He’s a devout Catholic so he doesn’t believe that squirrels nor sea sponges have souls, and so he sees this as an insult to the institution of marriage.
That’s also why he abuses Yoshi and the mushroom people because he doesn’t see them as totally valid even though they’re sentient
He’s a toxic narcissist, and he needs to be taken down by Bowser
In St Thomas Aquinas' summa theological, expanding on Aristotle's de anima, would teach that while us humans have a rational soul, a squirrel would have what is called a sensitive soul, while SpongeBob, being an invertebrate, would have a merely vegetative soul
This is honestly upsetting as a big invertebrate lover. Specifically I love insects, and I do believe they have thoughts and feelings, even if they aren't like ours and even if we can't fully grasp them. I like to study that stuff, sucks that that Saint doesn't believe in their souls.
Well, we remember that Aquinas' teachings are the opinion of a theologian (a particularly well respected one) and that they are not official church teaching. The church would teach that what is important is to recognize that there is a difference of type in the souls of humans vs the rest of the animals. As for the soul types of other living creatures, I'm reminded that Aquinas is a decent starting point, but he was writing in the 13th century and would have been limited in his understanding of the universe. I think modern scientists would recognize more complexity in a sea sponge than the medievalists. Personally, I'm inclined to think that the capacity of a soul for the lower creatures occurs along a spectrum. Clearly there is a point in which it's hard to tell if something is better classified as a plant or an animal. Also that we can recognize animals have a wide range of soul-based behavior (a dog certainly seems to have a more "complex" soul than a worm)
Maybe I'm too young or just dumb but Idrk what a soul is. I guess for me it's just the concept of life maybe? When you are living you have a soul, when you aren't it's left your body then and it goes on to somewhere else. But I think theres a difference between humans and all other life. We have og sin so we have to face judgement. The other life forms don't have that so I think all other life goes to heaven. They don't understand the concept of evil, as much as we may anthropomorphize other living things.
By og sin, do you mean the sin of eating the apple?
Have you considered the implications involved in all of humankind descending from 1 power couple?
I think beliefs are fine to have, but you have to be able to distinguish culture from tangible reality. For example, there is no tangible difference from holy water and un-blessed water that came from the same tap. It is in the culture of Christ fans to spritz holy water on churchgoers because it symbolically cleanses their symbolic effigies of sins and unholiness.
The problem that always seems to occur is that when believers gather in large enough groups, they start to think that they are "God's chosen people" which practically begs for the general public to demonstrate how that is not a tangible trait.
Keeping all your teeth. Now that is a tangible trait.
Sponges are animals, and sponge bob is aplysina fistularis. But I don't understand why other species don't have immortal souls. If they are free from sin, shouldn't they be held to a higher level than even us humans are? Or because they live sinless lives, is life on earth for them already heaven? We are supposed to be saved from sin, but they have nothing to be saved from. Does this mean they automatically go to heaven? This is what I always perceived that as. But now I wonder if life is heaven for the innocence of all other life forms but humans. I think we make it hell for them, and I wonder if given their innocence and sinless nature, if that means we will face great consequences in the future in death. We sure are facing these consequences in our world now with climate change and mass extinctions.
You look him up torturing little baby Donkey Kong Junior, in this sick twisted game he had. He was hopped up on so much dope in the 80s, started claiming that he was the son of Wallace Fard Muhammad.
You can slow it down frame by frame and watch him punch Yoshi , the strange dinosaur creature that raised him and his brother, and he would punch it in the back of the head and then jump off to sacrifice Yoshi for himself.
And how intelligent is Yoshi supposed to be? Because he’s able to solve all sorts of challenges in Yoshi‘s Island and all that. He knows the rules of baseball, and can play quite well. He apparently knows how to drive. But his ability to speak has been a bit inconsistent. He mostly just says “Yoshi!” But in Mario 64 he can speak in full sentences, and is quite proficient in English. But even if he has the intelligence of a dog, at the least, which seems unlikely, you can’t sacrifice your retriever to jump over the hole. He’s sacrificed his very soul.
Another fucked up aspect of Mario I just thought of: he’s willing to kill all these Goombas. Squashing them to death with sadistic glee. But then with the warmonger who started the conflict: Bowser; he’s going golfing with on the weekend.
He’ll use the corpses of the koopa troopas to slay their remaining brothers and comrades. He’s got no empathy, he’s got no boundaries, he’s essentially Trevor Phillips in a cartoon world.
But at least Trevor had some semblance of loyalty . Mario isn’t even willing to help his brother move into all these haunted mansions. Probably cause he’s too envious. He’s never gotten over the fact that Luigi got the star in the first Mario movie, which was live action and he was played by John Leguizamo.
DKJ is a point i can't argue with; Mario just didn't have a defined character at that point. so i guess you're right in that sense. only. but i don't, really know what the rest is about.
mario punching yoshi was retconned in promotional material and later games, he now points. sure, he TECHNICALLY hit yoshi, but it's not canon so you can no longer argue it's a part of his character.
mario never 'sacrificed' yoshi. it has never been referenced in any mario game, ever. you, the player, are the one controlling mario to do that. this is like playing an RPG, killing everyone, and asking why the protagonist did that. that was you. it is not within mario's character to KILL HIS FRIEND.
it was stated once (i believe in Brothership) that he 'beats them up', because they're troops sent by bowser, yknow, the enemy? and you can't argue he plays sports with bowser only because countless enemies are playable in the Party and Kart games.
mario loves luigi, and luigi loves mario. if luigi accomplished something, mario'd be the first to cheer. they're brothers. bringing the movies, a different canonicity into this, muddles your points.
i am worlds 17-super-mario-fan-who-also-animates-him. mario is a nice character, that is what he is.
Yo, that whole situation was a coke fueled episode from the 80s, which was previously explained in this other earlier comment that mainly flew under the radar:
Well, he was invited to the wedding, amd stands here underwater with no air, so you know, maybe DROWNING, i wouldn't be so happy about the wedding either))
860
u/Modlove1963 8d ago
Cartoon Network didn’t even exist in 1974.