Are there Dogs in Heaven?

[Detales]

The idea of restoration in Catholicism is primarily exoteric. You will notice that most of the questions here regarding heaven and soul have to do with location primarily, and condition secondarily. “You” *go to *heaven or hell because… The result of action is movement to a place to be with in an objective sense. The questions deal primarily with salvific matters in the realm of “it,” or the outside of things, or actions having interior consequences. Thus you have such considerations in this system as actual persons or items being considered as entering or gaining a state. In other words the Catholic language surrounding salvation uses many such words as: with, to, in, when, go, see, etc. It is the language of objectification.

Meaning has little to do with the dynamic, whereas Meaning is the actual primary relationship with Deity. The considerations of Meaning in esoteric paths have primacy and are thereby in fact more useful in salvific matters, as those considerations have to do with “I” and “we” or the inside of things. In esoteric systems the considerations are primarily of Identity, or the significance of states of being, and therefore of maturity in awareness.

It is interesting in this regard that most of the posters on here are invested in the drama of being right according to dogma, whereas the esotericists are concerned with waking up and being aware of Self, or of the nature of the individual per se as a receptacle of thoughts that may include dogma but which is primarily “spirit.” It is the nature and conditon of that spirit apart from its contents realtive to dogma that is the concern of the esotericist.

Whereas the exotericist, such as the ordinary Catholic is concerned with being right according to an acquired system of thought that (s)he tends to mistake for Self or soul, or at least the one and only way, the esotericist looks inward at the map provided by the understanding that the feeling of “I” is the key to understanding one’s being made in the Image and Likeness of God. Of the two modes, the latter, or esoteric, is bound to be the more accurate as it is independent of the exigencies of imposing a pre-designed paradigm over one’s experience. One can go direct.

This yields a meaning of Soul that is experientially valid as distinct from dogmatically asserted. There is no dogma and her litter of poopies in heaven. There is BEing, Understanding, Significance, Satisfaction, yet all those words are very partial and inadequate. The one thing there is not is location. The restoration mentioned above has to do with the regaining of understanding of Source as Self. No, not personal self and in you and me, but of the meaning of “I” as Soul. That I includes all forms. Think about it. If you are not present as “I” to witness the world, where is it? The world is always and only withing your sense of “I.” That is why we say that the world is contents and that the Soul, or feeling of “I” is the key to the understanding of God. It, the “I” is experientially linked to Substance, whereas dogma is strictly descriptive of intellectual interpretation formalized into a belief system. Such as system as contents cannot hold the container. It is software. The Soul is hardware. It is durable beyond its contents including the sense of body. In fact the body that is resurrected is in Fact the body of Understanding of the Nature of Soul. Then it is known that “I” will always have the body necessary for expression if the desire to do so is attended to. Including a dog, if you like.

Interesting related sidebar for those who like TV sitcoms: The closing credits of *Spin City *end with the picture of a dog with a Frisbee in its mouth, and the tag line is "Sit, Ubu, sit!" But the last word spoken over the Lottery Hill logo is "Mu!" [ibiblio.org/zen/gateless-gate/1.html](http://www.ibiblio.org/zen/gateless-gate/1.html)

 

[Marfran]

Animals, are perhaps, more important to our lives and to our spiritual growth, than some people give them credit for, or realize. Their purpose on earth, I believe, is that of teaching us, or of giving our souls the opportunity to understand and grow closer to–not them, the animal–but to God the Creator.

Even the argument or discussion here–souls vs. no souls, vs. what kind of soul, does not even scratch the surface. Notice I did not say that “animals” are perhaps more important, but that I said that they are perhaps more important to ***our lives ***and to our spiritual growth.

I understand that people love their pets, consider them part of the family, and can not fathom that they would not be with them in the hereafter–or that God would create them and take them away, permanently…

And then there are people who seize on the teaching that animals do not have immortal souls…Ah ha!!! This means they are only objects, material things for this earth, unimportant in God’s eyes, unimportant to us humans too–only important enough to be our food or for other discardable purposes…

Well, I propose that both of these trains of thought are wrong. Animals were created by God, they are loved by God, and they have more purpose to our lives than many of us realize. We humans are less than God, less than the angels. Animals are less than us humans, in many ways, but can help us on our spiritual journeys.

