Are there Dogs in Heaven?

[Bluegoat]

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

Of course the Catholics are, technically speaking, entirely wrong, but that is totally hilarious. I love All Rocks Go To Heaven! But I wondered what they meant by the first sign that started it all?

I agree, the Presbyterians are very serious, but I would be too if I were a Calvinist!

 

[Marfran]

Of course the Catholics are, technically speaking, entirely wrong, but that is totally hilarious. I love All Rocks Go To Heaven! But I wondered what they meant by the first sign that started it all?

I agree, the Presbyterians are very serious, but I would be too if I were a Calvinist!

It’s the name of a MOVIE!!! All Dogs Go To Heaven. They were probably showing the MOVIE! Some churches do that in the US–show movies in the hall for a social get-together. The church across the street must have taken umbrage, realising or not, that the first post was in reference to the movie being shown! And the Catholics, must have just went on–not wanting to back down from a fight with their favorite neighbors!

Peter is the rock…

SORRY: Everybody can go back to the serious discussion now.

 

[bbentrup]

Michelle Arnold has answered this at least four times. Here are two of her replies.

May 3, '05, 1:15 pm
Re: Do animals have souls?

---

All living things have souls, but only angels and humans have spiritual souls. Animal and plant souls are material principles that cease to exist at death. Angels do not die, and human souls survive the death of the body.

We do not know God’s plans for creation, including animals and plants. A hint that creation may be glorified at the end of time can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
Quote:
For the cosmos, revelation affirms the profound common destiny of the material world and man:

For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God … in hope because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay. … We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies (CCC 1046).

The visible universe, then, is itself destined to be transformed, “so that the world itself, restored to its original state, facing no further obstacles, should be at the service of the just,” sharing their glorification in the risen Jesus Christ (CCC 1047).

In short, it is possible that God may re-create and glorify creation, including animals and plants. We may hope then that it may be possible to meet deceased animal friends in the next life.

Sep 7, '04, 3:33 pm
Re: Do animals go to heaven?

---

Animals have a material soul that ceases to exist when they die. Humans have a spiritual soul that continues to exist after death. But does this mean that animals will not be present in the afterlife? That is a question to which we do not have an answer. There does however seem to be hints that God will restore the universe at the end of time:
Quote:
The visible universe, then, is itself destined to be transformed, “so that the world itself, restored to its original state, facing no further obstacles, should be at the service of the just,” sharing their glorification in the risen Jesus Christ (CCC 1047).

As animals are part of the “visible universe,” it seems possible that they too might share “their glorification in the risen Jesus Christ.” It might be possible that God might also re-create those animals who have been a pleasure and comfort to man in his earthly journey. We don’t know in this life, but it is something for which we can hope.

Explain to your children that heaven will have all that is needed for our perfect happiness. If they need their pet with them in heaven in order to be perfectly happy, their pet will be there. As adults we realize that God alone suffices for perfect happiness; but we also know that God, in his great love for us, gives us more than our mere necessities and that his love is reflected to us in his creation. It may be that our animal friends’ presence in the next life will be God’s gift to us.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Michelle Arnold has answered this at least four times. Here are two of her replies.

I disagree with the last paragraph, because of the way its presented, about God giving us things in order to be perfectly happy. I believe that once we see heaven we will realize that its not “things” or “creatures” that makes us perfectly happy, but instead we will realize that all the good that we perceive in reality ultimately resides in God to a perfect degree. That is not to say that material things are apart of Gods nature, but rather that a thing is good only because of God and not because of the thing in itself, for it has no reality by itself. We will be perfectly happy because of God alone, and not because of material things or creatures. However i do not deny that God may channel that which is good through the metaphor of things; thus perhaps we might experience good through physical representations that are analogous of Good, as well as experience the good in itself, since we are also physical beings.

