Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for discussion related to learning about the faith (Catechetics), defense of the Faith (Apologetics), the Liturgy and canon law, motivated by a desire to grow closer to Christ or to bring someone else closer.

Saint Augustine of Hippo is considered on of the greatest Christian thinkers of all time and the Doctor of the Church.
Learn More: Saint Augustine

Nov 12th 2012 new

(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said: There are some errors in what you are exposing here.The essence of a fish does ...
(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said:



There are some errors in what you are exposing here.

The essence of a fish does not change merely because it has flopped on the shore of the beach. A fish, by definition, needs water flowing past its gills to breathe. On land, no water would flow past the gills of the fish, meaning the fish would die. A dead fish is not a species of fish, "dead fish" is merely the closest label to cover the concept "that which looks like a fish, yet is neither animated nor a fish" that we have. It is technically a carcass.

It is not correct to call it the natural process of "adaptation" when what was formerly a fish flopping on land, getting ready to die, sprouts legs and breathes the air. That is what is called "a miracle." Only God, by extraordinary means, can change what was once a fish into what is now some sort of reptile. It is not within the nature of a being to change its essence.

Human beings have souls, just as animals have souls. A soul is the substantial form which informs the primal matter that comprises an animate being. In merely animate beings, it is not possible to have a substantial form without it informing the primal matter, and it is not possible to have the primal matter without it being informed by the substantial form. The two do not exist without one another. However, in human beings, there is a spiritual aspect to our souls: we have an intellect, will and intellective memory. This, by gift of God, allows our souls to continue on in the violent state of separation from our primal matter after death (though we will be united with it again after the General Resurrection).

Animals do not have what is called a merely vegetative soul/substantial form. A tree has a vegetative substantial form, because it can only nourish itself, grow and reproduce. However, an animal has an animate substantial form because it is sentient, though it does also have a vegetative aspect, since like the tree, an animal can nourish itself, grow and reproduce. An animal is a sentient being with a sentient soul. Sentience is what allows the animal to sense its surroundings, and animation is the logical result. Animation allows the animal to move away from what it senses as painful and toward what it senses as pleasant. Plants do not have this ability to move in such a fashion, because they are not sentient.

Animals do not have a capacity for intelligence, as they have no intellect (the intellect is the faculty of the spirit which allows an intelligent being to know what is true and what can be true). They do not have a capacity for choice, as they have no will (the will is the faculty of the spirit which allows an intelligent being to choose what it will make true). Unless the being has the capacity to ponder abstract concepts, it is not intelligent. Animals work off of passion primarily which is ordinarily governed by their nature. Animals have a capacity to learn by what is called "association," however. Due to the fact that sentient souls have a sentient memory, animals can remember associations based upon whatever passion is striking them at the time. Humans train or condition the association of animals by affecting the animals' passions. Animals do not gain any intelligence whatsoever from training or conditioning, as neither give them the capacity for abstract thought. The fact is, if animals can gain intelligence, then they would have to be baptized...since they would technically be human at that point.

What causes problems in observing this, is that there is a specific group of people who choose to live as little more than clever animals. Of course, humans have the capacity for abstract thought and choice, but nonetheless, these people live for the most part irrational lives governed by passion and association. Other human observers then take this as normal human behavior and begin calling animals people, too, since animals have these same traits (that is, being irrational and governed by passion and association).

In answer to your question: the only reason why a person would apostatize (totally repudiate the Christian faith, and embrace atheism) is because there is a sin he loves, and will find whatever reason he can in order to justify it...even if that means rejecting God.

--hide--
Thanks Chelsea. Very well explained. As I see you are very much well informed on this subject matter. I was not able to visit again this thread for a while because of some "economic activities - I was busy making some revenues" Sorry for the late response. I really like this kind of interaction; better than having fun on shallow games." I would say I am reading scientific journals from a group of scientists here.

Nov 23rd 2012 new

(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said: (Quote) Liberacion-894835 said: While some lower forms of animals underg...
(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said:

Quote:
Liberacion-894835 said:

While some lower forms of animals undergo physical change, example a fish washed up to the shore, has to survive, must learn how to hop on the sands by using its fins to function as legs, transformed into another species and cannot go back to the sea to be a fish, this kind of transformation happened because of adaptation as every living creature has the ability to adapt to its environment. But man, though belonging to the animal kingdom, is a special kind of animal because of our souls that continues to live after death. Lower forms of animals also have souls but when their body dies, their souls die with their bodies - these are called vegetative souls. Also intelligence cannot be used as a destinctive point to distinguish man from apes, because science has found out that lower forms of animals can acquire intelligence by conditioning or training. What then are the reasons why there are individuals who become atheist by using the evolution theory as the reason?