Parents are often encouraged to get their children pets. Taking care of a living thing, nurturing it, helps a child to learn to be responsible, thoughtful, caring, considerate… But I don’t think that their utility (spiritual utility) ends there. What can we adults **learn **from animals? What do they have to teach us? These lesser beings, which are so easy to control, conquer, abuse, destroy…?

Pet lovers: Is there just a specific animal that you love and want in Heaven with you? Is your heart closed to ALL others?

For those who have no attachment to pet animals, would you grant mercy to one of God’s lesser beings, or do you disdain them, abuse them (even if indirectly)? Someone’s chewing on your flowers so you put out poison for the critters. Who cares about what happened to the animal that now lies on your plate? Who cares about it’s miserable life and death (slaughter)?

Did God put these animals here so that we could be indifferent (is God indifferent about anything?) and cruel to them? Christ is the Lamb of God. Why an animal image? Animals are “innocents” and our treatment of them is what is more important, than is the condition or longevity of their souls, or whether they will or will not live on in Heaven with God and us.

He has designed them for a multitude of purposes, and one that many of us do not readily recognize. If they are of this earth only–if their only time is NOW–that equates to us treating them better, not worse–or to treating them worse??? Enjoying their beauty as God’s creations? Or stripping them of it and taking it for ourselves???

I believe that our moral character can be reflected by how we treat the least of our Earthly brothers and sisters–how we treat the poor, the homeless, the children, the unborn fetus, and yes, our non-human brothers and sisters as well.

So it doesn’t matter if Fluffy has an immortal soul or only an earthly one. What did you learn from him? What did he teach you? What doors did your love for him open? Are there still some (doors) that are closed?

And for everyone who has never loved a Fluffy, or a Spike, or a Duke, or a Princess–you have an even steeper mountain to scale.

I love them all. Every one. The wild ones, the tame ones, the injured ones, the ones that suffer because of people, the ones that suffer because of nature… I will help them in need, grant them mercy, just as I do for all of my human brothers and sisters.

God loves ALL of us, and ALL of His creation. It is MAN who is selective about who and what he loves. It is MAN who is quantitative with his love–doling it out here and there in varying amounts, or holding it back completely. It is MAN who excludes, abuses, and destroys…

Dominion is not cruel dominance–it is more of a stewardship, a care-taking of this world. And as care-takers of God’s animals we are failing miserably. E.coli outbreaks, swine flu, pet overpopulation and subsequent euthanasias–all blatant affirmations of the lousy job we are doing as care-takers of the animals…

The animals have something to teach us–lessons that connect us to our Creator.

I sympathize with everyone who has lost a loved pet–but loving an individual animal is only the TIP of the iceberg. You must learn to embrace the world, the whole of it–all of the animals, and ALL of the people.

I think that how we treat animals is reflective of what’s going on inside of us–both individually and collectively as a society. And if you say…but people are more important than animals, as evidenced by our immortal souls…well yes, but that does not mean that we are to treat them poorly, with contempt, or to only focus on ourselves and what they can do for us, what desires they appease or satisfy in us. We must respect the value of them as creations of God, and how their presence here on this Earth brings a balance among all the living things.

Oh, and the guy in the back is waving his hand “but what about all those animal rights folks who care about animals but think nothing of ending a human life (abortion)?”

Well, I say to them…that, yes, you are on the right path. The animals have taught you much. Now you only have a bit farther to go. It should be so easy for YOU to make that connection–that ALL of life is sacred and valued by God–that human life, the zygote, the fetus, the human being formed but too small or hidden to see–must also be respected and allowed to continue to grow–to be fulfilled…

If we respect ALL of life, mortal and immortal souls, energies of sun and wind and water too–ALL of life in its many and divergent forms–we will sooner discover the heaven that is here on Earth, hidden amongst all of the hell.

God created beauty and asked us to take care of it for Him. Taking care of His Creation also promotes the growth and advanced understanding that our souls require. We need to think more deeply about this assignment, and animals may in fact be the key.

