[Wondergirl]

Its very simple really. Most of us probably do it subconsciously. Simply "pretend" that God is with you all the time.

Someone has to pretend??

[JoeT777]

And I have known Thomists *of a certain stripe* who would say such things. (A really good Thomist would know better!)

Surly this wasn’t meant for this zebra?

I did find that St. Thomas believes that animals had souls. However, he also suggested that the nature of the animal’s soul is different from those of men. Thomas would paint animal stripes different from man’s as being unable to move the intellect. In one striation of the animal’s soul Thomas does see hope, but obviously it’s not a virtuous hope; rather movement is from instinct. And St. Thomas makes it clear that different species have varying depths passions.

God is omnipresent. I don't think there are any exceptions to that Divine attribute…

Quite a paradox.

When we speak of the Trinity, we say that:
The Father is in the Son but the Father is not the Son.
The Son is in the Father but the Son is not the Father.
The Spirit is in the Father and the Son, but the Spirit is not the Father or the Son.

I believe we can also say that we are in God, but we are not God.
God is in us, but God is not us.

I can agree wholeheartedly to this except for the last statement; I’m not convinced that it would be proper. By proper I mean that, in the order of things, you might say that the farmer is to the farm animals as God is to man. The farmer loves his animals, but I don’t think he would want to be among the pigs nor would he allow the pigs to be amongst Him in the house.


Another way I look at this is that the servant shouldn’t expect to live in the Master’s house. The servant’s place is in the court.


JoeT

[Akoue]

Surly this wasn’t meant for this zebra?

Nope. I was thinking of Ralph McInerny.

I did find that St. Thomas believes that animals had souls. However, he also suggested that the nature of the animal’s soul is different from those of men. Thomas would paint animal stripes different from man’s as being unable to move the intellect. In one striation of the animal’s soul Thomas does see hope, but obviously it’s not a virtuous hope; rather movement is from instinct. And St. Thomas makes it clear that different species have varying depths passions.

I still have to get back to De Maria with some citations, which I will do soon, but you're right, Joe, animals do have souls. They were said to have appetitive (or sometimes carnal) souls; plants have nutritive (or sometimes vegitative) souls; humans have rational souls. What is especially distinctive of human beings is thought to be that we respond to norms of reason (logic, the moral law).

I must confess that I think this tends to sell animals short in a pretty dramatic way. St. Irenaeus says that animals pray (well, I might add) as did St. Gregory Nazianzen (who says that animals worship God--they "lift up to [God] a hymn of silence"). As we learn more about the cognitive abilities of many species, I find less and less reason to feel satisfied with the division of souls into rational, appetitive, and nutritive. (This isn't a matter of doctrine, though, anyway.) Having said that, I can't summon any sympathy for the notion that animals lack souls.

I'll be back anon with some citations and a response to De Maria's really thoughtful post.

Oh, just one general point: One thing that may explain why we don't find the Fathers arguing that animals have souls is that they didn't see it as a controversial idea and so didn't bother defending it. The point I made above, that where there is life there is soul, was a commonplace in the ancient world. We find it in philosophy (Aristotle's De Anima--see also Aquinas's commentary on it), literature, and medicine (Galen talks about it). This didn't really come up for criticism until the 17th century. Many Cartesians thought that animals are "thoughtless brutes". In order to "prove" their point they would enter a town or village, bind animals in the town square, and torture them. When the horrified townspeople came rushing to the animals' aid, the Cartesians would laugh at them and say that while the people thought that the cries and shreeks meant that the animals were in pain they were, in fact, just complex machines incapable of feeling pain.

I think we all know better than that.

[Wondergirl]

the Cartesians would laugh at them and say that while the people thought that the cries and [shrieks] meant that the animals were in pain they were, in fact, just complex machines incapa.ble of feeling pain.

That's the line dog fighters use and tell the little kids who are watching.

[arcura]

Akoue,
I find it interesting that animals have souls and that in fact all ife may have souls.
I have long thought that the soul is the essence of life but till now did not put twi and two together to realize that all life has souls.
Thanks much for that.
Fred

[Wondergirl]

I'm guessing animals are very close to God's heart. They are the unacknowledged victims of the Fall. Many are the stories of their unconditional love, even across species. Man is their biggest enemy.

Even my fundamentalist/evangelical Christian mother believes there will be animals in heaven. She thinks there will be even more wonderful animals than we know of now, but my thought is, why should Go reinvent the wheel? The animals here on earth fill the bill.

[arcura]

Wondergirl,
I agree that I believe that animals are close to God's heart.
But animals in heaven?
I hope so, but don't know.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[Wondergirl]

But animals in heaven?
I hope so, but don't know.

If God graced the Garden with animals for Adam and Eve to enjoy, why wouldn't He do the same for us in heaven?

[arcura]

Wondergirl,
That is a good question.
I have no answer.
Fred

[Wondergirl]

v.21: that creation itself would be set free from slavery to corruption and share in the glorious freedom of the children of God.

