Fellows,

In my trilogy "Dythus," there are two basic divisions between all creatures: Being or Beast. The division emerges when one applies Mark 12:30, "And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength. This is the first commandment." Both Beasts and Beings have all but one of these attributes (heart, soul, mind, bodily strength) in common, and that exclusive one is, of course, the soul. Any animal can reason, solve a riddle, build impressive architecture, and a few can learn math and speech. Therefore, a Beast can use the mind, same as a Being. Any animal can experience emotions of loyalty, sadness, and happiness. Therefore, a Beast can use the heart, same as any Being. Any animal can use its physical body to overcome and assist another. Therefore, a Beast can use their strength the same as any Being. However, can a Beast use its soul? No, because it does not have one. And curiously, because it has no soul, a Beast is limited intellectually (can an animal teach itself, or is it merely taught?), emotionally (can an animal write music, poetry, and so on?), and physically (will an animal buffet its own body? Though a Beast's strength can often overcome a humans', will it seek to make itself yet stronger?). Therefore, because they have the benefit of the Soul, Beings assume lordship of my world (and this one as well, you may notice). The Soul is simply the God-shaped hole in the Being that must be filled - the quest of every Being to find It leads to their incredible ability to learn, adapt, and create. In addition, curious bi-products emerge such as imagination, wisdom, religion, political government, art, and theory. In the real world, we like to call it "the thing that makes us most human" - because it genuinely does!

The Beasts are all in common: Dragons, Griffins, Fairies, Goblins, Common Animals, Talking Animals (which in my series, in order to uphold the "Beast or Being" ideology, must be taught to speak by a Being, and cannot learn it themselves, though they can be taught by each other - granted not very well), and so on. The Beasts, because they lack a soul, have no God-shaped hole within them. They are therefore easily tamed or simply untamable. With the guidance of Beings (especially a certain one named Palavini), many have reached levels of great intellect and artistry, even to the point of wearing clothes, cooking their food, walking on hind legs, and carving furniture for their burrows. However, once removed from tutelage, a Beast will slowly regress to its natural state.
One side note to go with this idea of training animals to be like people, is not a domesticated dog or cat merely a creature who's adopted human habits and dropped their wild ones?

The Beings are divided into races: Dwarves, Humans, Vulgrak, Hak'tal (though this is a big debate among the intellectuals of my world), Shelo (also a big debate), Giants, Fauns, and several others. Each race represents a worldview. For instance, the Dwarves represent New Darwinism, Agnosticism, or Aristotelean Atheism, depending on which kind of Dwarf you pick (Black Bearded, Brown Bearded, or Red Bearded). The Beings rule the governments of my world, and fight with each other most often. However, a series of battles called The Wild Wars is the first between only Beings and Beasts.

Though I could go into more depth, this is the basic summary of my Genre of Race in the world of my protagonist, Dythus. The neat thing about this ideology is its theoretical questions, which are very fun to sort out - for instance: can a Being lose its soul (it's happened in the real world), and if it does, will it regress into a Beast?

This page is officially open for discussion and comment.

Desiderio Domini,
Palavini

First off, let me welcome you to Holy Worlds, Palavini. Glad to have you here .

These are some very interesting concepts. Very nice job at incorporating a Christian worldview into your story.

I like how each race represents a different worldview. There's a lot of potential there. Which worldview do human represent?

I'm just contemplating the whole "soulless Beast" concept. Do Beasts have a purpose in life other than survival? Do their physical emotions and intellect cause them to want something more or does the lack of a soul sequester even the desire for higher things? Just some things I was thinking about .

I like this. Very original and in-depth. Do humans represent a single world-view? Or would they have more than one?

Fellows Varon and Seraph,

When you say humans, that could mean a lot in my book. The human race, similar to the Dwarves which are different according to the color of their beards (black, brown, or red), have several differing kinds within the species. There are humans with "animal-like" features and so on. In my book, all Beings can inter-breed, even a human and a Vulgrak. And I'm not exactly semantic on the Race ideology: there are dwarves (which generally represent a form of atheism) that can be Christians; a Vulgrak (which generally represents a form of philosophical savagery) can be an agnostic; and so on. In fact, I try to keep it less "this is a dwarf," "this is a Vulgrak," and "this is a human," and keep it more "these are all Beings." Because, metaphorically speaking, they all represent humans in the real world anyway.

Oh, and there are absolutely zero elves in my book.

Desiderio Domini,
Palavini

Fellow Seraph,



An animal simply is, but a human must become. An animal is, plain a simple, a fool. Does an animal think of nothing but its own survival? Well answer this: will an animal commit suicide? No of course not. But a human, a Being, will. Why is this? Because an animal, a simple, foolish creature, needs no reason to survive. A Being must have a reason, otherwise if it loses its reason it finds no point anymore in living, and so dies. We commit suicide. Animals do not. An animal simply prolongs its existence.

Animals were not cursed after the Fall. Man was cursed. Animals, like the rest of the universe, simply fell into corruption. Get this: the Bible said Adam and Eve could not eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, but did it say anything of the animals? Perhaps during the entire life of Eden, animals feasted on the Tree while Adam and Eve stood by. A funny thought (though entirely hypothetical), but perhaps not completely meaningless. Why wouldn't the fruit have effected them? Because they were fools - they had no knowledge of what a good thing or an evil things was. The Forbidden Fruit would have been entirely ineffective on them because they had no souls.

"Do not be like the horse or like the mule, which have no understanding, which must be harnessed with bit and bridle, else they will not come near you."
Psalm 32:9

So what's the point of animals? Why do they exist? Well, what was their point in the Garden of Eden? To glorify God and enjoy Him forever. Will animals be in heaven? I think so - the Tree of Life will be - and since the animals were only made to give glory to God, like the Tree of Life, could they not also do so in heaven?

Desiderio Domini,
Palavini

I was going to quote this verse as proof the the creation was cursed along with man, but after rereading it (instead of using my memory) I guess I'd have to agree with you. Oops. Definitely an interesting idea. I also really like your idea that maybe the animals could eat of the tree of life, because they were fools. Brings up some interesting idea and sort of magnifies the temptation for Adam and Eve...

It is also interesting to note that though the Creation was corrupted, the snake specifically was cursed. Which brings up the question of whether the snake really was a more advanced being before the fall or whether it's extra traits were only brought about by Satan's possession of the snake.

eruheran

Fellow Eruheran,

But to answer your question, "Do animals have any reason to exist other than survival?"...yes. To glorify God!

Desiderio Domini,
Pavalini

Fellow Eruheran,



After reading your comment, I became aware of a theological dilemma within my hypothesis. If the animals truly ate of the tree, then that certainly must have magnified the temptation for Adam and Eve, as you said. However, the Bible documents that it was the devil in the form of a serpent who tempted them. When God asked, "What is this you have done?" to His two creations, Eve said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate" (Genesis 3:13). There is therefore no Biblical proof that anything had even touched the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil before Eve did. And until the serpent, she had not before been tempted.

But does this trash my theory? Part of it... However, I would still note that the animals were never tempted themselves. It took a Being with a soul to imagine themselves "Like the Most High" and fall into temptation. Perhaps no animals ate or touched the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil because, frankly, they could not be tempted to, and therefore were never directly forbidden to.

Desiderio Domini,
Pavalini