Do animals go on to Heaven? Perhaps not. But we are to treat them kindly here, and not just the ones who are fortunate enough to live as pets by our sides.

**“Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten by God. Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.” - Luke 12:6-7 **

 

[Banaticus]

First, “All rocks go to heaven.” Those battling church signs were pretty funny.

First, IOG says,“In order to have a rational soul, the potential to act contrary to natural passions must be present.”

So then dogs and horses will be in heaven? I’ve seen people train dogs and horses, develop a relationship with these “dumb brutes” such that the animal will act contrary to its natural passions. We hear of Bedouins who trained horses then, to test the training, would set the horse out in the sun all day with nothing to drink, but near enough to fresh water to see and smell it. Then they’d loose the horse and just as the horse was about to get to the water, they’d call it back. If the horse didn’t satiate its great thirst but came when called, then it was a good horse. Each horse was only ever tested once that way – it seems like a horse acting like that is pretty contrary to natural passions. I guess, under this reasoning, cats can never go to Heaven?

Further from Katholish (and others) an agreement is made that if a being was rational it would of necessity have an immortal soul.

I think, therefore I am. I think that souls may exist, therefore I have a soul. Are you then saying that severely mentally handicapped people do not have souls? Of course you’re not. We were all created by the same Lord and although man is a higher creature, naturally endowed with more intelligence and ability to reason than an animal, the inability to reason does not preclude the presence of a soul.

 

[Detales]

Actually, Banaticus, that statement is more correctly “I AM, therefore I may appear to think.” The order is relevant to the question of soul.

 

[wussup]

1The 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.

2That 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.

3In saying that dogs are rational, you are saying that dogs are people (not humans, but people). Is it possible to have an intellect and will and never exercise them? Not for an entire healthy species.

1 Of course we can know of God. There was a lively discussion here that was closed regarding the properties of God. I don’t have a problem with the last line of this quote. Still, I think the sum total of all the true concepts we have of God are infinitesimally small compared to the reality of God. Personally, I subscribe to the Taoist interpretation of God (very loosely interpreted) as unknowable.

2 It is true that science has taught and still teaches that there is ultimately a singular particle that will account for existence. Contrary to your claim that science does not have a problem with this is an understanding that perhaps there is no ultimate particle, or even that there is not particles at all. Nobel Laureate Leon Lederman wrote a book The God Particle where he is claimed to have wanted to name it the God-**** particle because it was so hard to find. Yet is not interesting to see how science is returning back to the ‘ether’ of light to try to explain probabilities etc… I think science is developing more along the Wheeler and Boehm concept of an existence without particles, an existence of probabilities, and an implicate order of wholeness. So basically, I understand the attractiveness of understanding the world we live in (and the practicality) as Newtonian, however, I think it is a mistake to cage God in that same concept.

3 That is what I am saying. Did not Adam and Eve have an intellect and will but did not use them until after partaking of the forbidden fruit (‘now they no good from evil…’), though I would not use the term ‘people’ to refer to other animals (and yes, I know what your point is). Is it not possible to think of dogs (as symbolic of all non-humans) as animals with a free-will, rational in thought, but innocent of sin? Like Banaticus’ question regarding the handicapped, you can call point to their potential nature as humans, but the reality is they are still handicapped as an individual. The severely handicapped still have free will, and intellect, albeit at a greatly diminished rate. They are just limited in their ability to exercise their free will and intellect to sin, they are innocent.

I think, therefore I am. I think that souls may exist, therefore I have a soul. Are you then saying that severely mentally handicapped people do not have souls?

No, I am not saying this, I was quoting others of saying this. My contention is the implied correlation between an individual with severe handicaps and a being of far lesser intelligence is a fair comparison for the purposes of this argument.

 

[Bluegoat]

1

No, I am not saying this, I was quoting others of saying this. My contention is the implied correlation between an individual with severe handicaps and a being of far lesser intelligence is a fair comparison for the purposes of this argument.

The Church doesn’t consider them to be parallel examples. A person with a mental handicap is still, by nature, a rational being, just like a child, or even a teenager is.

