Posted on 06/02/2005 2:57:54 PM PDT by LauraleeBraswell
Read him on philosophical questions also.
I read Aquinas often. I understand his view on animal souls and think that it follows logically from a premise that the animals were condemned with man. But the premise is not scripturally supported.
To be really honest, I do not see how you could read Aquinas often and be as illogical as I perceive you to be.
I do hope that you are reading good books about Aquinas as well as his own works.
The best interpreter of Scripture is the Catholic Church, the same one to which Aquinas belonged and to which he was so loyal.
I am Catholic. I do not think there is a magisterial teaching on animals in heaven, so I am discussing alternatives.
great witness you are. How many notches in your catecism?
I bet zero. lol.
Let me see now, You are the one who thinks that dogs and men are pretty much on the same plane.
lol. I see your reading comprehension skills are still lacking.
If a man has no immortal soul then he is, push comes to shove, no different from a dog. Only sentiment stands in the way, Since Roe v. Wade, even some supporters of legal abortion have acknowledged that a dog has more rights than an an unborn human being, even at the moment before birth. Infants have roughly the same rights. Someone who bashes a baby's head against the wall is given about the same punishment as someone who kills puppies or kittens.
We've been given dominion over the animals. It has nothing to do with whether or not one's soul is immortal. The doctrine of "immortal souls" is a "private" non-Torah interpretation by the Orthodoxy. I would say, if the Jewish interpretation of being created "in God's image is correct, we're distinguished from beasts in that we have intellectual capacity. Its God's decision whether or not one has life in the world to come. Not a matter of a soul's properties.
And intellectual capacity is the heart of the matter. As for the Torah, it has alway been more than a "constitution" for a particular people, something not different in kinds from the constitution of Athens. The God of gods have never been the possesion of a single race nor confined to a particular place. This is why he was nonplussed by the destruction of his temple, this is why he has never demanded holocausts. Israel exists not for her own safe but to bring Him to the nations.
You are correct that there is not a Magisterial teaching on animals in Heaven.
But there is a strong support for the philosophical and theological teachings of Aquinas and althouh he is not infallible, his thinking and his premises and his logic is worthy of respect and imitation.
You probably are aware of the Catechism's section on animals.
An eighty four year old frien of mine raised on the Baltimore Catechism said they were taught as children that if an animal was necessary for their happiness in Heaven that God would have that animal there for us. that was my point in my first response to your post. I do not know what Peter Kreeft has to say about the subject in his book on Heaven, but I will bet it is the same as my frien was taught.
Well, Aquinas anly talks of "dumb animals", and I only talk about animals that exibit affection and a peculiar to them form of intellect. So I don't contradict Aquinas.
Surely God had the animals for us at creation, so they served a purpose then. I maintain that they serve the same spiritual purpose in Heaven of the future, and so they in some miraculous sense are there at all times. This does not contradict the conditional assertion of the catechism.
"If there are no dogs in heaven, I don't want to go there."
If Heaven ain't a lot like Dixie, I don't wanna go
If Heaven ain't a lot like Dixie, I'd just as soon stay home
If they ain't got a Grand Old Opry
Like they do in Tennessee
They can send me to Hell or New York City
It'd be about the same to me!
I think you got it right. People that get to heaven will not long for the love of a pet when Jesus is standing there.
Your concept of "Torah" is warped and anti-Jewish. The NT translators translated "Torah" as "law". Read Psalms 119, especially the parts about Torah(law) being perfect and eternal and then get back to me.
Your notion of Torah seems like the Muslim notion of Koran. But I plead gullty to being Christian, not Jewish.
I will hang up this "dialogue". You just do not know how to discuss things on point or rationally. Good luck in getting your head together.
And all this time I thought Psalms 119 was in the Christian Bible as well. My bad.
Watch me stick the tongue out, breathe happily, wag tail. What, no frisbee?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.