Do All Dogs Go To Heaven? New Books Seem To Think So

[StAnastasia]

Just a quick little story. My son turns 16 this year. His whole life, he has not been able to relate one bit to people. He has a problem in his emotional and mental makeup that prevents this. He has no friends, He finds it impossible to make friends. We have tried medications, psychologist, you name it we tried it. His self esteem is shot. However there is one thing that keeps him going. One thing that gives me hope for him. and that is the way he loves his animals. He has 2 cats, and for a long time kept hampsters. I asked him if he still was going to have hampsters and he said no. because they dont live that long, and it breaks his heart every time one dies. The only emotional connection he is capable of is with his furry friends. They seem to understand this too. I remember one time we were feeding wild geese, and they took the food right from his hand, and let him pet them. If it were not for these lovely furry and winged creatures, I firmly believe my son would be in a lot worse shape. Peace

What a wonderful account of your son’s special relationship with animals, benidict! Humans too frequently put up a wall between us and our animal relatives, as if we are the only thing with intrinsic value in all of God’s incredible creation.

 

[benidict]

What a wonderful account of your son’s special relationship with animals, benidict! Humans too frequently put up a wall between us and our animal relatives, as if we are the only thing with intrinsic value in all of God’s incredible creation.

How very true. I personally have a real connection with pit bulls. a very misunderstood breed. We just seem to connect on a deeper level. I went to a party one night in Hawaii, and on the way over there asked if they had any dogs. My friend was kind of non commital, as to what kind they had… we get there, and I hear barking, and guess what? Pit Bull! Instantly had a new buddy. After a couple hours the lady of the house told us, that she was really surprised because this dog was a rescued dog, and was usually jumping all over people. My friends looked over at her and said, thats because hes our dog whisperer.(refering to me.) LOL! The dog was lying quietly at my feet the whole time. I cannot imagine a Heaven with no animals. They may not have immortal souls, but…I do believe there is scriptural, as well as Judaic traditional proof that they are ressurected, and have a part in the life to come. Peace

 

[StAnastasia]

They may not have immortal souls, but…I do believe there is scriptural, as well as Judaic traditional proof that they are ressurected, and have a part in the life to come. Peace

In 2011, the theory that “all humans and only humans have immortal souls” is no longer a particularly coherent concept, in light of what we know of genetics, neuroscience, and the evolutionary history of this planet.

However, what is still theologically coherent (in my view, if not that of my non-theist biology colleagues) is the idea of resurrection into the New Creation. Just how that New Creation will exist and what it will be like – when all the evidence points to this universe continuing to expand for another trillion years – is another matter. But with God all things are possible! If God is truth and love and beauty, then created things that reflect this truth and love and beauty – human animals, non-human animals. plants, rocks – cannot a priori be excluded from the Kingdom of God.

StAnastasia

 

[rap1962]

This thread has been very enjoyable, and as most threads like it, it evokes all kinds of deeper thouhgt about our faith in general. There seem to be two major camps: 1)those who believe animals can and do exist in heaven and 2) those who believe somehow, only man enjoys eternity with God the Father.

There have been a great number of reasoned arguments on both sides, some very good and some quite silly. One thing is very clear and can not be refuted: The Catholic Church does not teach anything definitive, either way, on this subject and we are really free to deal with this question in whatever way we chose, as long as our belief does not contradict any doctrine of the Church.

As for me, I am loath to take a postion of absolute yes or no because it has not been revealed to us either through Sacred Tratidion or Sacred Scripture. However, I do like to err on the side of caution and thus I take the position that animals can and do go to heaven to the extent that God wills them to. No human being can know the extent to which God wills this but we all know that he most certainly CAN will it. Based on this, anyone who takes the position that animals absolutely do not enter heaven is either professing to know something that has not been revealed or is limiting the power of God.

One overiding thought I have is that God does not waste his Glory and Power on trivial things. If He created it, he has a purpose for it and intends for it to be eternal, since He Himself is eternal. This alone leads me to conclude that we can’t be sure what the plan is for anyone or anything but we know there is a plan.