 

[wussup]

Actually, Banaticus, that statement is more correctly “I AM, therefore I may appear to think.” The order is relevant to the question of soul.

Or, I think therefore the world is such (Brandon Carter), or the Wussup correlary, I thought, therefore the world is .

:bowdown: :bowdown:
:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:
:bowdown: :bowdown:

 

[Katholish]

3 That is what I am saying. Did not Adam and Eve have an intellect and will but did not use them until after partaking of the forbidden fruit (‘now they no good from evil…’), though I would not use the term ‘people’ to refer to other animals (and yes, I know what your point is). Is it not possible to think of dogs (as symbolic of all non-humans) as animals with a free-will, rational in thought, but innocent of sin? Like Banaticus’ question regarding the handicapped, you can call point to their potential nature as humans, but the reality is they are still handicapped as an individual. The severely handicapped still have free will, and intellect, albeit at a greatly diminished rate. They are just limited in their ability to exercise their free will and intellect to sin, they are innocent.

Adam and Eve most certainly used their intellect and will from the first moment of their creation. Adam could not name the animals without an intellect, nor could he even talk with Eve or with God for that matter.

It is possible that individuals of a species have their individual powers of intellect and will inhibited, which is why I specified that it was not possible for an entire “healthy” species to fail to manifest its nature.

 

[Image_of_God]

**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.

Not necessarily. I think what your aren’t understanding is that the Church follows no particular philosophy of her own. It is true that Thomism is the prominent philosophy in the Church and has been for a long time. It is also true that Thomism draws a lot from Aristotle. However, I think that you are also not understanding that Thomism is not purely Aristotelian. St. Thomas Aquinas drew from plenty of other sources including Plato, Dionysius, St. Augustine, etc. Scotism, Augustinianism and other philosophies are also in the Church. But Thomism has had the greatest influence and it has by no means been proven *demonstrably *false, otherwise few people would follow the school.

 

[wussup]

Adam and Eve most certainly used their intellect and will from the first moment of their creation. Adam could not name the animals without an intellect, nor could he even talk with Eve or with God for that matter.

Following up on the fruit then, how did Adam and Eve ‘become as us, knowing good from evil’ manifest in their psyche (for lack of a better word).

But Thomism has had the greatest influence and it has by no means been proven *demonstrably *false, otherwise few people would follow the school.

Ha! With all due respect, the RCC has as a doctrine the transubstantiation of wine to blood as a doctrine. And while I understand and fully accept the faith the RCC has in this doctrine, it has been demonstrably proven this does not happen, and yet the RCC still follows the teaching. It is my opinion the existence of God cannot be rationally and logically proven (which is why the transubstantiation issue is not an impediment to faith, but, if true, an assistance to developing faith). The existence of God is understood and accepted solely through a faith which brings about a testimony wrought by the Holy Ghost. Mankind can try to rationalize God and create logical arguments for His existence and plan of salvation, but I think this is a red herring preventing man from developing the Faith needed for salvation.

 

[Detales]

Originally Posted by Katholish
Adam and Eve most certainly used their intellect and will from the first moment of their creation. Adam could not name the animals without an intellect, nor could he even talk with Eve or with God for that matter.

If I’m not mistaken, the Garden of Eden story is one of the most discounted among scholars of all of the Bible. Personally, I believe it is the opposite of how it is ordinarily taken. It is the story of man’s ascension into the ability to distinguish himself from the world. It is the story of the dawn of autonomy, the rise of the ability to perceive through the subject/object mode of awareness. It is the story of the dawn of reflexive awareness in the world.

We are now at a moment in time when our next step in spiritual maturity may be at hand. It is the moment that the Jesus story has held as a promise for over 5000 years. It is the time of the possibility of walking the Earth again in the company of God, but this time Consciously. This is the reason it is important to understand the story of Jesus as it was before the church limited it into incomprehensibility by historicizing Him.

 

[wussup]

Personally, I believe it is the opposite of how it is ordinarily taken. It is the story of man’s ascension into the ability to distinguish himself from the world. It is the story of the dawn of autonomy, the rise of the ability to perceive through the subject/object mode of awareness. It is the story of the dawn of reflexive awareness in the world.