This verse intrigues me. I always thought of heaven as "up there" (probably because the NT says Jesus ascended into heaven). Could it be possible that the JWs have been right all along, that this earth will be repaired and will be our eternal home?

[JoeT777]

Nope. I was thinking of Ralph McInerny.

Am I getting bad vibs? I thought Ralph McInerny was a great man in the land of Catholic intellectuals? I looked up his vita; I remember the Father Dowling books (I think) and if memory serves me right I remember the name from William Buckley's Firing Line. I may have watched the show he was on (I didn’t miss many), but that would have been decades ago and I get names mixed up easily.

So, how does his view on St. Thomas cause stripes? Is it the Aristotle channel thing? ( You know, I still don’t understand that)

JoeT

[De Maria]

[QUOTE=JoeT777;1560968....I can agree wholeheartedly to this except for the last statement; I’m not convinced that it would be proper. By proper I mean that, in the order of things, you might say that the farmer is to the farm animals as God is to man. The farmer loves his animals, but I don’t think he would want to be among the pigs nor would he allow the pigs to be amongst Him in the house.


Another way I look at this is that the servant shouldn’t expect to live in the Master’s house. The servant’s place is in the court. [/quote]

Our Lord Jesus was born in a cave and lain in a manger. An animal's feeding trough.

The Virgin Mary appeared to St. Bernadette in a trash dump.

I don't think that affected God's glory one iota. Or if it did, only to augment it in my eyes.

[Akoue]

Sorry about that

[De Maria]

[QUOTE=Wondergirl;1561123]I'm guessing animals are very close to God's heart. They are the unacknowledged victims of the Fall. Many are the stories of their unconditional love, even across species. Man is their biggest enemy... {/quote]

Lets not go overboard. Animals are people too. Most of those stories of unconditional love are works of fiction. But there are just as many verifiable stories of animals biting the hand that feeds them (dogs, cats), stomping the care taker (horses and elephants) and of killing people. They are real, provable stories.

And I love my dog, but "unconditional love"? Naw. If you've got the food, he's got the love. The most quick way to most dogs' hearts is through their bellies. That's a verifiable fact.

[JoeT777]

Our Lord Jesus was born in a cave and lain in a manger. An animal's feeding trough.

The Virgin Mary appeared to St. Bernadette in a trash dump.

I don't think that affected God's glory one iota. Or if it did, only to augment it in my eyes.

I won’t argue with that.

Jt.

[Akoue]

I think animals are plenty complex. And just as there are many acts of betrayal perpetrated by humans, so too by animals. Similarly, some humans are capable of genuinely unconditional love, and some aren't (or just don't commit to it, which may be a kind of incapacity in its own right); some animals love unconditionally, and some don't. I don't want to idealize animals, but I don't want to be dismissive either. I think they are, in the main, psychologically complex. That we aren't always aware of the degree of complexity is probably to be expected. But they certainly aren't black boxes.

We know that animals are capable of altruism, and this was something once thought to be unique to human beings. And De Maria's story about his dog digging through the trash shows a high level of planning and sophistication, if you ask me. The dog broke the rules in the same way a human would have: In such a way as not to get caught.

[arcura]

Joe T,
I'm with you o the question, "So, how does his view on St. Thomas cause stripes? "
I have read a lot and seen a lot of Ralph McInerny's works.
I'm and admirer of him.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[Akoue]

This verse intrigues me. I always thought of heaven as "up there" (probably because the NT says Jesus ascended into heaven). Could it be possible that the JWs have been right all along, that this earth will be repaired and will be our eternal home?

I find that hard to square with the idea that the creation will return to the Creator. Part of this idea is, presumably, a return from multiplicity and dispersion to unity. Now how exactly that unity is to be construed I can't honestly say (this is part of what I've been thinking through as I read this thread). I'm not sure where metaphoricity starts and stops, which is to say that it isn't clear to me how return to unity with the Trinity ought to be understood.

Any thoughts about that? It does have a bearing on the passage from the OP since there is a real question about what the redemption of the creation is. (I like the thought of return to unity--obviously--but I am hard-pressed to articulate that in a way that doesn't have a vaguely Gnostic feel to it. And that makes me think I need to find a different way of thinking about it.)

[Wondergirl]

Lets not go overboard. Animals are people too. Most of those stories of unconditional love are works of fiction. But there are just as many verifiable stories of animals biting the hand that feeds them (dogs, cats), stomping the care taker (horses and elephants) and of killing people. They are real, provable stories.

And I love my dog, but "unconditional love"? Naw. If you've got the food, he's got the love. The quickest way to most dogs' hearts is through their bellies. That's a verifiable fact.

Sorry to disagree. Cats must be a higher order than dogs. I am a living recipient of regular doses of unconditional love, and I don't wield the can opener. The biting, stomping, and snorting are simply evidence of the enslaved creation and groaning earth.

[Wondergirl]

I'm not sure where metaphoricity starts and stops, which is to say that it isn't clear to me how return to unity with the Trinity ought to be understood.

Maybe the contributors to this thread are trying too hard. Maybe it will be as uneventful as the verses in Romans indicate, that God simply restores His Eden and we get to be there this time.