reason to" the assertions.

To this, Zarove replied: This I shall provide, then what shall you do?

I need not answer "what" I "shall ... do," because Zarove "shall" not be able to "provide" what was requested of him NINE DAYS ago, after he had foolheartily claimed to be able to provide it. He has had plenty of time to produce what he promised, but has instead been stalling, wasting many hours on ludicrous, line-by-line commentary on people's posts, hoping that everyone would forget his claim.
To meet the challenge, Zarove must provide the following, as stated above: serious, lengthy quotations from the Catholic magisterium or from Catholic theologians "who are recognized as great and reliable by the Holy See" and "who have ... argued that animals or plants" surely "have immortal souls."
In other words, I will not accept just some loose throw-away comments from a theologian or two,
and I will not accept anything from theologians who are not "recognized as great and reliable by the Holy See,"
and I will not accept anything that lacks the assertion that "animals have immortal souls,"
and I will not accept anything that merely speculates about the possibility of "immortal souls" (rather than firmly positing the idea),
and I will not accept anything that merely asserts that animals have immortal souls, while not providing the convincing "reasoning" behind the assertion.

If Zarove has a quotation allegedly from St. Francis Assisi, but it does not contain the words "immortal soul," it would be a waste of time for him to post it. If a quotation does, however, tend to show that St. Francis believed that animals have "immortal souls," I'm sure that some folks would find it interesting -- but no one could find it convincing, since that great saint was neither a trained theologian nor a man with a magisterium nor a man who himself wrote down what he preached.

-- (My@Opinion.com), March 12, 2005.

Since the time Zarove made his first appearance at the forum (well over a year ago), he seems to have developed a following, almost a fan club, among some Catholics who see him as harmless and friendly. By contrast, upon his arrival I was immediately and deeply concerned, and I hoped that he would quickly depart, because I discerned that he might be a dangerous deceiver. Why? Because he admitted to being a member, perhaps even a minister, in the "church [sic] of Christ" (coC) a protestant denomination in which members are usually rabidly anti-Catholic proselytizers.

The forum had been plagued by obnoxious coC-ists in the past, and it appeared to me that Zarove had learned that he could make no headway by using normal "coC missionary" tactics. No, he would use a sly, soft touch instead, and it seems to have worked on quite a few Catholics. Zarove did not "quickly depart" (as I had hoped he would), and he was not asked to leave by moderators, but he instead "burrowed into the walls" of the forum, there to feast on the wood like a termite, trying to take tiny little bites out of Catholics' faith, every once in a while.

The forum's software is forcing me to break this message into pieces. Please bear with me

-- (My@Opinion.com), March 13, 2005.

I have become increasingly alarmed at the quantity of Zarove's messages and the influence he seems to be having here, and I have been discerning more strongly than ever how dangerous he is. Earlier this month, Zarove seemed to be at his proselytizing worst, trying to get Catholics to have beliefs about animals' souls that are in conflict with our Catechism, while explicitly denying that his comments went against our doctrine. Accordingly, on March 4, when there had been much talk about the serpent (satan) in the Garden of Eden, I poetically sought to banish this man with the words, "Begone, Zarove, thou unwitting messenger of the serpent." I found the sly way in which he responded to be very telling: "A seprent indeed I am." And he continued to insist that the serpent of Genesis was not the devil in disguise.

The forum's software is forcing me to break this message into pieces. Please bear with me

-- (My@Opinion.com), March 13, 2005.

As I mentioned above, "I have been discerning more strongly than ever how dangerous" Zarove is. The discernment came to a head this morning, when I made a discovery that did not surprise me at all. Because of this discovery (which I will reveal in a moment), I now withdraw my invitation to Zarove that he post quotations from Catholic theologians and St. Francis that allegedly support his contra-Catechism theory about animals' souls. Instead I "invite" Zarove to leave the forum silently and immediately, or to be forced to leave by the moderator. Here is why:

In January of this year, on another Internet forum, Zarove introduced himself as follows:
I am Zarove, the dark Lord of the Eternal.

(One can verify it on this page.)

'Nuff said! A Catholic forum has no valid reason to tolerate the continued presence of someone like this, drawing people of our own religion, plus visitors and lurkers, into a web of sin and error.

-- (My@Opinion.com), March 13, 2005.

"I am Zarove, the dark Lord of the Eternal."