 

[Bluegoat]

I disagree with the last paragraph, because of the way its presented, about God giving us things in order to be perfectly happy. I believe that once we see heaven we will realize that its not “things” or “creatures” that makes us perfectly happy, but instead we will realize that all the good that we perceive in reality ultimately resides in God to a perfect degree. That is not to say that material things are apart of Gods nature, but rather that a thing is good only because of God and not because of the thing in itself, for it has no reality by itself. We will be perfectly happy because of God alone, and not because of material things or creatures. However i do not deny that God may channel that which is good through the metaphor of things; thus perhaps we might experience good through physical representations that are analogous of Good, as well as experience the good in itself, since we are also physical beings.

I think in many cases with young kids, that final paragraph could be important. Several times with my 4 year old I have had to give a similar explanation on other topics, because she began to be quite upset and even scared. The idea that God would be enough just doesn’t cut it with a four year old, and it didn’t seem productive to let her be really upset over it. Normally I am all for accuracy on theology with children, but I don’t think fear over something that is not really an issue is worthwhile.

 

[Image_of_God]

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.

Dolphin’s are one of my favorite animals. I really want to see one in person. However, that doesn’t change the fact that the intelligence of dolphins is so controversial. Not all scientists agree that dolphins are as extremely smart as a some people believe them to be. A lot of the things dolphins do that people think to be very intellectual-like may only be the use of instinct as this article shows. There is a lot of controversy concerning the intelligence of dolphins so it would only further complicate the discussion to talk about it.

Animals may certainly be present in the New Earth (after the resurrection), but certainly not in Heaven. In order to experience Heaven, it is necessary to have an intellect and reason. Heaven, as Katholish has mentioned, is primarily an intellectual experience, not a material one (at least initially). The Catechism says this:

36 "Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason."11 Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God’s revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created “in the image of God”.

Man can experience Heaven (the fullness of “God’s revelation”) because he is made in God’s image (he has a reason and an intellect). Animals cannot experience any of God’s revelation as they are now because they are not made in God’s image.

 

[Detales]

Methinks, IoG, that you mightily misconstrue heaven and Terra Nova as to time, place, conditons, and probabilities. As one man succinctly put it, “This is always already the other world.” The only division, really, between heaven and you right now, are your thoughts about it. That is a statement of great significance, if you can catch its implied meaning. The Church has been necessarily putting heaven off for its adherents for too long of years, How about a wake up call, and see if animals aren’t included?

 

[wussup]

I find the arguments presented here insufficient to warrant the conclusion.

First, the argument that “In order to experience Heaven, it is necessary to have an intellect and reason.” is faulty for a number of reasons. Logically, the only argument given for this conclusion is that of Aristotelian Forms. There is a lot of work out there expressing this but one readers here might find interesting is a paper written by David Banach of St. Anselm College, What Killed Substantial Form, @ anselmphilosophy.com/substance/. (note this is but one of dozens of papers showing weaknesses and faults in Forms). Since Forms are a false argument ontologically speaking, it is not valid.

Second, even if the Aristotelian Forms is a valid argument, I see no reason how the idea of Forms as Aristotle developed it can logically exclude animals et al from having an immortal soul. I think the argument presented is not sufficient to warrant the conclusion. Jesus was aware of even small birds, that must mean he must have some intellectual interaction with them. And if he says he has an intellectual interaction with ‘even sparrows’ who are we to say they do not have sufficient intellect to have an immortal soul.

I am not saying they do, but…I am pointing out a weakness in the argument, specifically it is anthropocentric.

 

[Detales]

For what it is worth, What we call “form” is not even remotely what it appears to be. The appearance of forms is, as so many other things are, a matter of perspective and limitations of spectral awareness. We know, for instance, that the nucleus of a hydrogen atom the size of baseball would have its electron about two miles away, and about the size of a grain of sand. and the electron has no real location, only probability. It exists and it doesn’t. All that is simplistically put, but that’s how solid we are. If all the space was squeezed out of an average man he would be a speck on that head of a pin. There is your form.

