Are there Dogs in Heaven?

[wussup]

I just want to make sure I understand ya’ll correctly. Are suggesting the arguments Aristotle and Plato initiated regarding the Forms is actually ontologically sound explanation of existence, rather than an epistemological explanation of how knowledge is gained and communicated?

 

[Bluegoat]

A rational being is one which can grasp certain changeless principles, principles which exist apart from physical reality. Mathematics would be an example.

These rational principles are changeless and timeless, and rational creatures understand them as such. Their souls, which are able to apprehend these principles, are also in some sense changeless and timeless. In the case of angels they are really changeless and timeless - with humans, who are not only rational but also animals, they are in some sense subject to change and they exist in time, as they can gain information from the senses, learn new things, and have experiences over time.

Now to us, that seems obvious, but in many ways, it is rather revolutionary. The ancient philosophers thought that when the human body died, all of that information learned through sense and experience, that is through the body, would dissipate along with the body itself, and only the rational principles would remain. So a “soul” would not be really recognizable as a particular person. The Church, however, teaches that body and soul are one, and so says that we retain all that we were in life in death, and of course ultimately we even get our bodies back.

Animals, so far as we know, are not rational in the same way as humans. They cannot connect the dots and imagine changeless immaterial principles, (though there are a few that come very close, and some might argue the point.) So when an animal dies, its body begins to break down, and its soul, which is entirely attached to the body, also dissipates. So, no dogs in Heaven.

However, all hope is not lost. What about after the end of the world, when we get our bodies back? Could the Earth not be remade with dogs in their bodies? The Church does not know, but says that it is certainly possible. Some people think that the new Earth will have an example of each kind of thing that existed, and some think that there will be a dog for everyone who wants one. Since it will undoubtedly be perfect, and dogs were considered a good thing to create in the first place, I am inclined to think that there will indeed be dogs.

 

[Bluegoat]

Well thanks.

Let me just clarify one thing, when we talk about the classical understanding of “forms” this can mean two different (though related) things. Plato thought that forms actually existed independently on their own somewhere in the “realm of the forms”. Aristotle taught that forms are real, but don’t exist completely independently even though they are still universal. As far as I am concerned, Platonic Forms bad, Aristotelian forms good.

For the record, Aristotle thought that there were some forms that existed independently, like God.

 

[wussup]

A rational being is one which can grasp certain changeless principles, principles which exist apart from physical reality. Mathematics would be an example.

I work as a manager of a Long John Silvers and can testify that many of our brethren (and sistern) cannot do mathematics. Does that mean they are not rational beings?

I think we fall into a trap of anthropomorphizing animals. I see here a lot of comments about what a rational being is, but fail to see where there is a connection between this and ‘going to Heaven’. Trying not to get off topic, but do Catholics not believe in the Earth becoming cleansed and renew (Rev 21:1)? And if the Earth shall be cleansed and become part of the Kingdom of Heaven (or Be the Kingdom of Heaven) does that mean the Earth has a rational soul? What about a child with severe anencephaly? Clearly, that child will never be able to perform any cognitive skills. Is that child then considered soulless?

Please don’t take these questions as interrogatory, but rather trying to understand the logic behind it. I see two great faults in this approach to what goes to Heaven.

First, a decision has been made arbitrarily apart God what goes to Heaven (for the sake of convention, is it OK to call this redemption or being redeemed?). I see in the scriptures plenty of statements about what Man must do to be redeemed, but the only statements regarding other animals are blank. We certainly read of other Animals in Heaven (the classic lamb lying down with the lion being a classic example). What scriptural statements are there that say that only man is redeemed?

Second, even assuming that one requires a being to be rational, how can we say what is rational? I am not one of those animals have rights to types, hey, I eat meat and wear leather. Looking at the example of this thread, I have owned dogs all my life. I see them constantly control their passions. They know it is taboo to eat from another hand then mine. They never eat off the table. They resist the temptation to smell other dog poop (usually). They have an ability to pretend and create forms (albeit in a very limited way). Is their intellect as powerful as a humans, surely not. They have the ability to create and enjoy fiction, implying imagination.

As I have read the responses here I have gone back and looked into some of the ancient and medieval philosophers works into immaterial forms and the soul. These forms have been discredited regarding ontology a long time ago. When I took Ancient Philosophy my professer briefly explained some of the outgrowths of Forms and its impact on the medieval Christian Church. I did not know that the Catholic Church still considered forms to be real in the sense Plato, Aristotle, and the rest seemed to believe. Frankly, I find this very surprising, if true.