That COC cult is very satan like. Zaroff take your german shepard or great dane and get lost. Satan has you eating out of his hand.

Its getting to hard to read your rubbish " DARK LORD OF THE ETERNAL"

-- & (.@.....), March 13, 2005.

I've been thinking a lot about this question. I think I have a slightly more compelling explanation of Catholic dogma than simply "yes animals do go to heaven" or "no they don't." I'll come back in a little bit and post it to see what people think.

I'm pretty deeply convinced it's orthodox, but I will totally submit what I write later to the judgement of the Church and anyone more knowledgable than myself.

Till then!

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), March 13, 2005.

Zaroff

How do you have time to post in every forum on the internet?

Didn't you post that you were a reporter before that works with nude pictures of males and females?

-- & (.@.....), March 13, 2005.

“One great sin men commit against nature and animals is killing a beautiful elephant, taking the ivory and leaving the dead carcass to rot. Let me tell you what makes sense: Those men are going hell for committing that sin; unless they repent someday. God will avenge the elephant; even if the elephant was without a soul or everlasting life. But the man, with his immortal soul will be damned for those atrocities against animals.”

Eugene, I don’t understand this. Maybe you were trying to be sympathetic to Zarove, but I don’t see how you can state categorically that anyone who kills an elephant for the ivory is committing a mortal sin. Not that I’m in favour of doing that, but logically you could say the same about anyone who kills “a beautiful fox” for the fur, or kills “a beautiful bull” for the meat. Or is the mortal sin the fact that the elephant hunters did not eat or sell the elephant meat? Is there a set percentage of an animal's parts that must be used to justify its being killed? Or is it only a mortal sin if the animal is an endangered species? (Elephants are in no danger of dying out and are actually in TOO great numbers in some parts of Africa.)

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), March 13, 2005.

It's too complicated a lesson, Steve;
for us to waste a lot of time in arguing.

At bottom, the conditions under which salvation would be endangered are themselves complex. GREED, selfishness, waste, abandonment in favor of wealth of the natural stewardship God entrusts man with.

On the plus side is the care many good people give endangered species; good stewardship of the grazing lands, etc.

I may be over-reacting if i say God avenges an elephant. It only refects my own sympathy for the beast;

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 14, 2005.

And, I realize many who poach on the elephant herds have nothing near our Christian concepts of justice. They are invincibly ignorant of anything less than profiting from a kill.

Ironically-- I could accuse myself of an even more complicated set of values, regarding the animal world. I feel no pity for the fighting cock or the brave bull who met his death on a Sunday afternoon. Much less for the lovely mink or sable, raised for its fur coat. To me, their deaths are more or less noble and aesthetical. They add beauty to the human experience. Ivory may give us artesan beauty to admire. But the elephant's destruction is always an atrocity to me. Nothing noble is left of him. He's beautiful when he lives in the wild, but just a large insect on the ground when he's exploited; a giant, rotten, mutilated fly. I suspect he causes God sorrow in that state, because it sure makes me sad.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 14, 2005.

TO ANON. I was a rpeotter. I never worked with photography at all, mch less nude ohotography. I was a jounalist for a small town paper.

I did ask Pfresident clinton a queastion once though...

As to Opinion, I noticed several things aout your tirades.

1: You mentioend te Churhc of Christ is a Proteastant denomination.

This was odd sicne it has absolutely no bearign on the conversation at hand. None. Its nto relevant.

You only said it because you know its offensive to the chruhc of chrust to be called a Protestant denominatoin. You said it to dileneratley hurt and offend me. You said it to cause pain, and used it as a mean to attakc me.

2: Further, you acused me of beign here to convert Cathokcis to th chuh of Christ. in addition tot he fact that Most members of the hcuhc of christ htink liek you do, that animals lack immotal souls, I dont see hwo this helps the HCurhc of Hcirst.

3: You claim i am takign an occasisonal bite out of the Catokci Faith, but teaLLY, YOU HAVENT RPVEN THI IS A PART FO THE cATHOIC fAITH. yOUR OPINION THAT ANIALS HAE NO IMMORTAL SULS IS JUST AS SPECULATICE AS MY OWN BELEIF TOT HE CONTRARY. You may want to present it as if its not, but it is in the end.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 14, 2005.