So form is primarily a complexity of energy patternings which at the level of electrons is constantly popping in and out of existence. Mysteries abound at this level of observation. And we are not even ordinarily aware that we are mostly empty space. And yet we exist.So whatever “solidity” we have as forms is referential to scale and organization of patterns of energy. But according to what? At the level of atomic particles one can hardly tell a dog from air or from a rock or from a person. Why would the organizing principle of any of these things be different? They are, in the last analysis, of a piece. The only difference is that at our level of perception we see that we include other levels of organization and transcend them.

Atoms include sub atomic particles, but sub atomic particle don’t have to be atoms. Molecules include atoms, but atoms don’t have to be molecules, Simple compounds can make complex ones, but don’t have to. But the complex ones include the lower ones and transcend them. And so on and so forth up to man.

At our"level" we note that chimps have about a 2% or less difference from us in DNA. So is it about there that there is suddenly an extra component called “soul?” Or does that evolve as well? Do chimps have “proto-souls?” It seems that the idea of inclusion and transcendence would have them at least closer to having souls than amoebas.

What interests me, personally, in all of this, is that it seems that the changing of forms from energy to humans, and who know what beyond, is proceeding at a rate beyond chance. I don’t remember who, right now, but some scientists have worked that out. I also can’t see that individual species, including Man, were specially created.

What I do think is that Life is a manifestation as form only secondarily. I think that Life is a pressure equatable to God. That pressure exerts itself energetically as discovery in the organization of more and more complex and more and more inclusive forms. So I don’t think God is done discovering Self just yet. I think that perhaps in the relatively near future there may be Homo Novis, which in its Neo-Catholicism (God save us!) will be debating if Homo Sap has a soul. But maybe we will be spiritually and culturally civilized by then and such a debate won’t be even imaginable, even to including dogs.

 

[wussup]

I think that perhaps in the relatively near future there may be Homo Novis, which in its Neo-Catholicism (God save us!) will be debating if Homo Sap has a soul. But maybe we will be spiritually and culturally civilized by then and such a debate won’t be even imaginable, even to including dogs.

Ha! It seems the RCC has made ‘soul’ and ‘form’ almost synonymous, with ‘form’ being the name when a rational argument is trying to be made to ‘prove’ the soul. Who am I to argue with one of the greatest thinkers in history (Aristotle). It is clear we have two aspects: the physical body and the spiritual body. In LDS terms we consider these to make up the Soul. We believe the resurrection of Christ (the physical taking up of a physical body) will be passed on to all people, but the resurrected body will be perfect with out blemish and immortal. As I learn more about the RCC I discover an interesting Dichotomy between the amazingly spiritual and the absurdity of trying to philosophize God. I don’t know what I was expecting when I asked this threads question, but relearning Plato’s and Aristotle’s Forms, and the various derivatives was not it. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that the RCC is deeply committed to the ideas associated with Forms to the point that rejection of them would lead to grave difficulties.

Your point regarding the DNA is exactly what I was leading to earlier. One Bluegoat hinted at (thanks for the reading reference, I’ll see if I can find it).

Another question: When I mentioned the severely deformed child missing a brain, the point was made it was not the reality of the situation, but the nature of the human that made that person a rational being. (If by this it is meant that individual is perfect as a ‘soul’, though it’s existence in this reality is severely limited by the birth defect. This I agree with). Does this RCC concept of Forms include the idea that man in this reality is imperfect, but when he is resurrected he will achieve a fullness of the potential God made in him when He created that individual. I.e., is that severely handicapped child have just as powerful a spirit, but its earthly vessel is incapable of expressing it. Also, do we have a limitation on our spirit as mortals in this Earthly reality that we won’t have (again, a restoration) as immortal resurrected beings?

 

[Katholish]

Wussup,

I wouldn’t want to get caught up on simply what we call things. If the word “form” has too much baggage, which it well might since it has been used in different ways in philosophy. Perhaps breaking down the argument that dogs cannot go to Heaven and examining all of the premises would prove beneficial, then you can direct the conversation to those premises which are at the heart of any disagreement.

