This post flabbergasted me:

Quote from: Matto

I have a question, but not about Taize. Do you think that human-animal hybrids would have immortal souls?

It is hard fro me to imagine why you are asking this question, unless it is reference to the non-white kids in the picture.  But that can't possibly be correct, since no one who even flirted with being any kind of Catholic could even think such a vulgar, malevolent, and heretical piece of idiocy, let alone post it on a Catholic discussion board for all to see.  I am very sure you meant nothing of the kind, but perhaps it would be prudent to explain this comment, since it is not clear what you did mean, at least to me.  Thank you.

Why would ANYONE jump to such a ridiculous conclusion?

Has ANYONE on CathInfo -- banned or not -- ever posted such a belief?

"Oh, but they've posted a lot about race, mixing of races, talked about the importance of race, love of one's race, differences in races, the Jєωιѕн question, and some might have even suggested or implied that Whites are near the top of the heap, etc. That makes them Racist, right?"

But some Racists(tm) believe that Indians and Blacks are sub-humans without souls...

THEREFORE, some people on CathInfo believe that!

See the logical fallacy here?

You're applying "racist" in one sense, and connecting it with "racist" in another sense.

I tell you what.

If anyone can find me JUST ONE POST where they say (even in a crafty manner) that certain races don't have a soul, or are sub-human, I will ban that individual (or those individuals) without any questions.

I promise you this before everyone here on CathInfo.

Deal?

Actually I still have no idea what Matto's post was about, and Sigismund's response made more sense than Matto's, in my humble opinion.

Not getting involved in the whole race issue.

But that aside, aren't there supposed to be animals in heaven or the afterlife?

Not to my knowledge.

aren't there supposed to be animals in heaven or the afterlife?How is that even possible if they don't have "souls"?

They could be created in the afterlife by God in the same form as today, with finite souls.

I'll be honest, I don't know much about that subject but aren't there bible references about animals in the New Heaven or New Earth?

I've seen animal lovers defending the notion on other forums, but their theological evidence is scanty. I don't see the need for animals in heaven, we have everything, God. Where would the "animals" stop, you would only have good dogs and horses that don't bite, and no fleas, ticks, mosquitos, sharks, gators? I think the subject is emotional and not reasoned. What we love in animals is a microscopic fragment of what God will give us.

Oh, I see 5 people tried (and failed) to find the posts in question!

Frustrating to try and find something that isn't there, eh?

Frustration must have led them to thumb down my post.

I see that of the 5, not a SINGLE ONE OF THEM has any manhood, courage, and/or cajones to critique this post to my face.

Come on, man up! Take on that nαzι, racist ____! Stand up for the truth!

What you have here is just more knee-jerk reacting and emotionalism surrounding race.

See what a great job the Jєωιѕн media has done? We can't even bring up the topic of race without feeling guilty. And no one can discuss it calmly. As soon as the word "Race" is mentioned, most people's brains shut off.

I start a thread stating that we've had no examples of extreme (true?) racism on here -- i.e., hatred of other races, or thinking they are less than human -- as well as a promise to ban any such racists. What kind of reaction would you expect with such a post?

Apparently, a few anonymous, emotion-fueled downvotes.

No rational argument or statements.

"They could be created in the afterlife by God in the same form as today, with finite souls. "

Yet souls nevertheless and they would be eternal.


"I've seen animal lovers defending the notion on other forums, but their theological evidence is scanty."

Not a big lover of four-footed creatures here myself but there are references about animals in the afterlife or heaven. Not sure what Church doctrine has to say about it, maybe they're silent on the issue.

". I don't see the need for animals in heaven, we have everything, God."
Revelation 19:11 ESV

"Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. "

"Where would the "animals" stop, you would only have good dogs and horses that don't bite, and no fleas, ticks, mosquitos, sharks, gators?"

Well I guess of course it would be heaven so these things wouldn't exist. Just think of the Garden of Eden, there were beasts of the field there but they were harmless and were more or less in harmony with man for which God created these beasts to commune with in some way, they might have even had the capability of speech, hence the Serpent. But I'm sure all forms of violence and survival instincts will be unecessary.

Seems God had intentions of animals to be part of his grand design of nature in some way, I'm sure this could possibly continue in paradise.

Isaiah 65:25 ESV
"The wolf and the lamb shall graze together; the lion shall eat straw like the ox, and dust shall be the serpent's food. They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain,” says the Lord."

Of course the bible is full of allegory and symbolism, but that sound pretty cut and dry to me about animals having some kind of role in the afterlife. But like I said, I need to see what or if any of the Church fathers had anything to say on this subject, I'm certainly not an authority or about to go all Sola Scriptura to back up animals in heaven.I need to research more on it.

Oh, I see 5 people tried (and failed) to find the posts in question!

Frustrating to try and find something that isn't there, eh?

Frustration must have led them to thumb down my post.