This is almost exactly LDS doctrine. We believe in the Garden of Eden story as it tells it in the Bible. (There is debate in the Church regarding the environment they were sent here in, how long the period of creation actually was, etc…) We believe Adam and Eve had the free will to choose to live in idyllic paradise in the presence of God forever (no Faith) or to willingly leave the presence of God and live in Faith. We believe that Eve did err, but as the Bible teaches, Adam did not but recognized the correct path and went with Eve. Leaving the Garden of Eden allowed us all to walk in Faith. We believe that death came into the world, and the world lost its paradisaical Glory and all creation became mortal. Relevant to this thread, animals also suffered accordingly, but have not lost their innocence, being as a little child. As such we believe animals (and all creation) has a place in an immortal and perfect universe.

 

[MindOverMatter]

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.

What do you mean by Heaven?

 

[AdeodatusPax]

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. If they could contemplate such a thing as justice, then I have never heard of any animal acting on it and therefore, it is unlikely that it could ever think about such a concept. I also doubt that animals think about themselves.

3.Animals cannot act contrary to their instincts. In other words, they have no will. Humans can. Think about. Humans who chose to be chaste are resisting an instinct to have sex (or immoderate sex). Humans who chose to fast are resisting an instinct to eat. I doubt an animal could fast or be chaste. An animal will always look for food when it’s hungry and only not eat when it cannot find food. An animal will always try to mate. I might be wrong, but I have never heard of a chaste, or even celibate animal (that is not asexual). Celibacy, from my knowledge, is a purely human idea and achievement because only humans can resist instincts because they have an intellect, a will and reason, faculties of the soul that can be detached from the passionate appetite.

**Main Point: In order to have a rational soul, the potential to act contrary to natural passions must be present. **

I could be wrong again, but these are my ideas.

Reading this has just solved a HUGE portion of theological confusion I has having.

I am extremely grateful.

 

[Banaticus]

So, that means then that people who don’t act contrary to their natural passions don’t have souls? Why are most animals resigned to the dung heap, while most people get a free pass?

I responded to a person earlier and said something like, “Then are you saying that severely mentally handicapped people have no souls? Of course you aren’t.” He then quoted me out of context and removed the “of course you aren’t” part in his quote. But, anyway, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, isn’t it?

So, let’s examine why humans do what they do. Why do some humans choose to abstain from eating? Because they want to feel good in some way? Because they want to be more desirable to a potential mate? Because that’s what everyone else is doing? Out of a desire to grow closer to God?

What is justice and how is it contemplated? I think all animals are quite well versed in the eye for an eye principle. Nature is, after all, red in tooth and claw.

Animals don’t always try to mate. A dog, for instance won’t generally try to mate with every other dog of the opposite sex. When a female dog is in estrus, though, but then do we have something of that nature in ourselves? It’s been said before that, like rabbits, humans are “in heat” all the time, unlike dogs. What would that be like, to essentially go from a child-like state of sexual innocence to an adult state of desire in a matter of seconds, merely from a scent?

Stories have been told throughout the ages of animals which have warned humans of impending dangers, of animals that, though dumb (as in unable to speak), certainly weren’t dumb (unable to think). Take Baalam’s donkey for a moment, when the Lord opened its mouth. We aren’t told that God sparked the donkey’s reason or intelligence, merely that its mouth was unstopped.

Doesn’t God tell us that we should attempt to live more like the animals do, to live in a child-like state of grace? He mentions the sparrows of the field that God watches over personally. Animals don’t have the sometimes crazy rules that we do – do they need to fill out income tax forms?

I suppose a case could be made that animals don’t understand the concept of mercy or sharing, yet although such may hold out for the vast majority of animals, such doesn’t always hold true for domesticated animals. But then, if a man wasn’t domesticated, would he be any better? Is a wild forest-dwelling man any better than a wild forest-dwelling animal? Again, stories of domesticated animals acting in a self-sacrificial nature are all over the place.

Perhaps our main advantages over the animals is that 1) we live incredibly long lives and 2) we have a natural ability to better shape our environments and 3) we are better taught than they are. Not only are we trained in the use of which fork we should use at which point during supper, we’re trained in what the Lord has taught, how we are expected to live, etc. While they, dumb brutes, simply put their faith in Him (at least, according to Paul, I believe).

