This I’ve got to see. Please show me two photos of a fish, one with normal eyes and one with terrified eyes. This ought to be good!!!
That is nothing but new age gibberish.
Yeah, it is probably the bad energies rather than microbes or normal human nature. It is clear that primitive man lived forever since he treated the animals he killed with respect so he didn’t suffer from the negative energies. Right?
lol, touche.
Pets (or any non-rational animal) do not love. The will is required to love and animals to not have an intellect and a will. The intellect knows and the will seeks that knowledge.
The life principle of a living being.
An immortal soul lives forever, and on judgment day is reunited with it’s body.
I am glad you brought up the Catechism! It make my entire point in starting this thread. I didn’t make this thread to argue over the nature of animal souls; I started it to argue the morality of killing animals needlessly and in manners that are more painful than others (using a hook instead of fish trap/net, for example). “It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly.” CCC 2418
It is true that humans are unique among the creatures of earth for having immortal souls, but the mortality of animal souls does not keep God from preserving them in an immortal state after their death. The last section, titled “Animals and Heaven”, of this FishEaters article makes that argument.
I said I use the word energy for lack of a better term. Traditional medicine uses these old terms to describe actual, physical phenomena in most cases. I’m sure there is another more modern-sounding name I’m not aware of, but it’s been proven that poorly-treated animals don’t provide good nutritional meat. Why do you think Kobe beef is the best? Because they’re treated so well, not that I’m saying that every farm animal should be treated that well!
I have yet to hear any reputable physician use the term ‘negative energies’
Were God to preserve an animal immortal, its soul would likewise be immortal.
You may have never been to a doctor of traditional medicine. They are doctors with medical licenses who practice traditional Asian medicine. They are a valid option for medical treatment.
I meant to put the link there. Sorry! fisheaters.com/animals.html Animal souls being preserved after death wouldn’t lessen the dignity of human souls. But, again, this argument is kind of off topic. The thread was more about cruelty and senseless killing of our fellow created inhabitants of Earth.
Have they made any type of medical study concerning ‘negative energies’?
I doubt the church shares the point of view the article espouses.
Yep there pure unemotional little creatures.
We project our emotions onto animals. Our pets really don’t feel the same things that we do. I learned this first hand when I had to give up a beloved cat who was with me through a lot of difficult times in my life. He was very special to me, but it turned out that I wasn’t all that special to him. He bonded with his new owners (dependent upon them for food and petting) and when I went back to visit him, he was polite, but detached. It really hurt because I had memories of him “comforting” me when I was going through tough times, but he was…just being a cat.
Like I said, that is an archaic term; I’m not up on the new terminology. Some of you people get too caught up on details! Plus, the Church does not have a point of view on the matter; no dogma has ever been pronounced on the nature of material souls and, obviously, God can do as He very well pleases.
Because the Church teaches that from creation (humans, animals and plants) humans have a supernatural end. That excludes animals and plants from having a supernatural end.
Absolutely. I don’t see how anyone can argue against that. I think a useful word here would be to avoid allowing animals to suffer intentionally. If more humane ways of killing animals are available to us, then there’s no question that we should choose them over lesser ones.
This word “humane” is widely accepted, yet erroneously applied to animals.
No it is not erroneously applied at all. Most understand the word ‘humane’ to revolve around ‘humanity’ i.e. the humanity of individuals who are doing a particular thing. To do something humanely does not mean that we are ascribing humanity on an object, animal or task, but rather that we are acting in a manner which reflects those characteristics that make up a recognised and idealised aspect of what we know as ‘humanity’ - reason, intelligence and compassion.