 

[Bluegoat]

I work as a manager of a Long John Silvers and can testify that many of our brethren (and sistern) cannot do mathematics. Does that mean they are not rational beings?

I think we fall into a trap of anthropomorphizing animals. I see here a lot of comments about what a rational being is, but fail to see where there is a connection between this and ‘going to Heaven’. Trying not to get off topic, but do Catholics not believe in the Earth becoming cleansed and renew (Rev 21:1)? And if the Earth shall be cleansed and become part of the Kingdom of Heaven (or Be the Kingdom of Heaven) does that mean the Earth has a rational soul? What about a child with severe anencephaly? Clearly, that child will never be able to perform any cognitive skills. Is that child then considered soulless?

Please don’t take these questions as interrogatory, but rather trying to understand the logic behind it. I see two great faults in this approach to what goes to Heaven.

First, a decision has been made arbitrarily apart God what goes to Heaven (for the sake of convention, is it OK to call this redemption or being redeemed?). I see in the scriptures plenty of statements about what Man must do to be redeemed, but the only statements regarding other animals are blank. We certainly read of other Animals in Heaven (the classic lamb lying down with the lion being a classic example). What scriptural statements are there that say that only man is redeemed?

Second, even assuming that one requires a being to be rational, how can we say what is rational? I am not one of those animals have rights to types, hey, I eat meat and wear leather. Looking at the example of this thread, I have owned dogs all my life. I see them constantly control their passions. They know it is taboo to eat from another hand then mine. They never eat off the table. They resist the temptation to smell other dog poop (usually). They have an ability to pretend and create forms (albeit in a very limited way). Is their intellect as powerful as a humans, surely not. They have the ability to create and enjoy fiction, implying imagination.

As I have read the responses here I have gone back and looked into some of the ancient and medieval philosophers works into immaterial forms and the soul. These forms have been discredited regarding ontology a long time ago. When I took Ancient Philosophy my professer briefly explained some of the outgrowths of Forms and its impact on the medieval Christian Church. I did not know that the Catholic Church still considered forms to be real in the sense Plato, Aristotle, and the rest seemed to believe. Frankly, I find this very surprising, if true.

No, even a human who is severely disabled is still by nature a rational being. (Mathematics was only an example of something rational and immaterial and changeless, it’s not the only such thing.) So, to put it in practical terms, like a person born without legs, a person with a cognitive impairment will find that in the new Earth, these defects of material will be perfected and their natures will be perfectly fulfilled. In fact the same goes for each human being to some extent. I hope I will be much better at math by then, along with the Long John Silvers employees.

You seem to be mixed up between Heaven and the remade universe after the last judgement. Perhaps you could clarify your understanding of this, since it doesn’t seem to be the same as the Catholic one.

As for forms, yes, the Church still believes in them, or at least many theologians and philosophers do. Outside the Church there are also still many professional philosophers who are Platonists or neo-Platonists, so it is not confined to the Church, whatever your professor said. Was he an American? They seem to go in for a kind of emperisism to a greater degree than those from continental Europe or even Britain.

 

[wussup]

I hope I will be much better at math by then, along with the Long John Silvers employees.

You seem to be mixed up between Heaven and the remade universe after the last judgement. Perhaps you could clarify your understanding of this, since it doesn’t seem to be the same as the Catholic one.

As for forms, yes, the Church still believes in them, or at least many theologians and philosophers do.

I only hire people who can demonstrate basic math and algebra skills. I go through a lot of applicants, but in a small restaurant like the one I run I hire only manager-trainees and managers have to understand basic algebra. It is the customer I have problems with. I am daily amazed and in wonder how some people survive in this world.

I would prefer not to go into my understanding of Heaven and the remade universe because I am interested in the Catholic arguments regarding the soul (which ultimately is what this question is really about).

Forms, as I studied it, (my prof was an American to my recollection, I was only 19 at the time and while I was a curious student, I was not a particularly attentive student) were explained in the context of language conventions. It was explained that it is through the concept of the universal that advanced communication was possible. It was explained that certain aspects of language were detailed by Aristotle (and Plato) and that most of these aspects were nouns. My prof went into great detail about the limitations these forms express when addressing verbs and the problem with unity vs. plurality of forms. I do understand the attractiveness of seeing an ‘ideal’ explanation of the duality of distinguishing matter in both substance and form. There was a word for that that escapes me… hilo-something…I tried a search…some help here… While I don’t remember the exact word, the concept I understand.