There are some errors in what you are exposing here.

The essence of a fish does not change merely because it has flopped on the shore of the beach. A fish, by definition, needs water flowing past its gills to breathe. On land, no water would flow past the gills of the fish, meaning the fish would die. A dead fish is not a species of fish, "dead fish" is merely the closest label to cover the concept "that which looks like a fish, yet is neither animated nor a fish" that we have. It is technically a carcass.

It is not correct to call it the natural process of "adaptation" when what was formerly a fish flopping on land, getting ready to die, sprouts legs and breathes the air. That is what is called "a miracle." Only God, by extraordinary means, can change what was once a fish into what is now some sort of reptile. It is not within the nature of a being to change its essence.

Human beings have souls, just as animals have souls. A soul is the substantial form which informs the primal matter that comprises an animate being. In merely animate beings, it is not possible to have a substantial form without it informing the primal matter, and it is not possible to have the primal matter without it being informed by the substantial form. The two do not exist without one another. However, in human beings, there is a spiritual aspect to our souls: we have an intellect, will and intellective memory. This, by gift of God, allows our souls to continue on in the violent state of separation from our primal matter after death (though we will be united with it again after the General Resurrection).

Animals do not have what is called a merely vegetative soul/substantial form. A tree has a vegetative substantial form, because it can only nourish itself, grow and reproduce. However, an animal has an animate substantial form because it is sentient, though it does also have a vegetative aspect, since like the tree, an animal can nourish itself, grow and reproduce. An animal is a sentient being with a sentient soul. Sentience is what allows the animal to sense its surroundings, and animation is the logical result. Animation allows the animal to move away from what it senses as painful and toward what it senses as pleasant. Plants do not have this ability to move in such a fashion, because they are not sentient.

Animals do not have a capacity for intelligence, as they have no intellect (the intellect is the faculty of the spirit which allows an intelligent being to know what is true and what can be true). They do not have a capacity for choice, as they have no will (the will is the faculty of the spirit which allows an intelligent being to choose what it will make true). Unless the being has the capacity to ponder abstract concepts, it is not intelligent. Animals work off of passion primarily which is ordinarily governed by their nature. Animals have a capacity to learn by what is called "association," however. Due to the fact that sentient souls have a sentient memory, animals can remember associations based upon whatever passion is striking them at the time. Humans train or condition the association of animals by affecting the animals' passions. Animals do not gain any intelligence whatsoever from training or conditioning, as neither give them the capacity for abstract thought. The fact is, if animals can gain intelligence, then they would have to be baptized...since they would technically be human at that point.

What causes problems in observing this, is that there is a specific group of people who choose to live as little more than clever animals. Of course, humans have the capacity for abstract thought and choice, but nonetheless, these people live for the most part irrational lives governed by passion and association. Other human observers then take this as normal human behavior and begin calling animals people, too, since animals have these same traits (that is, being irrational and governed by passion and association).

In answer to your question: the only reason why a person would apostatize (totally repudiate the Christian faith, and embrace atheism) is because there is a sin he loves, and will find whatever reason he can in order to justify it...even if that means rejecting God.

--hide--


For the time being, at least, I'll pass on most of what you wrote, but I do wish to focus on one paragraph you wrote, namely:

"Animals do not have a capacity for intelligence, as they have no intellect (the intellect is the faculty of the spirit which allows an intelligent being to know what is true and what can be true). They do not have a capacity for choice, as they have no will (the will is the faculty of the spirit which allows an intelligent being to choose what it will make true). Unless the being has the capacity to ponder abstract concepts, it is not intelligent. Animals work off of passion primarily which is ordinarily governed by their nature. Animals have a capacity to learn by what is called "association," however. Due to the fact that sentient souls have a sentient memory, animals can remember associations based upon whatever passion is striking them at the time. Humans train or condition the association of animals by affecting the animals' passions. Animals do not gain any intelligence whatsoever from training or conditioning, as neither give them the capacity for abstract thought. The fact is, if animals can gain intelligence, then they would have to be baptized...since they would technically be human at that point."