Now, I’m not saying that animals should receive the sacrament or that everyone should become a vegetarian – there is a natural order to the world and humans are of a higher order. But I don’t believe that our higher position is because we are the only ones with souls, that animals are essentially well behaved demons. I believe that animals have souls. We may have to agree to disagree, though.

 

[wussup]

So, that means then that people who don’t act contrary to their natural passions don’t have souls? Why are most animals resigned to the dung heap, while most people get a free pass?

I responded to a person earlier and said something like, “Then are you saying that severely mentally handicapped people have no souls? Of course you aren’t.” He then quoted me out of context and removed the “of course you aren’t” part in his quote. But, anyway, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, isn’t it?

Errr, that would be me. My apologies. I was in error and will strive to not do so! I misread your statement.

There seems to an logical error of false options. Specifically, one must have human type and level of rationality to be able to ‘got to Heaven’. This is based on an Aristotelian accepted version of forms. I think there are at least two other options. God does not function according to Aristotelian logic, that dogs have an immortal soul, albeit one alien to human beings, if not God, and God loves dogs even more than I and would be loath an existence without them.

Another option is Aristotle is correct, and his concept of forms is accurate. However, living beings do have immortal forms that follow the ‘nature’ of immortal souls, but at a much lower level. So low in fact that to us they seem to be completely soulless. Given this, then animals will be able to go to Heaven because (I believe) they are innocent of sin and will go to heaven.

I think one of the greatest differentiators of human to non-human is humankinds unique experience as 1) being like-unto God, and 2) experiencing a more depraved existence as a result of the fall in the Garden of Eden, unique in being capable of sin (though I have known a few shitzu’s that I thought were evil). Then again, Jesus did blast a tree for bearing fruit out of season, so maybe they can sin?

 

[Image_of_God]

So, that means then that people who don’t act contrary to their natural passions don’t have souls? Why are most animals resigned to the dung heap, while most people get a free pass?

Those people who don’t act contrary to their national passions certainly do have the potential. Every human being has the potential to act against natural passions. Not everyone does or can however.I’m not sure what you’re second question means.

So, let’s examine why humans do what they do. Why do some humans choose to abstain from eating? Because they want to feel good in some way? Because they want to be more desirable to a potential mate? Because that’s what everyone else is doing? Out of a desire to grow closer to God?

You are obvious using a faculty of your rational soul bay examining what people do. I don’t think animals examine their actions. That’s just something I had to say. Anyway, the act of abstaining from eating is contrary to a person’s instincts when their hungry, even if it is done for a seemingly natural reason.

What is justice and how is it contemplated? I think all animals are quite well versed in the eye for an eye principle. Nature is, after all, red in tooth and claw.

So, if nature is what you say, “red in tooth and claw”, what do we say of the man who acts contrary to the “eye for an eye principle.” Is he not acting contrary to instinct or “nature” as you call it?

Animals don’t always try to mate. A dog, for instance won’t generally try to mate with every other dog of the opposite sex. When a female dog is in estrus, though, but then do we have something of that nature in ourselves? It’s been said before that, like rabbits, humans are “in heat” all the time, unlike dogs. What would that be like, to essentially go from a child-like state of sexual innocence to an adult state of desire in a matter of seconds, merely from a scent?

I don’t recall saying that animals always try to mate. If I did, then I do recant it. Animals will mate when their bodies tell them to and when they can. Humans do not do what their bodies merely tell them to do. They *reason *out what they do. That is the essence of a rational soul.

Stories have been told throughout the ages of animals which have warned humans of impending dangers, of animals that, though dumb (as in unable to speak), certainly weren’t dumb (unable to think). Take Baalam’s donkey for a moment, when the Lord opened its mouth. We aren’t told that God sparked the donkey’s reason or intelligence, merely that its mouth was unstopped.

Of course the bible wouldn’t tell you that. It is not a *philosophical * book. We are to believe that the Spirit of God entered the donkey and gave him the ability of speech.