 

[Detales]

Perhaps the word was “holographic” as in the holographic Universe?

 

[wussup]

found it, hylomorphism.

 

[Katholish]

There is a lot for me to address if I go point by point, so perhaps mentioning some key points would be better.

Lets look at the Catholic Church’s understanding of Heaven in relation to her understanding of “soul”.

Heaven is a physical place only in a secondary sense. Primarily, Heaven is the direct perception of God in the Beatific Vision. This perception is not sensory, but intellectual. The Divine Nature cannot be seen through the senses since God is not a material being. This is way a purely material being cannot experience Heaven, because only intellectual beings can perceive the Beatific Vision which is Heaven by definition. I think that should start to clarify some things.

As for forms, I fear I might have made things more confusing then they needed to by by introducing a more complicated topic. Catholic philosophy has it has existed since the Middle Ages accepts Aristotle’s view of forms (which I tried to explain is very different from Plato’s view). I think that when you mention idea of forms was ontologically discredited, you might be thinking strictly of the Platonic forms. While I could try to explain Aristotle more in depth (I have had about 10 courses in Scholastic philosophy which is Aristotelian as part of my Philosophy minor), I am not sure it will really be that helpful to the topic at hand–not nearly as much as hopefully the explanation of the Beatific Vision will be.

 

[wussup]

While I could try to explain Aristotle more in depth (I have had about 10 courses in Scholastic philosophy which is Aristotelian as part of my Philosophy minor), I am not sure it will really be that helpful to the topic at hand–not nearly as much as hopefully the explanation of the Beatific Vision will be.

Ha! One of my profs told me I was cursed with curiosity and opening yourself up to my inquisitiveness…just don’t tempt me man!

I think the penny has finally hit the bottom of the well and I understand some of the real issues behind this. It is the lack of corporeality of God that keeps non-rational animals (essentially, non-humans) from being in the presence/worship of a God who transcends the common senses. I understand the difference between Plato and Aristotelian Forms. My focus in college was a minor in philosophy and major in biology. I have the minor part done but never finished the last 18 hours of biology. Minoring in philosophy only scratches the surface, however, I remember my prof was dismissive on the Forms, both Plato’s version and Aristotle’s teachings.

 

[tonyrey]

Some Catholic theologians have taught that unbaptized babies went to Limbo and not to heaven. The Church now wisely teaches that “God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but He Himself is not bound by His sacraments”. It seems obvious that God is not bound by any human interpretations of heaven. If an animal gives a person great joy and consolation on earth why should it be consigned to a scrapbook of the past? Religious dogma has caused so much unnecessary misery that it should always be viewed in the context of love and openness to new ideas…

 

[wussup]

Does acceptance or rejection of this doctrine have a factor on Roman Catholic Church standing? (i.e., can a person get sanctioned in the RCC for rejecting this principle?)

 

[Detales]

The baptism issue reminds me again of the Eskimo who was quizzing the missionary on the subject of conversion. he aske, “You mean, if I neere heard of Jesus I would go to heaven, but now that I ahve I might not?” the missionayry said, “Well, yes.” The Eskimo exploded, saying “Then why did you tell me about Him?!”

 

[MindOverMatter]

1.As I explained on another subject, animals lack reason, an intellect and a will, which are required to have a rational soul.

2.Animals cannot contemplate their own existence nor can they contemplate abstract principles. .

What about dolphins?

Also, Just because an animal cannot have the degree of relationship we will have with God, does not mean that they will not be present in the eternal hear-after.

 

[Bluegoat]

What about dolphins?

Also, Just because an animal cannot have the degree of relationship we will have with God, does not mean that they will not be present in the eternal hear-after.

What about dolphins?

So far as we know, they are not rational in the same way humans are. If that is incorrect, it would seem likely that they would indeed have immortal souls.

However, it also seems likely it would have been mentioned in Scripture, so that we could avoid inadvertently treating dolphins like animals, which would be a terrible thing indeed if they were rational.

It would certainly make eating tuna a lot more controversial!

 

[Bluegoat]

Forms, as I studied it, (my prof was an American to my recollection, I was only 19 at the time and while I was a curious student, I was not a particularly attentive student) were explained in the context of language conventions. It was explained that it is through the concept of the universal that advanced communication was possible. It was explained that certain aspects of language were detailed by Aristotle (and Plato) and that most of these aspects were nouns. My prof went into great detail about the limitations these forms express when addressing verbs and the problem with unity vs. plurality of forms. I do understand the attractiveness of seeing an ‘ideal’ explanation of the duality of distinguishing matter in both substance and form. There was a word for that that escapes me… hilo-something…I tried a search…some help here… While I don’t remember the exact word, the concept I understand.