After all is said and done, I know that if someone does not accept that animals go to heaven nothing anyone says will convince them otherwise. So I simply ask anyone in this camp to please explain to us how they deal with Isaiah 11:1-10.

thanks, I will watch for some good answers on this one.

 

[StAnastasia]

So I simply ask anyone in this camp to please explain to us how they deal with Isaiah 11:1-10.

rap1962, I dealt with that very passage in a seminar two weeks ago! The difficulty with the Isaianic vision is that it is poetic language that does not coherently address biological reality.

“The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them.”

This verse makes it difficult to understand how God will sustain predator prey relationships in the eschaton. How will wolves and leopards be wolves and leopards in the absence of predation?

How can we understand “the lion will eat straw like the ox” in any biologically meaningful way? The lion evolved over millions of years to eat meat, not straw. To recreate lions in paradise in such a way that they can digest straw (e.g., having a cow’s teeth and gut) would mean that they were no longer lions. And yet, to allow them to eat meat would be to include predation and death in the heavenly kingdom, which might be a mistake!

So I think one has to be very cautious (as you yourself advise) in interpreting eschatology. The bible uses figurative and allegorical language, which only at our theological peril can we force into a literal mold.

StAnastasia.

 

[benidict]

This thread has been very enjoyable, and as most threads like it, it evokes all kinds of deeper thouhgt about our faith in general. There seem to be two major camps: 1)those who believe animals can and do exist in heaven and 2) those who believe somehow, only man enjoys eternity with God the Father.

There have been a great number of reasoned arguments on both sides, some very good and some quite silly. One thing is very clear and can not be refuted: The Catholic Church does not teach anything definitive, either way, on this subject and we are really free to deal with this question in whatever way we chose, as long as our belief does not contradict any doctrine of the Church.

As for me, I am loath to take a postion of absolute yes or no because it has not been revealed to us either through Sacred Tratidion or Sacred Scripture. However, I do like to err on the side of caution and thus I take the position that animals can and do go to heaven to the extent that God wills them to. No human being can know the extent to which God wills this but we all know that he most certainly CAN will it. Based on this, anyone who takes the position that animals absolutely do not enter heaven is either professing to know something that has not been revealed or is limiting the power of God.

One overiding thought I have is that God does not waste his Glory and Power on trivial things. If He created it, he has a purpose for it and intends for it to be eternal, since He Himself is eternal. This alone leads me to conclude that we can’t be sure what the plan is for anyone or anything but we know there is a plan.

After all is said and done, I know that if someone does not accept that animals go to heaven nothing anyone says will convince them otherwise. So I simply ask anyone in this camp to please explain to us how they deal with Isaiah 11:1-10.

thanks, I will watch for some good answers on this one.

Here is a fortaste…

 

[Salvatore123]

rap,

I don’t know what your Isaiah verse has to do with the immortality of the souls of animals, but the chapter you quote deals with how idealic the land shall be after the Assyrian army is defeated as it descends upon Judea.

The stump or tree of Jesse refers to the Davidic branch that will sprout and keep “alive” the prophecy of a descendant of David (Jesus) coming to save the world.

The entire discussion about how animals interact with each other and with children is uniformly (from every commentary I have read) interpreted as describing how beautiful the land will be once the Assyrians are defeated and God’s chosen people continue to live and prosper.

Again - I don’t know what this has to do with the immortality of animal souls and those souls allegedly entering heaven . . .

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Salvator123: Do you think that we can know anything from the scriptures about material things that could be in Heaven?

When Jesus said that He would not drink of this cup again until He comes in His kingdom–do you think that Jesus will actually drink a cup of wine in Heaven?

Jesus ate fish with the disciples after He rose from the dead. Did Jesus posses His glorified body at that time?

Do you think it is possible for a glorified body to eat actual material food?

The reason I ask this question is to gauge if you are against the thought of anything material being in heaven or just the notion of material animals being in heaven?

I have opinions about the questions that I have asked you–but I don’t know for sure the answers to the questions.

One last question–when Mary Magdalene fell at Jesus’ feet and He told her–do not touch me for I have not yet ascended into heaven–what did He mean?

I don’t know the answer to that question either.