Most of us might define intelligence somewhat differently, viz, intelligence is the ability to solve problems. Do you really want to continue to suggest that non-homo-sapiens cannot solve problems? As for animals lacking the ability to choose, well, not to put too fine an edge on this, but you've never had a cat as a pet, have you?

wink

James ☺

Nov 24th 2012 new

(Quote) James-17080 said: For the time being, at least, I'll pass on most of what you wrote, but I do wish to fo...
(Quote) James-17080 said:



For the time being, at least, I'll pass on most of what you wrote, but I do wish to focus on one paragraph you wrote, namely:

"Animals do not have a capacity for intelligence, as they have no intellect (the intellect is the faculty of the spirit which allows an intelligent being to know what is true and what can be true). They do not have a capacity for choice, as they have no will (the will is the faculty of the spirit which allows an intelligent being to choose what it will make true). Unless the being has the capacity to ponder abstract concepts, it is not intelligent. Animals work off of passion primarily which is ordinarily governed by their nature. Animals have a capacity to learn by what is called "association," however. Due to the fact that sentient souls have a sentient memory, animals can remember associations based upon whatever passion is striking them at the time. Humans train or condition the association of animals by affecting the animals' passions. Animals do not gain any intelligence whatsoever from training or conditioning, as neither give them the capacity for abstract thought. The fact is, if animals can gain intelligence, then they would have to be baptized...since they would technically be human at that point."

Most of us might define intelligence somewhat differently, viz, intelligence is the ability to solve problems. Do you really want to continue to suggest that non-homo-sapiens cannot solve problems? As for animals lacking the ability to choose, well, not to put too fine an edge on this, but you've never had a cat as a pet, have you?



James ☺

--hide--


It's fine if you wish to define intelligence in a different fashion. The present issue, then, would be of two different concepts, however, that is, semantics. Animals have no capacity for abstract thought, but they do have an apparent capacity for problem solving. Take that as you wish.

And no, I've had numerous cats in my life up until recently. There is no ability to choose to make anything true there, no ability for abstract thought, it's all action based upon the dictates of nature.

Nov 24th 2012 new

Evolution is not inconsistent with scripture and Catholic teaching.


God created us in His manner and in His time. What are 7 days to the immortal one-only God? The creation story of Genesis is essentially true, but it's put in terms we can understand.

Nov 24th 2012 new

(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said: (Quote) James-17080 said: For the time being, at least, I'll...
(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said:

Quote:
James-17080 said:



For the time being, at least, I'll pass on most of what you wrote, but I do wish to focus on one paragraph you wrote, namely:

"Animals do not have a capacity for intelligence, as they have no intellect (the intellect is the faculty of the spirit which allows an intelligent being to know what is true and what can be true). They do not have a capacity for choice, as they have no will (the will is the faculty of the spirit which allows an intelligent being to choose what it will make true). Unless the being has the capacity to ponder abstract concepts, it is not intelligent. Animals work off of passion primarily which is ordinarily governed by their nature. Animals have a capacity to learn by what is called "association," however. Due to the fact that sentient souls have a sentient memory, animals can remember associations based upon whatever passion is striking them at the time. Humans train or condition the association of animals by affecting the animals' passions. Animals do not gain any intelligence whatsoever from training or conditioning, as neither give them the capacity for abstract thought. The fact is, if animals can gain intelligence, then they would have to be baptized...since they would technically be human at that point."

Most of us might define intelligence somewhat differently, viz, intelligence is the ability to solve problems. Do you really want to continue to suggest that non-homo-sapiens cannot solve problems? As for animals lacking the ability to choose, well, not to put too fine an edge on this, but you've never had a cat as a pet, have you?



James ☺




It's fine if you wish to define intelligence in a different fashion. The present issue, then, would be of two different concepts, however, that is, semantics. Animals have no capacity for abstract thought, but they do have an apparent capacity for problem solving. Take that as you wish.

And no, I've had numerous cats in my life up until recently. There is no ability to choose to make anything true there, no ability for abstract thought, it's all action based upon the dictates of nature.

--hide--


Okay, then maybe we need to investigate what you mean by "abstract thought". What do you mean by that?

As for cats, I, too, have had a number of cats, which is why I brought up cats. It looks like you and I will have disagree on the topic of cats.

wink

James ☺

Nov 25th 2012 new

(Quote) James-17080 said: Okay, then maybe we need to investigate what you mean by "abstract thought". Wha...
(Quote) James-17080 said:



Okay, then maybe we need to investigate what you mean by "abstract thought". What do you mean by that?

As for cats, I, too, have had a number of cats, which is why I brought up cats. It looks like you and I will have disagree on the topic of cats.



James ☺

--hide--

The way I use the label "abstract thought" I mean the ability to apprehend intellectually what is true about beings in existence in their relationships with one another, and what can be true in this regard, as well as the operation of logical thought either in direct inference or syllogism.

An animal cannot do this, whether it is a cat or not. An animal can see you, and know those things it has associated with you (like you stroke it and give it pleasure, or you give it pleasure by feeding, or you give it pain by kicking, etc.) and remember these things as passions arise which direct it's common sense to look at these things. The animal, however, cannot see you as a person or see you as having the capacity of seeing God as He sees Himself, since an animal cannot by its nature know God, nor any abstract concept, like "person." The animal only knows you by what passions it associates with you, it does not appreciate that you are created in the image and likeness of God, since it cannot know these things.