A lot of modern philosophers reduce all philosophy to language. I am not sure if that reflects this man’s POV, but he did not understand either the Platonic, Neoplatonic, or Aristotelian concept of forms as those people themselves understood them - or at least that isn’t how he was explaining them. In my experience that is always a bad sign. When teaching the history of philosophy, it is important to teach a concept or system as it was understood by the people who believed it. You can’t understand it or eventually look at it critically otherwise.

If you are interested in a really good but short intro to ancient philosophy, I would recommend An Introduction to Ancient Philosophy by A.H. Armstrong. I think it is still in print. It covers from the pre-Socratics to Augustine, and addresses the relationship between ancient and Christian philosophy specifically.

 

[Detales]

I like the question about dolphins. As to whether they have souls our not is still answerable by post #20 above. It also might be useful to remember that the rational variety of intelligence is only one of several, and has only the kind of emphasis we put on it as a remnant of the Age of Enlightenment. The chief fault of that period was to make intellect king by largely eschewing meaning, or the interior, experiential aspect of people and groups. It did us the favor of separating religion, politics, and science, but it did it at the expense of viewing the world primarily as exteriors or “its,” rather the “I’s” or “me’s” or “we’s” except as the functions of social groups and individuals. The animal world suffered greatly at this time with maltreatment and even vivisections. It was the time of triumph of cerebralism over faith, but at some great cost as well.

There is also the question of why animals are not included in the Scriptures, save, I believe, a cat in the Gospel of Thomas, and an ***, pigs and the passengers of the Ark. Oh. and a serpent that may not have been that at all. But the lack of explicit kindness to animals has been noted by other religions and taken as meaning that christianism is a lesser faith than many on that account, particularly in the East.

But that the question of animals having souls comes up at all reveals Catholicism as a somewhat mechanistic and materialistic belief system, clearly dualistic in its foundation. This was never meant to be, as far as I can tell, in the original Teaching, which was non-dualistic, and in the esoteric form of Christianity, still is. That is to say… well, to say it would be misleading, so I won’t. I’ll just say again, it would behoove all christianists to examine the origins of their faith.

 

[wussup]

However, it also seems likely it would have been mentioned in Scripture, so that we could avoid inadvertently treating dolphins like animals, which would be a terrible thing indeed if they were rational.

It would certainly make eating tuna a lot more controversial!

I think that would be an understatement. I was wondering how long it would take someone to point this out. The consequences of a non-human having an immortal soul lead to an entire series of questions the RCC does not answer satisfactorily.

-Where do the concepts of resurrection, redemption, salvation, and Christ’s Atonement apply to non-human immortal souls (imo, none as these souls would be born and live in a state of Garden of Eden like innocence.)
-The risk of taking man out of the center of the universe has always been a challenge for the RCC, and such a doctrine would do exactly that, or at least force man to share in the light of God
-Man would have a lot of esplaining to do to God if he were treating other Souls with whom God had a special love for in any but the most respectful and responsible ways

Seems to me awfully risky to place one’s doctrine in the hands of a non-christian pagans philosophy from 2500 years ago.

 

[Bluegoat]

But that the question of animals having souls comes up at all reveals Catholicism as a somewhat mechanistic and materialistic belief system, clearly dualistic in its foundation. This was never meant to be, as far as I can tell, in the original Teaching, which was non-dualistic, and in the esoteric form of Christianity, still is. That is to say… well, to say it would be misleading, so I won’t. I’ll just say again, it would behoove all christianists to examine the origins of their faith.

A lot of Christians are really treading the line of dualism. Not because they are bad or are really doing so intentionally, but because they weren’t clearly taught.

A good example is Heaven. Many people think Christian doctrine tells us we die, we go to Heaven. Clearly our bodies rot here on Earth, and we say there are only souls in Heaven, not bodies. For some reason, they don’t learn any more. Well, that does indeed seem to support a dualistic viewpoint, and people adopt it without realizing it’s implications.

And in the case of soul, people are often taught, erroneously, that only humans have souls. A few are taught told immortal souls, but they seldom learn that there are souls that are not immortal, or what a soul is even.

I haven’t been able to understand why these things don’t get passed on in Sunday school classes. Especially about what happens after Heaven.

 

[Marfran]

reminds me of this

freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2228641/posts

This IS good!! Is this for real? Were these churches across the street from one another?