Are there Dogs in Heaven?

[Image_of_God]

Now, to make things clear:

My mind is with the Church that all animals should be treated with respect and kindness:

2416 Animals are God’s creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory. Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.

However, the Church issues a warning regarding kindness to animals:

2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.

With the Church, I do think that there is something unique about man and it is more than just a more highly developed intelligence:

1702 The divine image is present in every man. It shines forth in the communion of persons, in the likeness of the unity of the divine persons among themselves (cf. chapter two).

1703 Endowed with “a spiritual and immortal” soul,5 the human person is "the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake."6 From his conception, he is destined for eternal beatitude.

1704 The human person participates in the light and power of the divine Spirit. By his reason, he is capable of understanding the order of things established by the Creator. By free will, he is capable of directing himself toward his true good. He finds his perfection "in seeking and loving what is true and good."7

1705 By virtue of his soul and his spiritual powers of intellect and will, man is endowed with freedom, an "outstanding manifestation of the divine image."8

1706 By his reason, man recognizes the voice of God which urges him "to do what is good and avoid what is evil."9 Everyone is obliged to follow this law, which makes itself heard in conscience and is fulfilled in the love of God and of neighbor. Living a moral life bears witness to the dignity of the person.

These are my beliefs as well. A lot of the other things I state, however, are speculation from my own thought of things that I have not perceived as declared by Holy Mother Church. It is my idea, that if I have said anything heretical, that it be forgotten.

 

[severus68]

Dear All,

I just want to say that I believe as follows:-

We, humans who have been given so much more by God, owe Him the oblgation to take care of all of His creation, human and non human;

We owe mercy to all, human and non human animals;

I find it hard not to love my animals notwithstanding the Cathechism of the RCC. If God did not want me to love them that much, why did He allow me that feeling. That was rhetorical and please don’t say I am substituting. I have family and a child I love very much;

I am pro life, all life;

If God sees even a sparrow fall and since that sparrow is His creation, then does He not love even his non human animals?

God is God and one thing we do know is His infinitel love and mercy. Who are we to say about His plans for His non human creation;

I want to be with all my loved ones in heaven, human and non human;

So do all dogs go to heaven? Yes and cats and horses and…

 

[Marfran]

**2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons. **

People use this to support the idea that animals are unimportant, that they should not be considered at all–that we should concentrate on human misery, and the relief thereof, and ignore any needs or care of animals.

Oddly though, **people suffer **because we do not consider animals and are callous toward them. The first line here: It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. Sounds like factory farming to me. Animals suffer in overcrowded CAFO’s–living in cages and pens where they can not even turn their bodies around to be comfortable–they are de-beaked, tails chopped off without anesthetic (because that would be costly), etc.–so that they can live in these conditions without pecking each other to death, or biting each other’s tails. The slaughter process is a lot of fun for them too. And they die needlessly so that we can eat “luxury” animal products that are easily replaced by superior plant-based foods–and the plant-based foods are healthier for our bodies. People sufffer from diseases of affluence–cancer, heart disease, diabetes, osteoporosis, obesity, etc. from eating these animal foods. And people also have health problems associated with the ingestion of the antibiotics, growth hormones and other chemicals found in the flesh and by-products of these animals. (Money spent on animals that negatively affects people.)

It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. Instead of **feeding people **we are feeding tons of food to animals that could go directly to feed people instead. It takes a lot of food and crops to feed the animals that we raise to slaughter and eat. All while less affluent peoples starve.

One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons. So inotherwords, don’t replace your child with a puppy–but yes, you can get a puppy for you and your child to take care of and love.

Dogs in heaven?? Again, what matters more is that we realize how we are to be responsible stewards to ALL of the animals, ALL creation here on Earth, while living in the here and now. We are all connected, linked together–how we treat animals impacts all of us–and if we were to evolve to be a gentler more compassionate society–we humans would benefit the most.

Loving a dog or two along the way is great, but irregardless of the type of soul he has–there is something that he and all animals can teach us, that will enhance the growth of our souls.

 

[severus68]

2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.

People use this to support the idea that animals are unimportant, that they should not be considered at all–that we should concentrate on human misery, and the relief thereof, and ignore any needs or care of animals.

