Yeh, it does, thats kinda my point. How can an animal be given a soul? with regard to the quoted text in my previous post. Im with you on this point.!!
Do you see what i mean, how a soul cannot be rationalised to a thing, its part and parcel of what we are, so the notion that God gave a soul to a being already created is wrong? Are we just agreeing from differenet perspectives here? hehe.
The CCC States:Yeh, it does, thats kinda my point. How can an animal be given a soul? with regard to the quoted text in my previous post. Im with you on this point.!!
penWindow(‘cr/2415.htm’)
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.196penWindow(‘cr/2416.htm’) *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.penWindow(‘cr/2417.htm’) 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](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2418.htm’) 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.
] a man with the help of the Lord. Genesis 4:1. Aware that “Cain” means “smith,” a titter would have run through the storyteller’s audience when they hear Eve’s misguided reason for the name.
. You say this when the Bible clearly says that Eve bore Cain and Abel (Gen. 4-2). Do not so radicaly interpret the Bible. This was the ultimate mistake of the Raelians. So everything in the Old Testement, except for the Prophecies, are all just parables and never happened? Is that what you are saying?
Actually, when one poses the questions you pose you are asking if we as Catholics read the Bible in a literalist sense, rather than a literal one. We Catholics read Holy Scripture in a literal sense. The difference is best explained by using the example of the expression “Raining Cats and Dogs”. If you read that in a literalist sense, you will insist that cats and dogs are falling from the clouds. If you read that as a Catholic reads Holy Scripture, you will know that it was raining very hard.
Mike, what ARE the theological lessons in the creation stories. Do you have the vaguest idea?
It was published in The Catholic Answer magazine, put out by The Sunday Visitor organization.Thanks for the offer. I determined to be a faithful Catholic and so my position stands. HOWEVER, I always find information interesting. It never shakes my faith or my opinion on Biblical matters because I am guided by The Holy Mother Church. While I don’t feel really comfortable handing out my email address, if your paper is published on line, please feel free to send the link to me in a private message. I am sure you did a lot of very good work on it and I would be interested in reading it.
Afterall, I can’t let that wonderful education received from UC Berkeley go to waste, can I?
As I infer above, it is those who treat the Adam and Eve story and Cain and Abel story as history who are the radicals. It is clearly non-fiction teaching theology. For example, the Adam and Eve story portrays God as being stupid. It really does. Calmly read how God, looking for a partner for Adam, at first unsuccessfully tried to match him up with animals, and then God finally made Eve. See Genesis 2:18 et seq.Maybe I’m just having a moment, but that made no sense to me. Where did the “Smith” and the “Forger” come from? Are you saying that Moses and God just decided, while writing the literature that would change the lives of billions to come, to throw in a little joke. Oh yes I’m laughing. that was hilarious.Never seen anything so funny in my life
The primary theological lesson in the whole of the Bible is that mankind is wholly and entirely dependent upon a loving but just God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and all-loving.
Is that online and, if not, please send me the information necessary to order a copy of that publication…thanks!