I’ll try my best to put this in an easy to follow format.

Premise A: God is immaterial.
Premise B: No purely material thing can have true union/communion with an immaterial thing.
Conclusion 1: No purely material thing can have union/communion with God.

Premise C: Heaven is union/communion with God where He is perceived directly “face to face”
Premise D (Conclusion 1): No purely material thing can have union/communion with God.
Conclusion 2: No purely material thing can attain Heaven.

Premise E: Dog are purely material things
Premise F (Conclusion 2): No purely material thing can attain Heaven.
Conclusion 3: No dogs can attain Heaven.

I am pretty sure I have this in a proper logical form, but if you don’t think it is a valid structure, please say some thing. I am pretty sure you wouldn’t disagree with all of these premises, but I don’t really know where the problem is yet, so I will wait for you to point to it. I suspect you might have a problem with Premise E, in which case we can direct the conversation there, but I am just guessing.

 

[Image_of_God]

Methinks, IoG, that you mightily misconstrue heaven and Terra Nova as to time, place, conditons, and probabilities. As one man succinctly put it, “This is always already the other world.” The only division, really, between heaven and you right now, are your thoughts about it. That is a statement of great significance, if you can catch its implied meaning. The Church has been necessarily putting heaven off for its adherents for too long of years, How about a wake up call, and see if animals aren’t included?

Because we are use to seeing things within a timeline I state that Heaven comes before the New Earth. It will certainly not be that way for the souls in Heaven already, since they are outside of time. But from the material perspective, there is a time difference between when say your grandfather dies and goes to Heaven and when his body is resurrect and the the New Earth comes about. I am speaking from the perspective of someone in time, which is subjective, not objective.

I might be misunderstanding your quote, but if this sin-filled world is Heaven, then it is certainly not the kind from the Bible!

 

[Image_of_God]

I find the arguments presented here insufficient to warrant the conclusion.

First, the argument that “In order to experience Heaven, it is necessary to have an intellect and reason.” is faulty for a number of reasons. Logically, the only argument given for this conclusion is that of Aristotelian Forms. There is a lot of work out there expressing this but one readers here might find interesting is a paper written by David Banach of St. Anselm College, What Killed Substantial Form, @ anselmphilosophy.com/substance/. (note this is but one of dozens of papers showing weaknesses and faults in Forms). Since Forms are a false argument ontologically speaking, it is not valid.

Second, even if the Aristotelian Forms is a valid argument, I see no reason how the idea of Forms as Aristotle developed it can logically exclude animals et al from having an immortal soul. I think the argument presented is not sufficient to warrant the conclusion. Jesus was aware of even small birds, that must mean he must have some intellectual interaction with them. And if he says he has an intellectual interaction with ‘even sparrows’ who are we to say they do not have sufficient intellect to have an immortal soul.

I am not saying they do, but…I am pointing out a weakness in the argument, specifically it is anthropocentric.

To be honest, though I’ve read some Aristotle and he is one of my favorite philosophers, I am not very familiar with the Aristotelian concept of Forms. If my arguments seem to be drenched with Aristotelian thinking, it is certainly do to the little reading of Aristotle that I’ve done or the large amount of reading of Aquinas that I’ve done. My line of thinking is not entirely or even mostly Aristotelian. I admit however, I am an imperfect, but beginning philosopher, trying to be a son and defender of the Church.

 

[wussup]

Wussup,

I wouldn’t want to get caught up on simply what we call things. If the word “form” has too much baggage, which it well might since it has been used in different ways in philosophy. Perhaps breaking down the argument that dogs cannot go to Heaven and examining all of the premises would prove beneficial, then you can direct the conversation to those premises which are at the heart of any disagreement.

I’ll try my best to put this in an easy to follow format.

Premise A: God is immaterial.
Premise B: No purely material thing can have true union/communion with an immaterial thing.
Conclusion 1: No purely material thing can have union/communion with God.