Oddly though, **people suffer **because we do not consider animals and are callous toward them. The first line here: It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. Sounds like factory farming to me. Animals suffer in overcrowded CAFO’s–living in cages and pens where they can not even turn their bodies around to be comfortable–they are de-beaked, tails chopped off without anesthetic (because that would be costly), etc.–so that they can live in these conditions without pecking each other to death, or biting each other’s tails. The slaughter process is a lot of fun for them too. And they die needlessly so that we can eat “luxury” animal products that are easily replaced by superior plant-based foods–and the plant-based foods are healthier for our bodies. People sufffer from diseases of affluence–cancer, heart disease, diabetes, osteoporosis, obesity, etc. from eating these animal foods. And people also have health problems associated with the ingestion of the antibiotics, growth hormones and other chemicals found in the flesh and by-products of these animals. (Money spent on animals that negatively affects people.)

It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. Instead of **feeding people **we are feeding tons of food to animals that could go directly to feed people instead. It takes a lot of food and crops to feed the animals that we raise to slaughter and eat. All while less affluent peoples starve.

**One can love **animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons. So inotherwords, don’t replace your child with a puppy–but yes, you can get a puppy for you and your child to take care of and love.

Dogs in heaven?? Again, what matters more is that we realize how we are to be responsible stewards to ALL of the animals, ALL creation here on Earth, while living in the here and now. We are all connected, linked together–how we treat animals impacts all of us–and if we were to evolve to be a gentler more compassionate society–we humans would benefit the most.

Loving a dog or two along the way is great, but irregardless of the type of soul he has–there is something that he and all animals can teach us, that will enhance the growth of our souls.

Amen to that.

 

[Image_of_God]

2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.

People use this to support the idea that animals are unimportant, that they should not be considered at all–that we should concentrate on human misery, and the relief thereof, and ignore any needs or care of animals.

You are right. We should not ignore the needs or care of animals. Veterinarians do a good work.

Oddly though, **people suffer **because we do not consider animals and are callous toward them. The first line here: It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. Sounds like factory farming to me. Animals suffer in overcrowded CAFO’s–living in cages and pens where they can not even turn their bodies around to be comfortable–they are de-beaked, tails chopped off without anesthetic (because that would be costly), etc.–so that they can live in these conditions without pecking each other to death, or biting each other’s tails. The slaughter process is a lot of fun for them too. And they die needlessly so that we can eat “luxury” animal products that are easily replaced by superior plant-based foods–and the plant-based foods are healthier for our bodies. People sufffer from diseases of affluence–cancer, heart disease, diabetes, osteoporosis, obesity, etc. from eating these animal foods. And people also have health problems associated with the ingestion of the antibiotics, growth hormones and other chemicals found in the flesh and by-products of these animals. (Money spent on animals that negatively affects people.)

Yes, I most certainly disagree with inhumane killing of animals. I also disagree with the use of hormones in order to selfishly gain more money. However, it is unclear to me whether you are saying eating meat is wrong. Is it? I just want to make sure because what you posted here, though containing much truth, is somewhat ambiguous.

Remember:

2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image. 197 Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.

The Catholic Church says it’s okay to eat animals and use them for clothing. But that is only in a morally acceptable manner.

Also:

Genesis 9:3-6
Every creature that is alive shall be yours to eat; I give them all to you as I did the green plants.

Only flesh with its lifeblood still in it you shall not eat.

For your own lifeblood, too, I will demand an accounting: from every animal I will demand it, and from man in regard to his fellow man I will demand an accounting for human life.

If anyone sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; For in the image of God has man been made.

God has clearly given man animals to eat.

It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. Instead of **feeding people **we are feeding tons of food to animals that could go directly to feed people instead. It takes a lot of food and crops to feed the animals that we raise to slaughter and eat. All while less affluent peoples starve.

That’s a true interpretation and I do agree. However, I also think the Church was getting at the spending of the kind of money on animals, that one would spend on human beings such as unnecessary animal clothing, etc. Of course, some animals need some clothing, but I am referring to Hollywood stars that by like collections of shoes and hats and shirts for their dogs and cats.

**One can love **animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons. So inotherwords, don’t replace your child with a puppy–but yes, you can get a puppy for you and your child to take care of and love.

I agree that having a puppy in your home is not a bad thing and can in fact be a great good, even with other kinds of animals. But I think the Church means more than that here. I think it means that there is a somewhat profound difference between the love due to our fellow humans and the kindness that is given to animals.

The Catholic Encyclopedia says this regarding this subject:

While Catholic ethical doctrine insists upon the merciful treatment of animals, it does not place kindness towards them on the same plane of duty as benevolence towards our fellow-men.

Dogs in heaven?? Again, what matters more is that we realize how we are to be responsible stewards to ALL of the animals, ALL creation here on Earth, while living in the here and now. We are all connected, linked together–how we treat animals impacts all of us–and if we were to evolve to be a gentler more compassionate society–we humans would benefit the most.

