Catholic dogs go to heaven, Presbyterian ones don't

[Swatopluk]

I found this lovely 'sign war'
http://idonotlikeyoueither.blogspot.com/2009/04/catholics-win-sign-war_08.html
I wonder what the pope would say about this 

[Griffin NoName]

[beagle]

If I ever have to pretend to be religious in Cumberland I'm going for the Catholics.  They like dogs, have a sense of humour, and can spell Catholicism.

[Kaliayev]

Of course, the wonderful irony is that the "Catholics" here are actually in the wrong.

[anthrobabe]

Is  that from church sign generator?

Link

[beagle]

Rats.  For a moment I thought I'd found a religious group I could live with.

Bet you tell kids there's no Santa too.

[anthrobabe]

Rats.  For a moment I thought I'd found a religious group I could live with.

Bet you tell kids there's no Santa too.

What? Who me?
Besides Santa is real--- duh!

My favorite to date is the real highway sign corrupted to flash "Zombies Ahead"

[Kaliayev]

Is  that from church sign generator?

Link

I thought it might be, though it looks better.  Certainly decent photoshopping, at least.

But yes.  Sadly, while apparently every living thing has a soul, only humans and angels are special mahadqickal and unique snowflakes uh, rational beings, and so get access to heaven.  Maybe.  Fluffy is pretty much screwed, unless you can get her to read some Aristotle.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

But yes.  Sadly, while apparently every living thing has a soul, only humans and angels are special mahadqickal and unique snowflakes uh, rational beings, and so get access to heaven.  Maybe.  Fluffy is pretty much screwed, unless you can get her to read some Aristotle.

According to.....what "authority"?

Or were you implying a specific religious "heaven"?  And not a generic or generalized concept of heaven, that I've come to assume.

I dunno:  if pets, dogs, cats and fluffy bunnies are not in heaven?  Where do they go, then?  I want to go there... heaven without animals is.....hell.

[Kaliayev]

Vatican theologians.  I could probably find precise names, but it would take a while slogging through the Catholic Encyclopedia for the relevant articles. 

And yes, I was referring to Catholic theology.  Sorry, I probably should have made that clear.

From what I have found, their souls are not immortal, and so die when their body does.  That's not to say God couldn't raise them again from the dead at the end of Time...but in the interim Fluffy is pretty much screwed.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Vatican theologians.  I could probably find precise names, but it would take a while slogging through the Catholic Encyclopedia for the relevant articles. 

And yes, I was referring to Catholic theology.  Sorry, I probably should have made that clear.

From what I have found, their souls are not immortal, and so die when their body does.  That's not to say God couldn't raise them again from the dead at the end of Time...but in the interim Fluffy is pretty much screwed.

Oh.  I was rather hoping for a real authority.....you know, one that was universally recognized... 

But, in the context of the original joke, your astute and subtle point now becomes abundantly clear.

Sometimes I'm too dense.... 

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I don't know about universally recognized but if you want animal souls on the same footing as us completely different mammals () you can consider Hinduism or better Buddhism. You should give up meats though.

[Kaliayev]

Vatican theologians.  I could probably find precise names, but it would take a while slogging through the Catholic Encyclopedia for the relevant articles. 

And yes, I was referring to Catholic theology.  Sorry, I probably should have made that clear.

From what I have found, their souls are not immortal, and so die when their body does.  That's not to say God couldn't raise them again from the dead at the end of Time...but in the interim Fluffy is pretty much screwed.

Oh.  I was rather hoping for a real authority.....you know, one that was universally recognized... 

But, in the context of the original joke, your astute and subtle point now becomes abundantly clear.

Sometimes I'm too dense.... 

I shouldn't worry, it wasn't really that funny!

As for a universally recognized authority, let me know when you find one.  I have a few pointed questions to ask...

[Opsa]

Is  that from church sign generator?

Link

I thought it might be, though it looks better.  Certainly decent photoshopping, at least.

Check out the backgrounds. The cars and plants are always the same. This was a graphics trick, but fun all the same.

[beagle]

Of course, the wonderful irony is that the "Catholics" here are actually in the wrong.

Not if Turing is your "God"

From "Computing machinery and intelligence" 1936 :

The Theological Objection. Thinking is a function of man's immortal soul. God has given an immortal soul to every man and woman, but not to any other animal or to machines. Hence no animal or machine can think.


I am unable to accept any part of this, but will attempt to reply in theological terms. I should find the argument more convincing if animals were classed with men, for there is a greater difference, to my mind, between the typical animate and the inanimate than there is between man and the other animals. The arbitrary character of the orthodox view becomes clearer if we consider how it might appear to a member of some other religious community. How do Christians regard the Moslem view that women have no souls? But let us leave this point aside and return to the main argument. It appears to me that the argument quoted above implies a serious restriction of the omnipotence of the Almighty. It is admitted that there are certain things that He cannot do such as making one equal to two(1), but should we not believe that He has freedom to confer a soul on an elephant if He sees fit? We might expect that He would only exercise this power in conjunction with a mutation which provided the elephant with an appropriately improved brain to minister to the needs of this soul. An argument of exactly similar form may be made for the case of machines. It may seem different because it is more difficult to "swallow". But this really only means that we think it would be less likely that He would consider the circumstances suitable for conferring a soul. The circumstances in question are discussed in the rest of this paper. In attempting to construct such machines we should not be irreverently usurping His power of creating souls, any more than we are in the procreation of children: rather we are, in either case, instruments of His will providing mansions for the souls that He creates.

However, this is mere speculation. I am not very impressed with theological arguments whatever they may be used to support. Such arguments have often been found unsatisfactory in the past. In the time of Galileo it was argued that the texts, "And the sun stood still . . . and hasted not to go down about a whole day" (Joshua x. 13) and "He laid the foundations of the earth, {p.444} that it should not move at any time" (Psalm cv. 5) were an adequate refutation of the Copernican theory. With our present knowledge such an argument appears futile. When that knowledge was not available it made a quite different impression.