Premise C: Heaven is union/communion with God where He is perceived directly “face to face”
Premise D (Conclusion 1): No purely material thing can have union/communion with God.
Conclusion 2: No purely material thing can attain Heaven.

Premise E: Dog are purely material things
Premise F (Conclusion 2): No purely material thing can attain Heaven.
Conclusion 3: No dogs can attain Heaven..

I believe this structure to be sound, though I was never really good at spotting the syllogistic errors in logic.

Equally briefly;
I believe premise A is in error as I do not think God is either ‘material’ or ‘immaterial’. I do not think the universe is classified in the Form of ‘material’ or ‘immaterial’, but is rather a more…elegant makeup. I think the RCC has it right when explaining God is unknowable in such a sense.

The conclusion is in error because premise A is wrong. Furthermore, per scripture, God can have communion with whomever he chooses, when the power of the Holy Ghost supports the supplicant. I cannot express strongly enough how I think we cannot limit Gods ability to commune with his creation.

Premises c,d, and conclusion-Sure, I can see that one must be cleansed before such a communion can occur, and would accept (to a limited extent) that Heaven would include such a communion

I fail to see why Dogs would warrant such a classification. While I reject the concept of ‘purely material’ etc., I understand the spirit of what you are trying to say. It has been my experience that dogs can logically think. I would contend that they have by nature a much stronger intellect than their earthly material form allows expression. I have no more hard proof of this than you have proof against.

 

[wussup]

If my arguments seem to be drenched with Aristotelian thinking, it is certainly do to the little reading of Aristotle that I’ve done or the large amount of reading of Aquinas that I’ve done.

I was unaware how vital Greek thought, Aristotle in particular, is to Catholic theology. My education on this was more of a group of survey’s on philosophy. I also covered a much broader range to include Indian and Oriental philosophies. From the discussions I have been having recently it seems Catholic theology is inseparable from Aristotelian philosophy. I do not envy having to defend a religion from a philosophical point of view, particularly one with, as Katholish says, baggage. The RCC has a history of backing itself into a corner by grasping prevailing common knowledge, proclaiming it divine, and then finding the prevailing common knowledge demonstrably false.

 

[Detales]

Wussup~~"* The RCC has a history of backing itself into a corner by grasping prevailing common knowledge, proclaiming it divine, and then finding the prevailing common knowledge demonstrably false.*"

Yes, that pretty much describes how the church divorced itself from its pagan roots in its first three centuries Took some doing; traces of that process yet remain as pointed to in things like the confession of Eusebius as to the nature of his history, and through a survey of religions earlier than and contemporary with christianism. I mention that because it is this divergence from the root of esoteric perception that is the preventative factor in the exoteric Catholic’s understanding of soul. In this regard, it would be of interest to anyone who is serious about this question to understand the difference between an ascending and descending form of religion and the applicable ideas from each.

Unfortunately, this is one of the prime areas where the mine=right, not mine=wrong syndrome kicks in big time, revealing the unwillingness and inability of many to impartially examine the ways and means of the acquisition of their beliefs. This omission of self knowledge is at the bottom of much emotionalism and unnecessary antagonism between religions, because it puts debate on the hook of acquired knowledge, or contents, as distinct from on the line of Universal principles common to our being created in the Image and Likeness of God, which has to do with Substance.

What I mean is that when it comes to religious beliefs, we very strongly tend to confuse “I/we” with “it.” We so strongly associate our acquisition of any belief with self that we neglect to remember that it is an add-on, like software, not hard wiring as Self. See if you can even consider the implications of that simple idea, and you might find yourself a step or a fews closer to discovering who is in heaven or what Soul might be. Such an inquiry might also bring one closer to an understanding of Wussup’s assertion that God is neither material nor immaterial, save I would add that god is both/and, but not necessarily.