Yes, but “Are there Dogs in Heaven?” is the question the OP asked and therefore we have only sought to answer it through speculation. It may not matter in the grand scheme of things, but it is just something the OP wanted to know.

Loving a dog or two along the way is great, but irregardless of the type of soul he has–there is something that he and all animals can teach us, that will enhance the growth of our souls.

You are definitely right; animals can teach us something. But I still hold to the belief that our brothers and sisters can teach us more because, I think, they are of more value.

 

[Marfran]

Yes, I most certainly disagree with inhumane killing of animals. I also disagree with the use of hormones in order to selfishly gain more money. However, it is unclear to me whether you are saying eating meat is wrong. Is it? I just want to make sure because what you posted here, though containing much truth, is somewhat ambiguous.

I would say that this matter requires a sincere examination. Meat raised TODAY poses many ethical issues not present in Biblical times. Eating meat TODAY, in most instances is not a matter of survival, it is more a matter of preference. The mistreatment of animals in CAFO’s, the misappropriation of resources (feeding food to animals that could go instead to feed people), the degradation of the soil (what do we do with all this urine and feces), etc., etc. And this is probably best left for a “meat” or “veg” thread, but as Christians we should look at the consequences of how our meat is produced TODAY, under what conditions, who is negatively impacted by our consumption and over-consumption of meat and animal products etc. More and more people are choosing NOT to eat meat TODAY, or to reduce their consumption of it, or to not purchase factory farmed meats and to choose organic instead. It is a complex topic. I suggest viewing the documentary film ***Food, Inc. ***that highlights the current state of our food industry, including the corruption by monopoly influences. There is also a good article in this months TIME MAGAZINE called The Real Cost of Cheap Food. And there are the writings of Michael Pollan (The Omnivore’s Dilemna, etc.) For the record, I personally don’t believe the movie Food, Inc., or the TIME article, or the writings of Michael Pollan take this far enough. My preference is for the writings of Andrew Linzey (Animal Gospel) and Matthew Scully (Dominien). I also belong to the Catholic Concern for Animmals CCA.

Remember:

The Catholic Church says it’s okay to eat animals and use them for clothing. But that is only in a morally acceptable manner…

Right. And TODAY we really need to examine how industrialization and big corporate monopoly and their production practices affect the “morality” of the “meat” and other goods that we buy. TODAY there is probably no need to use animals for clothing. There are many superior alternatives. No one really needs to wear a mink coat and the only reason leather is so abundant is because it is a slaughter-house by-product.

Also:

God has clearly given man animals to eat.

And again, we must examine the changes of our times, how food is manufactured, supplied, transported, distributed… If an affluent society mass produces “meat,” feeds food to animals that could go instead to ease world hunger, misappropriates resources…these are factors that MUST be considered.

That’s a true interpretation and I do agree. However, I also think the Church was getting at the spending of the kind of money on animals, that one would spend on human beings such as unnecessary animal clothing, etc. Of course, some animals need some clothing, but I am referring to Hollywood stars that by like collections of shoes and hats and shirts for their dogs and cats.

And yes, that too. Absolute waste of money. I got a catolog in the mail that had pajamas for dogs in it. Is there any dog that needs, or wants, or is happy to wear pajamas to bed?

I agree that having a puppy in your home is not a bad thing and can in fact be a great good, even with other kinds of animals. But I think the Church means more than that here. I think it means that there is a somewhat profound difference between the love due to our fellow humans and the kindness that is given to animals…

Of course there is a difference. Animals are not humans and we do not “love” them in the same way. We enjoy them, delight in them, they beautify and enhance our lives–and they even bridge us with other humans. I am always so happy to see how the people in the nursing home light up when I bring my dog to visit. None of them notice ME, or remember my name–but they can’t get enough of my dog–and I am so delighted to share him with these oft forgotten people.

Yes, but “Are there Dogs in Heaven?” is the question the OP asked and therefore we have only sought to answer it through speculation. It may not matter in the grand scheme of things, but it is just something the OP wanted to know…

I don’t think it matters. And I don’t think we need to speculate about it. I think what matters is how we treat them here and now.

You are definitely right; animals can teach us something. But I still hold to the belief that our brothers and sisters can teach us more because, I think, they are of more value.