I guess what I’m getting at is what does the Catholic Church teach about Jesus’ glorified body and our glorified bodies?

I ask that question because if we do know something about how our material bodies and glorified bodies are the same and how they are different–it might give us a glimpse into the possibility of MATERIAL things being glorified.

That wouldn’t tell us if God would choose to glorify any parts of His creation other than man but it might tell us if He could or would possibly do that.

If we knew the possiblity of that then we might could speculate if animals which are also material things like us would have the POSSIBILITY of being also glorified by God?

 

[grannymh]

And for hundreds of thousands of years hominids were evolving characteristics that would eventually make them into Homo sapiens. There was no sharp dividing line between pre-humans and humans, since they evolved into “full humanity” as a population. I’m not sure God would deny “heaven” to people who were a dozen generations short of full humanity.

StAnastasia

From post 277. There was no sharp dividing line between pre-humans and humans, since they evolved into “full humanity” as a population. – Wow!
A “full humanity” population which never needed a savior – just like our favorite dogs.

 

[Salvatore123]

Jerry,

You asked me: “One last question–when Mary Magdalene fell at Jesus’ feet and He told her–do not touch me for I have not yet ascended into heaven–what did He mean?”

I take him at his word - he did not yet allow his soul to enter heaven. In fact, almost every Catholic apologist I have heard, uses this incident as support for the fact of purgatory and explaining why Jesus did NOT mean “heaven” when he told the good thief next to him that “this day you will be with me in paradise”. If Jesus meant heaven, then jesus was not telling the truth in one of two places: either on the cross, or to Mary Magdalene.

I happen to believe he always told the truth and that paradise meant purgatory. Let’s face it, if I went to a place where I KNEW my next stop is eternal bliss, I would consider that “stop over” place as paradise

 

[Salvatore123]

"And for hundreds of thousands of years hominids were evolving characteristics that would eventually make them into Homo sapiens. There was no sharp dividing line between pre-humans and humans, since they evolved into “full humanity” as a population. I’m not sure God would deny “heaven” to people who were a dozen generations short of full humanity.

StAnastasia"

My God - we are NOW trying to say that Jesus redeemed humans who were not fully human yet, using the definition of homo sapien vs. homo erectus or homo ergaster?

When is this going to end . . .

THIS is the danger of the THEORY of evolution. It never ceases to amaze me how people will make fun of the Catholic Church for not “believing” in Darwin’s On The Origin of Species, and yet even scientists call it A THEORY!!!

It’s one thing to say “I want to be reunited with my pets in heaven”. But we are now taking this thread to the level of trying to determine when God put that divine “spark” into man so that he became capable of redemption/salvation . . .

Based on the Church’s definition of sin (especially, mortal), then I respectfully submit that it does not matter what level of “human” became capable of being redeemed/saved. The key is not evolution - the key is knowing/determining when “man” could formulate the concept of right and wrong and had the “free will” to act on that concept/knowledge instead of acting simply on instinct (which is primarily what drives animals).

I now really do (and I am sure, much to the pleasure of many) exit, stage right, on this discussion . . .

 

[StAnastasia]

StAnastasia" My God - we are NOW trying to say that Jesus redeemed humans who were not fully human yet, using the definition of homo sapien vs. homo erectus or homo ergaster?

I’m not sure what you are saying here.

When is this going to end

When is what going to end? Science?

THIS is the danger of the THEORY of evolution.

Evolution is no more dangerous than gravity.

It never ceases to amaze me how people will make fun of the Catholic Church for not “believing” in Darwin’s On The Origin of Species,

Who makes fun? Catholics do accept evolution.

and yet even scientists call it THEORY!!!

Of course – gravity is a theory too. So are plate tectonics, quantum mechanics, relativity, and atomic physics.

It’s one thing to say “I want to be reunited with my pets in heaven”. But we are now taking this thread to the level of trying to determine when God put that divine “spark” into man so that he became capable of redemption/salvation . . .

I don’t know. Is that what you are doing?

I now really do (and I am sure, much to the pleasure of many) exit, stage right, on this discussion . . .

Farewell, and Godspeed!