I see that of the 5, not a SINGLE ONE OF THEM has any manhood, courage, and/or cajones to critique this post to my face.

Come on, man up! Take on that nαzι, racist ____! Stand up for the truth!

What you have here is just more knee-jerk reacting and emotionalism surrounding race.

See what a great job the Jєωιѕн media has done? We can't even bring up the topic of race without feeling guilty. And no one can discuss it calmly. As soon as the word "Race" is mentioned, most people's brains shut off.

I start a thread stating that we've had no examples of extreme (true?) racism on here -- i.e., hatred of other races, or thinking they are less than human -- as well as a promise to ban any such racists. What kind of reaction would you expect with such a post?

Apparently, a few anonymous, emotion-fueled downvotes.

No rational argument or statements.

You do realize Jєωs, Anti-Racists/Catholics, Leftists, sɛҳuąƖ Devaints and all kinds of abnormals troll boards like these just for the simple oppourtunity to slander and obstruct any real discussion about issues like these don't you?

I wouldn't get too upset about any negative reps, I remember a few years ago when I used to post on another Catholic forum and they had that rating system with pos/neg points on posters and I used to get as ton of negs for merely pointing out the obvious, especially on race or ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ issues, after a while I noticed that anyone on there with a high neg count was usually telling the truth.

And you're correct, they are cowards, outside of throwing neg reps at me, none of them could ever back up any of their accusations I was a "racist" or "nαzι" of some sort, most didn't even try, it's all about baseless slander and character assasination, most of these type lurking in the shadows wouldn't have the guts to say some thing like this to your face in the real world.

The reason why I down-thumbed you, Matthew, was because your definition of a "racist" is so narrow that it makes racism essentially non-existent. Of course, finding a post such as you describe would be well-nigh impossible, because a) very few racists believe what you are describing, and b) those that do are not going to blatantly post that, because they would be banned.

I never said that was the only or best definition of "racist".

You flunk Reading Comprehension, brainglitch.
For your remedial homework, GO BACK AND RE-READ MY POST and try to let it soak in this time.

What I said was:

No matter what you've seen on CathInfo that you deem "racist" (and I went on to list several definitions), it's still an order of magnitude worse to think that minority races are sub-human.

That's never been expressed on CathInfo before.

And yet Sigismund, by a random coincidence, revealed his thinking on the matter. Namely, that the "racists" he perceives on CathInfo (using a very weak definition of the word, I might add) are the same knuckle-dragging, inbred, toothless, appalachian WASP racist bad guys in countless movies and TV series.

You know, the ones that hate every Injun' they see. The ones that try to run nice black men and/or pregnant black women off the road, because they tried to eat at a white man's cafe, and so forth. (These characters usually wear overalls.)

He's confusing two very, very different things.

And the fact that he would equate someone who values his race highly, to the point of rejecting marriage candidates outside his race (for example) to someone COMMITTING MORTAL SIN by hating others of another race is highly disturbing to my Catholic sensibility.

I could care less about 5 downvotes when I post something controversial. But sometimes it bothers me that people can be so mindless and emotional.

As an aside:
It's stupid to complain about downvotes because of what they do to your score. I never do that. Why is it stupid? Because usually you get several upvotes on that same post -- usually more, unless you really don't belong on CathInfo. And every downvote only costs you 1/3 of a point. Every upvote gains you one whole point.

So the more you post, the more your Rep score goes up. That's how to play the game.

Curiously, in the first editions of Darwin's book, On the Origin of Species, a
prominent theme was that the negroid race was "less evolved" and that their
appearance more closely resembling primates is BECAUSE of that lower level
of evolution.  It was at the VERY ROOT of his thinking from the start, and it was
only culled out in later years by the progressives who could see that by phasing
out that aspect, the bad philosophy of evolution (because it's not science, it's
bad philosophy) would stand a chance for serving a 'greater goal' in the future --


Well, the future is HERE!


Would that we could be so passionate about the Big Lie of evolution!

I agree.  It's hard to see how someone who loses their catholic faith, because of a belief in evolution, would not conclude that man was an animal, who had no immortal soul.  Naturally, he would conclude that man was evolved from apes, since we kind of look/act more like apes, than any other animal.  Of course, he would conclude that men who bore a greater resemblance to apes, than other men, were sort of more "ape/ape-like," than other men.  This of course, would not preclude the conclusion that all men were animals and, in a culture obsessed with egalitarianism, it should see men on an equal plane with mr. tyson's chickens.   So, the real horror there is that all men are fair game for "the dinner table," just as any turkey would be in november.  

Now contrast this with the traditional catholic belief that all men have an immortal soul and all animals do not have an immortal soul, but merely have a material soul, which ceases to exist, at their death.  Thus, there exists, in the traditional catholic mind, a huge chasm between all mankind (regardless of their color/features/prediliction to violence/intelligence) and the animal kingdom (regardless of how loyal they are to their masters/how ugly they are).