I think that there are a lot of experiences and relationships in this life that help our souls to grow and I would not discount any of them or from what source. And again, animals are intrinsically linked to human beings. It is not so easy to separate them . Animal pile here. Human pile here. Remember Katrina? People devastated to leave their animals behind. Some people refusing to leave without their pets. People grieving for their lost pets. Children hurting from the severence. People helping to round up the pets left behind. People helping to reunite the lost pets with their owners… It wasn’t just about “animals.” It was about the connections that** people **had to animals, and to the emotional pain felt by these people who had to leave their pets behind.

 

[Image_of_God]

I would say that this matter requires a sincere examination. Meat raised TODAY poses many ethical issues not present in Biblical times.** Eating meat TODAY, in most instances is not a matter of survival, it is more a matter of preference.** The mistreatment of animals in CAFO’s, the misappropriation of resources (feeding food to animals that could go instead to feed people), the degradation of the soil (what do we do with all this urine and feces), etc., etc. And this is probably best left for a “meat” or “veg” thread, but as Christians we should look at the consequences of how our meat is produced TODAY, under what conditions, who is negatively impacted by our consumption and over-consumption of meat and animal products etc. More and more people are choosing NOT to eat meat TODAY, or to reduce their consumption of it, or to not purchase factory farmed meats and to choose organic instead. It is a complex topic. I suggest viewing the documentary film ***Food, Inc. ***that highlights the current state of our food industry, including the corruption by monopoly influences. There is also a good article in this months TIME MAGAZINE called The Real Cost of Cheap Food. And there are the writings of Michael Pollan (The Omnivore’s Dilemna, etc.) For the record, I personally don’t believe the movie Food, Inc., or the TIME article, or the writings of Michael Pollan take this far enough. My preference is for the writings of Andrew Linzey (Animal Gospel) and Matthew Scully (Dominien). I also belong to the Catholic Concern for Animmals CCA.

To be honest, I agree with you, as I prefer organic food. But I don’t understand the bolded. The Catholic Church says it’s okay to eat meat. Whether it is out of survival or preference is irrelevant. I don’t know if I misunderstood you, but on everything else, I agree.

Right. And TODAY we really need to examine how industrialization and big corporate monopoly and their production practices affect the “morality” of the “meat” and other goods that we buy. **TODAY there is probably no need to use animals for clothing. **There are many superior alternatives. No one really needs to wear a mink coat and the only reason leather is so abundant is because it is a slaughter-house by-product.

As I said above, the Catholic Church clearly says it’s okay to use animals for food. She also permits the use of them as clothing. The Catechism was written only about 20 years ago and as far as I know the situation regarding this matter has not changed much since then.

I should pose a question: If that is the case, then are the Inuit of Canada doing something wrong? They use animals for clothing.

And again, we must examine the changes of our times, how food is manufactured, supplied, transported, distributed… If an affluent society mass produces “meat,” feeds food to animals that could go instead to ease world hunger, misappropriates resources…these are factors that MUST be considered.

The Catechism was written for us today. It is still permissible to eat meat although the way animals are tread in the food industry is not. I do agree with you otherwise.

Of course there is a difference. Animals are not humans and we do not “love” them in the same way. We enjoy them, delight in them, they beautify and enhance our lives–and they even bridge us with other humans. I am always so happy to see how the people in the nursing home light up when I bring my dog to visit. None of them notice ME, or remember my name–but they can’t get enough of my dog–and I am so delighted to share him with these oft forgotten people.

That is a certainly good happening. I don’t disagree that animals are valuable. They are part of creation, valued by the Creator. They help us as well.

I don’t think it matters. And I don’t think we need to speculate about it. I think what matters is how we treat them here and now.

I agree, it probably doesn’t. But this is the OP’s forum and we are only answering (or attempting to answer) his question. What else should we do here?

I think that there are a lot of experiences and relationships in this life that help our souls to grow and I would not discount any of them or from what source. And again, animals are intrinsically linked to human beings. It is not so easy to separate them . Animal pile here. Human pile here. Remember Katrina? People devastated to leave their animals behind. Some people refusing to leave without their pets. People grieving for their lost pets. Children hurting from the severence. People helping to round up the pets left behind. People helping to reunite the lost pets with their owners… It wasn’t just about “animals.” It was about the connections that** people **had to animals, and to the emotional pain felt by these people who had to leave their pets behind.

I have never denied that animals are valuable. I have only criticized the seeming equalization of people with animals (this is not direct towards you). People are obviously connected with animals. But the point is that no pet can love you like a human possibly can. There is no friendship between a person and a pet. That’s only between two rational beings. If a pet is lost and a human is lost, we generally consider the latter a greater loss.

 

[Marfran]

To be honest, I agree with you, as I prefer organic food. But I don’t understand the bolded. The Catholic Church says it’s okay to eat meat. Whether it is out of survival or preference is irrelevant. I don’t know if I misunderstood you, but on everything else, I agree.