4: Most of your post dealt with my performanc eon other, unrelated forums ( Nice tyo knwo you stalked me) and tlaking quotes out of context. ( Go to ask Jesus, I used the XDark lord of the eternal line their too, and explained its signifigance. its not satanic, it has nohign to do the the chruhc of hcirst, which has no titles, and is uttelry connected toty eh Charecter "Zarove" where I derived my screenname.)

There personal attakcs, usually unsubstantiated claism designed to make me look like soem sot of stealth missionary out t cnvert Catholcis, relaly doesnt speak tot eh issue at jand, yet make up 90% of your posting.

when 90 of your post has nohtign to do withthe topic and becomes about your opinant, it can be safe to say you lost the debate and are ow meely trying to win by intimidation.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 14, 2005.

5: You sad you woidln accpet speculation on Animals having immortal souls, it had to be a definitive satement. However, I asked for a definitive satement that said anunals lack immortal souls. None was ever offered.

why is it that sayign aninals have no immortal soul is accpetable and sayign the reverse not? on ewuel evicdence?

Can youpresent anyhtign over persoanl pinion and personal intepretation and personal speculation on the matter? You havent up to this point.

All you seem capable of doing is repeatign hwo animals lakc immortal sosl and hurlign insults at me. ou have NOT however presented a casr to prove your own stand.

No Magesterual documents. no Popes. no scuropture. You habent even wuotes Cahtolci thologians!

I eman, relaly you want me to work 10 times harder tor 1/10 the level or repsect. is that fairt?

of coruse it is, as it means you win by forcign veryone to agree with you...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 14, 2005.

6: The reaosn I havent been able to present my case vert strng,y rests on the two pillers of hostility and workoad. Wjy present a case after several hours of gruelly research which will be sdismiised by a "Animals lack immortal souls, notign you say matteras" grsture?

Likewise, lets face relaity. I am goign for a Doctoral degree in psycology. I recetly int he last week had to rais 2000 dollars, talk to friedns on and off line, do work for a publisher, and feed animals, eat, and sleep, and attended a small early easther gathering.

I do not merley post on the internet message boards...

So, In closing let me ask you this, opinion.

do you have any evidence, not speculation midn you, and not hollow assertion, tat Anumals kack immortal souls? Anyhtign at all? Just wha you demanded of me, do you have yourself for your position?

Likewise, do yo have to say "The hcurhc fo chrust is a Protestant denomination' in order to hurt and offend me, even where the Chuhc of chrust isnt beign discussed and is irrelvant tot he conversaiton?

Do you have to waste three posts in order to attakc my charecter in order to attemtp to silence me?

when yo have, in fact, demonstrated nohting?

Try proving your own case and sukcing to the point, not makign Ad Hominim attakcs and grohdless slander againt a fellow Christain.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 14, 2005.

http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00BzpR

This link explaisn he "Satanic" ttle of "Dark Lord of the Eternal."

It is nice to know I hae a new internet stalker looign for posts on old message baords he can distort, take out o contenxt, or abuse to hurt me further...

wa to go, hsow that Cahtolic live we evil satanic protesat Chruhc of HCirtsers need.

still, 90% of your pst was aotu me and how bad I was, not th etopic at hand, so one wonders how this works in your favour.

sicne when 90% of it beckes abitu atackign your oponant, its usually a sign that you lost the debate.

-- ZAROVE, the Dark Lord of the Eternal (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 14, 2005.

Whats even more disubing id that I shoidl be banned form this baord for "Drawing peopoel out of the cahtolci religion" for posts I made on a message board about time travel that has no connection whatsoever to Catholisism, and for the "Satanic" the title., Dark Lord of the eternal, Which is not even a religious title...

-- ZAROVE, Dark Lord of the Eternal. (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 14, 2005.

AS to what you foudnmost telling, I foudn most tlelign of you. when I said Iw as inded a seprent, you said this was tellign of me, while you ignored the context of the senence to condemn me.

I was citing Mathew 10:16 in the refeence, thus, by takign my claim it o context, you prove only your own intentioin to lie int he name of defneding your faith, whic is not in he Cahtolic HCurhc, but in your own vanity and eotism.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 14, 2005.

here are quotes on animals from the Catechism:

2415 The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity.195 Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man's dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.196

2416 Animals are God's creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory.197 Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.

2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image.198 Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.

2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; *****one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons*****

Reading the last line (with the *****'s) animals are stated NOT to be persons, hence they do NOT have immortal souls like people do. End of story.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), March 14, 2005.