Nov 25th 2012 new

(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said: (Quote) James-17080 said: Okay, then maybe we need to investigat...
(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said:

Quote:
James-17080 said:



Okay, then maybe we need to investigate what you mean by "abstract thought". What do you mean by that?

As for cats, I, too, have had a number of cats, which is why I brought up cats. It looks like you and I will have disagree on the topic of cats.



James ☺


The way I use the label "abstract thought" I mean the ability to apprehend intellectually what is true about beings in existence in their relationships with one another, and what can be true in this regard, as well as the operation of logical thought either in direct inference or syllogism.

An animal cannot do this, whether it is a cat or not. An animal can see you, and know those things it has associated with you (like you stroke it and give it pleasure, or you give it pleasure by feeding, or you give it pain by kicking, etc.) and remember these things as passions arise which direct it's common sense to look at these things. The animal, however, cannot see you as a person or see you as having the capacity of seeing God as He sees Himself, since an animal cannot by its nature know God, nor any abstract concept, like "person." The animal only knows you by what passions it associates with you, it does not appreciate that you are created in the image and likeness of God, since it cannot know these things.

--hide--


Hi Chelsea et alia,

First paragraph: Okay, I guess I'll buy this, at least a little. But by your argument, most humans cannot argue abstractly. Relatively few of us, even here, can carry on an intelligent existential argument. And of course, as you must have noticed by now, I'm no philosopher. If I say I know I'm stupid, is that a sign of intelligence, or hubris? wink

True, none of my cats knew about God. Most of them just knew about feeding time, except for one or two of them, especially my last one angel

Seriously, thanks for your kind answers.


James ☺

Nov 25th 2012 new

(Quote) James-17080 said: Hi Chelsea et alia,First paragraph: Okay, I guess I'll buy this, at least a li...
(Quote) James-17080 said:



Hi Chelsea et alia,

First paragraph: Okay, I guess I'll buy this, at least a little. But by your argument, most humans cannot argue abstractly. Relatively few of us, even here, can carry on an intelligent existential argument. And of course, as you must have noticed by now, I'm no philosopher. If I say I know I'm stupid, is that a sign of intelligence, or hubris?

True, none of my cats knew about God. Most of them just knew about feeding time, except for one or two of them, especially my last one

Seriously, thanks for your kind answers.


James ☺

--hide--

Hi, James,

It doesn't matter whether a person does effect the mental processes I was talking about, the fact is that is how human beings are made. It is up to each individual to strive to fulfill the purpose for which he was made. :)

You're welcome for any answers...I hope they benefit you :)

Nov 25th 2012 new

(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said: (Quote) James-17080 said: Hi Chelsea et alia,First parag...
(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said:

Quote:
James-17080 said:



Hi Chelsea et alia,

First paragraph: Okay, I guess I'll buy this, at least a little. But by your argument, most humans cannot argue abstractly. Relatively few of us, even here, can carry on an intelligent existential argument. And of course, as you must have noticed by now, I'm no philosopher. If I say I know I'm stupid, is that a sign of intelligence, or hubris?

True, none of my cats knew about God. Most of them just knew about feeding time, except for one or two of them, especially my last one

Seriously, thanks for your kind answers.


James ☺


Hi, James,

It doesn't matter whether a person does effect the mental processes I was talking about, the fact is that is how human beings are made. It is up to each individual to strive to fulfill the purpose for which he was made. :)

You're welcome for any answers...I hope they benefit you :)

--hide--


Hi Chelsea et alia,

Wait a minute. What are we talking about here? There are people who aren't very intelligent, or even rational. But that does not define whether they are human or not.

Right back at'cha, Chelsea :-)

James ☺

Nov 25th 2012 new

(Quote) James-17080 said: Hi Chelsea et alia,Wait a minute. What are we talking about here? There are people...
(Quote) James-17080 said:



Hi Chelsea et alia,

Wait a minute. What are we talking about here? There are people who aren't very intelligent, or even rational. But that does not define whether they are human or not.

Right back at'cha, Chelsea :-)

James ☺

--hide--


James,

There are people who are not highly intelligent. You're right. However, in order to distinguish between degrees of some condition, such as you have with intelligent (i.e., "aren't very intelligent"), you have to admit first they have intelligence. This you have done implicitly by stating there is a low degree of intelligence present.

There are people who are not rational. You're right. However, the nature of a being is never defined by the abnormal. People can choose to break their rational nature (that's what Adam's original sin is all about, and after Baptism what mortal and venial sin is all about). A person who has chosen to be irrational or who is irrational from birth, however, is not said NOT to be a human being, but rather a dysfunctional human being.


Posts 21 - 30 of 58