I’m sorry, I’m in a hurry. Have to go to work today. Computer’s down–have to work on the funky one in the basement–don’t have access to all my materials…that’s why this is really brief…

I don’t know what’s bolded??? Catholic Church says it’s okay to eat meat–but there are statements made by the Pope and other parts of the Catechism that call us to be good stewards of the Earth and to treat animals kindly etc., which means we must consider the ethics in how we treat the meat, and to examine how in so doing we may have some negative impacts, not only for the animals but for the planet and for other people on the planet. I highly recommend the doc film Food, Inc. and the article in this month’s TIME. But if you are eating organic you must know a lot of what’s going on in the food industry. The ethics of eating/not eating meat and how our society currently treats animals, not only in the food industry, but in all areas is covered very well by the Catholic author Matthew Scully in his book Dominion amazon.com/Dominion-Power-Suffering-Animals-Mercy/dp/0312319738/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1251724198&sr=8-1 If the topic interests you I highly recommend that book.

Survival or preference is highly relevant. The Catholic Church states that animals should not suffer or die needlessly. If we are eating them because we like how they taste, but we could eat other nutritive food instead then they are dying needlessly. (Vegetarians do it all the time–choose replacements for meat.) Again, if the topic interest you, Dominion covers the ethics and is written by a Catholic. Scully is a conservative Republican speechwriter , BTW.

As I said above, the Catholic Church clearly says it’s okay to use animals for food. She also permits the use of them as clothing. The Catechism was written only about 20 years ago and as far as I know the situation regarding this matter has not changed much since then.

But TODAY we don’t need to use them for clothing. We have superior technology and can produce clothing from non-animals sources, so why should animals suffer when we can choose non-animal garments easily?

I should pose a question: If that is the case, then are the Inuit of Canada doing something wrong? They use animals for clothing.

Maybe an Inuit has a justifiable use. Modern American wearing a mink coat while strolling down Rodeo Drive in 60 degree weather does not. Again, all this is covered in Dominion, if this topic is interesting to you.

The Catechism was written for us today. It is still permissible to eat meat although the way animals are tread in the food industry is not. I do agree with you otherwise.

It is–but we are called upon to be observant to the changes in our society as they happen. ***Any ***new changes in technology can bring ethical questions and challenges into play.

I have never denied that animals are valuable. I have only criticized the **seeming equalization of people with animals **(this is not direct towards you). People are obviously connected with animals. But the point is that no pet can love you like a human possibly can. There is no friendship between a person and a pet. That’s only between two rational beings. If a pet is lost and a human is lost, we generally consider the latter a greater loss

I agree with you. I work with animals. I have trouble understanding the criticism that people equalize animals with humans–I don’t think I can come up with one example where this is true. This, again, is addressed in the book Dominion–I have actually posted a page from that book elsewhere, but can’t access it now… And it’s not just you–I hear this criticism often–and don’t get it–animals are wonderful gifts from God–they enhance our lives and we should treat them well, and even love them, but they are not replacements for people…

SORRY THIS IS ALL OFF TOPIC… or an aside of the topic

 

[Image_of_God]

I’m sorry, I’m in a hurry. Have to go to work today. Computer’s down–have to work on the funky one in the basement–don’t have access to all my materials…that’s why this is really brief…

I don’t know what’s bolded??? Catholic Church says it’s okay to eat meat–but there are statements made by the Pope and other parts of the Catechism that call us to be good stewards of the Earth and to treat animals kindly etc., which means we must consider the ethics in how we treat the meat, and to examine how in so doing we may have some negative impacts, not only for the animals but for the planet and for other people on the planet. I highly recommend the doc film Food, Inc. and the article in this month’s TIME. But if you are eating organic you must know a lot of what’s going on in the food industry. The ethics of eating/not eating meat and how our society currently treats animals, not only in the food industry, but in all areas is covered very well by the Catholic author Matthew Scully in his book Dominion amazon.com/Dominion-Power-Suffering-Animals-Mercy/dp/0312319738/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1251724198&sr=8-1 If the topic interests you I highly recommend that book.

Survival or preference is highly relevant. The Catholic Church states that animals should not suffer or die needlessly. If we are eating them because we like how they taste, but we could eat other nutritive food instead then they are dying needlessly. (Vegetarians do it all the time–choose replacements for meat.) Again, if the topic interest you, Dominion covers the ethics and is written by a Catholic. Scully is a conservative Republican speechwriter , BTW.