Uhm, you are ging to serisouly stand by that? "They afrnt people, so they don have immortal souls, end of story"? Thats not even logical! The term Person in current use means "Human being" not "Bieng wiht a soul."

Indeed, earlier Catholic writitngs form up tot he 19th century descirbed animals as people.

The reason was the word then means any individual living animal.

Basiclaly your currently saying "They arent human so they lack an immortal soul".

This is as bad a misrepresentaiton as Opinion's.

It doesnt even imply they don have immortal souls! It just means they arent people, and that only accoridng o modern lingual use!

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 14, 2005.

Zarove,

They aren't saying "they aren't humans", they are talking about *personhood*. There's a big difference. Look it up.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), March 14, 2005.

I did. However, in general use, the term merley means Human. animals do have perosnalities. One need only spend time with one to determine this. And I have ppsted links abive to animal researhc on intellengence. They arnet midnless automitons.

s by that end they are persons.

And, as noted, they woild have souls by that definition as well.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 14, 2005.

When you see an animal, do you say what is it or who is it ?.

-- abc (abc@d.e), March 15, 2005.

Personality and intelligence are functions of brain complexity. They have nothing to do with the soul, or anything spiritual.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 15, 2005.

ODD. we know animals lakc immortal sousl because they lack Cognitsian and ar emere automitons. Thast a vlaid argument. yet when tis demostrated that they DO have cognition and are self aware, it all fo the sudden mdoesnt mean anything.

Funny. If they lacked personality and intellegence, that woidl prive thet lacked souls sinc eonly things with soils possess these.

If they have self awareness and personalities, its only ian function that means nothing.

Hardly.The whole of our personality is our soul. Its everythign to do with spirituality, for withotu mental cpaacity we woidl be spiritual.You ahve to lend mental ascent even to be Catholic!

AND ABC, I tend not to call aniamsl "It".

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 15, 2005.

>"Funny. If they lacked personality and intellegence, that woidl prive thet lacked souls sinc eonly things with soils possess these."

A: That would be faulty reasoning, which is why I never made any such claim. That would be like saying "if he isn't driving a police car, that would prove he isn't a policeman since only policemen drive police cars". It makes no sense whatsoever.

"withotu mental cpaacity we woidl [not] be spiritual.You ahve to lend mental ascent even to be Catholic!"

A: Whoa! Danger! That statement describes the underlying mentality behind the whole abortion/euthanasia movement (except they don't describe it in spiritual terms). An unborn child doesn't have cognition, so he/she is less than human. An elderly person with alzheimer's has lost mental capacity, so he/she is no longer human. A person who has suffered a brain injury has lost mental capacity, so why keep "it" alive when "it" is no longer human?? The fact is, every human being is a spiritual being from the moment of conception to the moment of death, precisely because of his/her immortal soul, regardless of his/her degree of mental capacity or lack thereof. In other words, precisely because he/she is human! An animal is not a spiritual being precisely because it is not created in God's image and likeness, and does not possess an immortal soul, regardless of its degree of brain function.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 15, 2005.

Probelm is Paul, it cant be used as justification for Abrotion, sicne I beleive all living higns must have souls, and God lvoes every soul.

No matter if Human or not.

So adopting my putlook woild harldy justify abortion.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 15, 2005.

aS OT HE " cREATED IN gODS IMAGE MEANS WE HAVE A SOUL" ARUGMENT , TIS FLAT.

aniamsl possess immortal souls, they merley arent i God's image.

No real evidence suggests a lakc of begn in God's image means a lakc of an immoral soul, tis spurious reasoning, connected to nothing.

Just because you prefer Humans doesnt mean God automaticllay does in every case. Asnd even rocks praise him, to dispell your "Natural enviornment" claptrap. ( which tisself ignroes the distinction between animasl and rocks artificially.)

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 15, 2005.

sicne I beleive all living higns must have souls

There you have it. Zarvoe and bacteria, hand in hand in Paradise. Why do you bother reading the Bible at all? If dogs and monkeys are all going to Heaven (as evidenced by their "personalities") why won't you? Or do you think there's an animal Hell for BAD bacteria and dogs as well as for bad people?

Sheesh Zarove, you are a textbook example of what happens when someone leaves the church.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), March 16, 2005.

Oops, didn't really see your last part. Do you believe ROCKS are going to be in Heaven as well?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), March 16, 2005.