 

[Katholish]

Wussup,

I believe premise A is in error as I do not think God is either ‘material’ or ‘immaterial’. I do not think the universe is classified in the Form of ‘material’ or ‘immaterial’, but is rather a more…elegant makeup. I think the RCC has it right when explaining God is unknowable in such a sense.

The Roman Catholic Church does not say that God is unknowable in regards to His immateriality, nor to many of His other attributes. Ultimately His nature is far superior to us and we can never fully comprehend Him, but we certainly can know things.

That fact that God is purely immaterial should be apparent when one looks at what it means to be “material”. The ancients defined matter as “having parts”. Anything that was divisible into parts was matter, anything that was perfectly simple and not divisible had to be immaterial. Modern science doesn’t really find any fault with this definition even though we know a great deal more about matter than the ancients did. Futhermore, there are the concepts of “potentiality” and “actuality”. Something was is in potency has the ability to change. Matter, by its very nature, is something changable.

Taking both of these understandings into consideration, St. Thomas Aquinas (who is the central figure of Catholic philosophy) gives a proof for the immateriality of God, for to say that God is in any way matterial implies that He must be mutable (changable) and have composition (not be completely simple).

The conclusion is in error because premise A is wrong. Furthermore, per scripture, God can have communion with whomever he chooses, when the power of the Holy Ghost supports the supplicant. I cannot express strongly enough how I think we cannot limit Gods ability to commune with his creation.

What scripture passage are you referring to? I grant that God can have communion with people who are partly immaterial, but where does God have communion with non-rational animals, trees, or rocks? Certainly He has absolute authority over them and can “bend them to His will” as it were, but He cannot have communion with something that isn’t there to have communion with (i.e. another will or intellect). Now, you you are arguing that dogs are partly immaterial, that is one thing, but would not change the truth of the conclusion that communion with God requires immateriality.

I fail to see why Dogs would warrant such a classification. While I reject the concept of ‘purely material’ etc., I understand the spirit of what you are trying to say. It has been my experience that dogs can logically think. I would contend that they have by nature a much stronger intellect than their earthly material form allows expression. I have no more hard proof of this than you have proof against.

In saying that dogs are rational, you are saying that dogs are people (not humans, but people). I am aware of cultures which believe the souls of their ancestors inhabit the bodies of animals, but I have never heard the claim that those animals are actually rational by nature. It is a completely novel notion so far as I am aware, and one which you admit you cannot provide any logical proof for. On the other hand, if animals had free will, you would expect to see some evidence of this over the past 4,000 years of which there is none. Is it possible to have an intellect and will and never exercise them? Not for an entire healthy species.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I think in many cases with young kids, that final paragraph could be important. Several times with my 4 year old I have had to give a similar explanation on other topics, because she began to be quite upset and even scared. The idea that God would be enough just doesn’t cut it with a four year old, and it didn’t seem productive to let her be really upset over it. Normally I am all for accuracy on theology with children, but I don’t think fear over something that is not really an issue is worthwhile.

Okay, fair enough. But do you think my arguement was well written?

 

[Sonny1954]

I am not a logician or a theologian. But I do believe that nothing of God’s creation is destroyed in eternity. God declared the creation of animals and plants to be “good.” So I do believe that there are animals and plants in heaven. Perhaps not **this specific dog or that particular **carrot, because they do not have the will to choose good over evil. But there are dogs, carrots and I suspect plants and animals of which we do not now have knowledge all over heaven. Not because THEY are good, but because GOD is good.

 

[Bluegoat]

I am not a logician or a theologian. But I do believe that nothing of God’s creation is destroyed in eternity. God declared the creation of animals and plants to be “good.” So I do believe that there are animals and plants in heaven. Perhaps not **this specific dog or that particular **carrot, because they do not have the will to choose good over evil. But there are dogs, carrots and I suspect plants and animals of which we do not now have knowledge all over heaven. Not because THEY are good, but because GOD is good.

Why in Heaven though, and not after the last Judgment, which the Church allows for? That is, after all, when things are all supposed to be restored.