But TODAY we don’t need to use them for clothing. We have superior technology and can produce clothing from non-animals sources, so why should animals suffer when we can choose non-animal garments easily?

Maybe an Inuit has a justifiable use. Modern American wearing a mink coat while strolling down Rodeo Drive in 60 degree weather does not. Again, all this is covered in Dominion, if this topic is interesting to you.

It is–but we are called upon to be observant to the changes in our society as they happen. ***Any ***new changes in technology can bring ethical questions and challenges into play.

I agree with you. I work with animals. I have trouble understanding the criticism that people equalize animals with humans–I don’t think I can come up with one example where this is true. This, again, is addressed in the book Dominion–I have actually posted a page from that book elsewhere, but can’t access it now… And it’s not just you–I hear this criticism often–and don’t get it–animals are wonderful gifts from God–they enhance our lives and we should treat them well, and even love them, but they are not replacements for people…

SORRY THIS IS ALL OFF TOPIC… or an aside of the topic

Basing this off the last line of your post, I think for the sake of the OP, we might have to return to the original topic. But you have many good arguments and it was nice discussing these issues with you. I mean that sincerely. We’ll just have to agree to disagree (on some of the things we discussed) for now.

 

[Marfran]

Basing this off the last line of your post, I think for the sake of the OP, we might have to return to the original topic. But you have many good arguments and it was nice discussing these issues with you. I mean that sincerely. We’ll just have to agree to disagree (on some of the things we discussed) for now.

Yes, it was nice discussing with you–some of the “meat” and "veggie’ threads get really heated–and I don’t get that–why people can’t express this or that, throw a thought out there, civilly and intellectually debate and discuss, exchange ideas and information–there’s always one that throws in a match–actually it’s not* just *the “meat” and “veggie” threads come to think of it…

Back to THE TOPIC: Are there dogs in HEAVEN??? Geez, I don’t know, but I got a feeling that you ***will ***find a few CATS there. (Well, at least one lion, and one lamb…)

BTW, the Pope has a cat.

 

[AnAtheist]

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.

I disagree. Look at various mammals or birds, they act quite rational. At least chimps are aware of themselves, so what you say does not apply to all animals.

3.Animals cannot act contrary to their instincts. In other words, they have no will. Humans can.

Really? Instinct is a rather simple action-reaction mechanism of living beings, and will is a rather complex action-reaction mechanis, and there are surely intermediate ones.
Anyway, how would you know, that your willing reaction to something is “free” or the outcome of a very elaborated instinct?
Let me put it IT-style: There are programms running in us, that determine ours reactions to outside stimuli, some are hard-coded (instincts), some are soft-coded (through education, example of others etc.), together it makes up “the will”.

Btw, like Homer Simpson said, only the good dogs go to heaven, the bad ones, like Hitler’s dog or one of the Lassies got to hell.

 

[Marfran]

I disagree. Look at various mammals or birds, they act quite rational. At least chimps are aware of themselves, so what you say does not apply to all animals.

Really? Instinct is a rather simple action-reaction mechanism of living beings, and will is a rather complex action-reaction mechanis, and there are surely intermediate ones.
Anyway, how would you know, that your willing reaction to something is “free” or the outcome of a very elaborated instinct?
Let me put it IT-style: There are programms running in us, that determine ours reactions to outside stimuli, some are hard-coded (instincts), some are soft-coded (through education, example of others etc.), together it makes up “the will”.

Btw, like Homer Simpson said, only the good dogs go to heaven, the bad ones, like Hitler’s dog or one of the Lassies got to hell.

As I work closely with animals, I would have to agree with you. The main difference between humans and animals is the ability of speech. Some primates have been taught sign language–and anyone who works with, or is close to animals, has discovered that many animals that are domesticated or that live in captivity, have been able to develop ways of communicating with their human caretakers (short of human speech of course).

As far as animals not being able to overcome instinct–that is not true–especially in the case of domesticated animals or ones that live in captivity (i.e., non-releasable injured wildlife). Simple example–it is natural and instinctual for a dog to bark. This is the way that they communicate. It is often difficult to teach a dog not to bark–it defies all his instincts. He hears a noise and wants to alert his concern to his mates (human or otherwise). This is a natural, hard-wired instinct. Now you have an obnoxious dog that barks at every little thing. I have one of those. I have worked to teach him NOT to bark. I have only put forth a half-hearted effort–he still barks a lot–but I can give him a certain look and he knows that it means “don’t bark”. When this happens I see him struggle with his instinctual need to bark, or not-to-bark to please me. Sometimes he ignores me and keeps on barking–other times he will quiet himself–but it is an obvious struggle for him to choose to bark or NOT to bark…

The Bible says that humans have immortal souls and that animals have mortal souls. A mortal soul will cease to exist upon death, an immortal one shall live beyond death. The topic of the OP brings into question whether animals, particularly the loved pets, will have a future in the afterlife with us.

