3 ms·
This presumes that "who" refers to all living animals (organisms?) and not just human beings.
by pc86 3y ago
This presumes that "who" refers to all living animals (organisms?) and not just human beings.
- throwup238 3y agoI believe Krampus is responsible for non-human animals.
- 082349872349872 3y agoGiven that Der Krampus arrives Dec. 6, he's probably just playing bad cop to St. Nick's good cop. According to traditional theology, animals don't have souls, so they don't have much to do with religion, and believers had better be satisfied spending an eternity strumming their harps with neither Fido nor Kat Vonnegut Jr. for company. (does Dante mention any animals in the 1st circle? Non-philospher non-featherless non-biped animals, that is...)
- tetris11 3y agoAnimals have stood trial for their actions since the time of the Greeks, and have undergone shifts of being intentional criminals, to automatons of Nature who can't be judged, to self-aware beings with rich inner lives who should stand trial for their actions, but Animal Trials were out of vogue by then.
- idonotknowwhy 3y agoCool didn't know that. So when did we evolve souls?
- arwineap 3y agoIn the theological context evolution is unlikely to exist.
- pc86 3y agoNo, in the theological context evolution - the means by which God creates - is irrelevant.
- arwineap 3y agoDepending on the religion I suppose. The old testament was quite clear about creating man and woman explicitly. Do you have an example of a religion that is more vague and therefore more inviting to evolution?
- xtagon 3y agoAre the Whos within Whoville human?
- bombcar 3y agoAre they the same Whos Horton hears?