Doesn’t God tell us that we should attempt to live more like the animals do, to live in a child-like state of grace? He mentions the sparrows of the field that God watches over personally. Animals don’t have the sometimes crazy rules that we do – do they need to fill out income tax forms?

This is certainly a dangerous territory. God certainly is not telling us to behave or live like animals do. When he speaks of sparrows, he is not talking about their lifestyle, only that we should not worry about tomorrow. And you left out the next part: God then says that we, as human beings, are worth more than many sparrows. In other words, he is saying that we are more important to God than animals. That sounds harsh, but it’s not. Your human brother or sister should be more important to you than your dog or cat. Now, I am not saying that animals should not receive any respect and that they are just for us to eat. Not at all. I am saying however that humans are of more value than animals and therefore deserve more respect.

I suppose a case could be made that animals don’t understand the concept of mercy or sharing, yet although such may hold out for the vast majority of animals, such doesn’t always hold true for domesticated animals. But then, if a man wasn’t domesticated, would he be any better? Is a wild forest-dwelling man any better than a wild forest-dwelling animal? Again, stories of domesticated animals acting in a self-sacrificial nature are all over the place.

I cannot doubt you on this one. There are certainly cases of self-sacrifice in nature. But is this because animals, even if domesticated, reason or because of their instincts? That is the big question.

Perhaps our main advantages over the animals is that 1) we live incredibly long lives and 2) we have a natural ability to better shape our environments and 3) we are better taught than they are. Not only are we trained in the use of which fork we should use at which point during supper, we’re trained in what the Lord has taught, how we are expected to live, etc. While they, dumb brutes, simply put their faith in Him (at least, according to Paul, I believe).

Perhaps another advantage and difference that humans have over and from animals is that they are create in the image of God. This image is not to be understood as physical, but rather as spiritual because God is not physical, but spiritual. Your understanding of animals is somewhat out of line with orthodox Christian thought. I will demonstrate in another post.

Now, I’m not saying that animals should receive the sacrament or that everyone should become a vegetarian – there is a natural order to the world and humans are of a higher order. But I don’t believe that our higher position is because we are the only ones with souls, that animals are essentially well behaved demons. I believe that animals have souls. We may have to agree to disagree, though.

I only said that humans are the ones with rational souls. I would agree that animals have souls. But not rational ones.

Your whole post was about (or seemed to be about) how animals are on an equal level with humans and have reason (that’s why you questioned me). If humans are in fact higher in order, why and how are they? Is it just because they are more intelligent?

 

[Image_of_God]

Banaticus, this is for you, since you seem to abide by Scripture:

Psalm 8:4-9
What are humans that you are mindful of them, mere mortals that you care for them?

Yet you have made them little less than a god, crowned them with glory and honor.

You have given them rule over the works of your hands, put all things at their feet:

All sheep and oxen, even the beasts of the field,

The birds of the air, the fish of the sea, and whatever swims the paths of the seas.

God has clearly revealed here that man is above the animals.

Genesis 1:26-28
Then God said: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and the cattle, and over all the wild animals and all the creatures that crawl on the ground.”

God created man in his image; **in the divine image he created him**; male and female he created them.

God blessed them, saying: "Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth."

Another crystal clear instance of God giving man dominion over creation.
These two passages clearly reveal something different that what you believe (i.e. the bolded) I will find more if I can.

My ideas about which passages to choose came from this website.

The passages were copied from this website.

I need to make a more clearer post regarding my position on animals since there is much about my opinion that is being misunderstood.

 

[Image_of_God]

I don’t recall saying that animals always try to mate. If I did, then I do recant it. Animals will mate when their bodies tell them to and when they can. Humans do not do what their bodies merely tell them to do. They *reason *out what they do. That is the essence of a rational soul.

I just found the post where I said that. I am truly sorry. You know when you do so much posting, you don’t always remember what it is you said. Forgive me.

 

[Image_of_God]

Reading this has just solved a HUGE portion of theological confusion I has having.

I am extremely grateful.

I’m truly glad to have been able to help you, but can you clarify how exactly I did? It is only my own personal thought and not necessarily a teaching of the Church. I would love to hear from you.