Dogs may not make the grade cut, but I think that a few cats may be able to sneak in… (I’m just kidding.)

The idea is upsetting to folks who love their pets and hope to see them in the afterlife. I say, don’t worry about it, you won’t be disappointed in eternity (who knows what’s in store ?). Treat animals well here on Earth, and be good stewards. This may be their only experience, and we should treat them kindly and with mercy. Animals make up the beautiful tapestry of life here on Earth–can you imagine our world without birds in the sky and critters everywhere? Perhaps they will also be woven into the fabric of Heaven as well.

 

[Bluegoat]

As far as animals not being able to overcome instinct–that is not true–especially in the case of domesticated animals or ones that live in captivity (i.e., non-releasable injured wildlife). Simple example–it is natural and instinctual for a dog to bark. This is the way that they communicate. It is often difficult to teach a dog not to bark–it defies all his instincts. He hears a noise and wants to alert his concern to his mates (human or otherwise). This is a natural, hard-wired instinct. Now you have an obnoxious dog that barks at every little thing. I have one of those. I have worked to teach him NOT to bark. I have only put forth a half-hearted effort–he still barks a lot–but I can give him a certain look and he knows that it means “don’t bark”. When this happens I see him struggle with his instinctual need to bark, or not-to-bark to please me. Sometimes he ignores me and keeps on barking–other times he will quiet himself–but it is an obvious struggle for him to choose to bark or NOT to bark…

I think you are misunderstanding what is meant by instinct though. Instinct can be modified in many animals that have the ability to learn, even worms. Some can antisipate outcomes and modify behavior based on that, and a few can even be sneaky, empathetic, and emotionally loving.

What they can’t do is have an instinct, decide, despite feelings to the contrary that the instinct is immoral, and then follow the moral claim. The dog that is trained not to bark doesn’t do it because it realizes that barking is morally wrong under the circumstances, but because you have modified the dog’s behavior through some sort of action on the dog such as classical conditioning, giving a desirable outcome to good behavior, or whatever.

That is the main difference between what the Church means when talking about humans and animals - animals are not moral agents, they do not rationally apprehend things like justice, good, etc, against their instinctual response. Humans also have such responses, and they aren’t necessarily bad. The emotion of love is a good example, it often leads to desirable moral behaviors. But it is not the same as a rational application of love, which is the kind of love Christ tells us we must practice - a truly human kind of love.

Of course many humans simply wallow in the instinctual realm, and we usually don’t have a problem with that as long as their behavior isn’t anti-social. But it is dangerous when they don’t realize that their emotional life is primarily an instinctual manifestation.

 

[severus68]

I think you are misunderstanding what is meant by instinct though. Instinct can be modified in many animals that have the ability to learn, even worms. Some can antisipate outcomes and modify behavior based on that, and a few can even be sneaky, empathetic, and emotionally loving.

What they can’t do is have an instinct, decide, despite feelings to the contrary that the instinct is immoral, and then follow the moral claim. The dog that is trained not to bark doesn’t do it because it realizes that barking is morally wrong under the circumstances, but because you have modified the dog’s behavior through some sort of action on the dog such as classical conditioning, giving a desirable outcome to good behavior, or whatever.

That is the main difference between what the Church means when talking about humans and animals - animals are not moral agents, they do not rationally apprehend things like justice, good, etc, against their instinctual response. Humans also have such responses, and they aren’t necessarily bad. The emotion of love is a good example, it often leads to desirable moral behaviors. But it is not the same as a rational application of love, which is the kind of love Christ tells us we must practice - a truly human kind of love.

Of course many humans simply wallow in the instinctual realm, and we usually don’t have a problem with that as long as their behavior isn’t anti-social. But it is dangerous when they don’t realize that their emotional life is primarily an instinctual manifestation.

My apologies if I have misunderstood… While I do agree with much of what you have said, I don’t think we can talk about morality with regard to animals at all. They of course cannot be immoral or sin but that you know. Thus while they may not follow their instincts at times, it is not always about behaviour modification through conditioning. I agree they will not modify their behaviour for “moral” reasons, they will do it for love towards humans and other animals. Their actions can be based on love and when so, it is unconditional love with no agenda. I have no degree in animal behaviour but I have observed this in animals I keep and have kept. We do not really know the kind of relationship between God and his non human animals but I believe He does care more for them than many humans think. So, as I have said before, I know there will be dogs, cats, horses…in heaven. Maybe not all animals will be in human heaven, beef cows may not want to have anything more to do with humans.

 

[severus68]

Basing this off the last line of your post, I think for the sake of the OP, we might have to return to the original topic. But you have many good arguments and it was nice discussing these issues with you. I mean that sincerely. We’ll just have to agree to disagree (on some of the things we discussed) for now.

I must say thats its so refreshing to read posts of somone like you who may not agree wi but says it nicely.

 

[Bluegoat]

My apologies if I have misunderstood… While I do agree with much of what you have said, I don’t think we can talk about morality with regard to animals at all. They of course cannot be immoral or sin but that you know. Thus while they may not follow their instincts at times, it is not always about behaviour modification through conditioning. I agree they will not modify their behaviour for “moral” reasons, they will do it for love towards humans and other animals. Their actions can be based on love and when so, it is unconditional love with no agenda. I have no degree in animal behaviour but I have observed this in animals I keep and have kept. We do not really know the kind of relationship between God and his non human animals but I believe He does care more for them than many humans think. So, as I have said before, I know there will be dogs, cats, horses…in heaven. Maybe not all animals will be in human heaven, beef cows may not want to have anything more to do with humans.

But emotional love is a component of instinct, just like maternal love, for example. The emotion is what modifies the behavior in the cases you are thinking of. Dogs, and humans too for that matter, are communal animals. It is good for them to have emotional attachments to members of their group. Just like it is a good thing for a mother to have an emotional attachment and desire to protect her offspring. Nature provides for those kind of attachments - they are instinctual.

 

[Little_Dove]

No one has seen heaven. So all we can do is make rational “guesses” as to what heaven will be like. This we do know, that we will see God as He really is, and in that Beatific Vision will be our eternal joy and happiness. If God deigns that beloved pets make it to heaven, or if He deigns that they don’t, it will not diminish our happiness one bit.
In my way of thinking, if it comforts someone in this life to believe that they will see their pet in heaven, what harm is there in that, as that belief is not absolutely condemned nor asserted by the Church? We all have certain preconceived ideas of what heaven may be like, and we know for certain that heaven exceeds anything we could ever even conceive of!
In other words, just wait and see what God has in store for those who love Him!
God Bless!
To Jesus, Through Mary

 

[severus68]

But emotional love is a component of instinct, just like maternal love, for example. The emotion is what modifies the behavior in the cases you are thinking of. Dogs, and humans too for that matter, are communal animals. It is good for them to have emotional attachments to members of their group. Just like it is a good thing for a mother to have an emotional attachment and desire to protect her offspring. Nature provides for those kind of attachments - they are instinctual.

Then wouldn’t that apply to humans too - that instinctive love?

 

[severus68]

No one has seen heaven. So all we can do is make rational “guesses” as to what heaven will be like. This we do know, that we will see God as He really is, and in that Beatific Vision will be our eternal joy and happiness. If God deigns that beloved pets make it to heaven, or if He deigns that they don’t, it will not diminish our happiness one bit.
In my way of thinking, if it comforts someone in this life to believe that they will see their pet in heaven, what harm is there in that, as that belief is not absolutely condemned nor asserted by the Church? We all have certain preconceived ideas of what heaven may be like, and we know for certain that heaven exceeds anything we could ever even conceive of!
In other words, just wait and see what God has in store for those who love Him!
God Bless!
To Jesus, Through Mary

Yes, we have been told that heaven will be so much more wonderful than we can ever imagine. God bless.

 

[Bluegoat]

Then wouldn’t that apply to humans too - that instinctive love?

Very much so. Humans are animals as well as rational creatures, and also have instinctual, biologically based urges and behaviors. That emotion that humans feel with regard to their child, or someone they are"in love" with is not really different than that that felt by other animals.

Christian love, that particularly human love, (which was recognized as unique by many pre-Christians too) is NOT emotional. We are to love our neighbor, no matter how we feel about him. We vow to love our spouse, but a person could never vow to continue to have a particular emotion his or her whole life. We are to love God, but again, that is not dependent upon emotion. We are required to do all of these things despite instinct.

That is not to say that these emotions are bad. What better way to learn what selfless love should look like than to experience being in love, or the love of a child. But those things are not the sum of love.

Consider also non-material beings - angels and God himself. They are capable of love, God IS love, but they have no emotions - they are passionless, as St Anselm tells us (among others).