 

[meltzerboy]

"And for hundreds of thousands of years hominids were evolving characteristics that would eventually make them into Homo sapiens. There was no sharp dividing line between pre-humans and humans, since they evolved into “full humanity” as a population. I’m not sure God would deny “heaven” to people who were a dozen generations short of full humanity.

StAnastasia"

My God - we are NOW trying to say that Jesus redeemed humans who were not fully human yet, using the definition of homo sapien vs. homo erectus or homo ergaster?

When is this going to end . . .

THIS is the danger of the THEORY of evolution. It never ceases to amaze me how people will make fun of the Catholic Church for not “believing” in Darwin’s On The Origin of Species, and yet even scientists call it A THEORY!!!

It’s one thing to say “I want to be reunited with my pets in heaven”. But we are now taking this thread to the level of trying to determine when God put that divine “spark” into man so that he became capable of redemption/salvation . . .

Based on the Church’s definition of sin (especially, mortal), then I respectfully submit that it does not matter what level of “human” became capable of being redeemed/saved. The key is not evolution - the key is knowing/determining when “man” could formulate the concept of right and wrong and had the “free will” to act on that concept/knowledge instead of acting simply on instinct (which is primarily what drives animals).

I now really do (and I am sure, much to the pleasure of many) exit, stage right, on this discussion . . .

The word “theory” as it is used in science means a group of organized and relevant facts that are able to explain the data. A theory derives from observation and a hypothesis (informed opinion) based on the observation. Thus a theory is stronger than an individual fact. This does not mean that a theory can never be revised; it certainly can and must when new observations arise and data are analyzed which the present theory cannot explain. Science is a continual process of discovery and change. But theories–such as the theory of evolution–are the best we have in science at the moment. When people use the word “theory” in everyday speech, what they really mean is “hypothesis.”

 

[benidict]

Jerry,

You asked me: “One last question–when Mary Magdalene fell at Jesus’ feet and He told her–do not touch me for I have not yet ascended into heaven–what did He mean?”

I take him at his word - he did not yet allow his soul to enter heaven. In fact, almost every Catholic apologist I have heard, uses this incident as support for the fact of purgatory and explaining why Jesus did NOT mean “heaven” when he told the good thief next to him that “this day you will be with me in paradise”. If Jesus meant heaven, then jesus was not telling the truth in one of two places: either on the cross, or to Mary Magdalene.

I happen to believe he always told the truth and that paradise meant purgatory. Let’s face it, if I went to a place where I KNEW my next stop is eternal bliss, I would consider that “stop over” place as paradise

OOOH, this could open a can of worms…This is not the place to take this on though. It touches on the Trinity. Be careful. Peace

 

[grannymh]

Form post 277 “And for hundreds of thousands of years hominids were evolving characteristics that would eventually make them into Homo sapiens. There was no sharp dividing line between pre-humans and humans, since they evolved into “full humanity” as a population. I’m not sure God would deny “heaven” to people who were a dozen generations short of full humanity.
StAnastasia”

My God - we are NOW trying to say that Jesus redeemed humans who were not fully human yet, using the definition of homo sapien vs. homo erectus or homo ergaster?

When is this going to end . . .

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=478146

Catholics need to understand what is going on in the 21st century natural science realm so that our Faith can be explained to others.

It’s one thing to say “I want to be reunited with my pets in heaven”. But we are now taking this thread to the level of trying to determine when God put that divine “spark” into man so that he became capable of redemption/salvation . .

Pets are instruments of God’s love. Read story in post 279 and then praise and thank God.

Post 277 is a good example of what happens when some people have lost sight of God’s love in creating humans. They have lost sight of true human nature, soul and body. They prefer to shun human’s responsibilities toward God. Therefore, they make Adam and Eve into some kind of symbol of bad things happening to good people. In order to do as they desire, they twist some areas of natural science into their own anti-Catholic position.

Based on the Church’s definition of sin (especially, mortal), then I respectfully submit that it does not matter what level of “human” became capable of being redeemed/saved. The key is not evolution - the key is knowing/determining when “man” could formulate the concept of right and wrong and had the “free will” to act on that concept/knowledge instead of acting simply on instinct (which is primarily what drives animals).

What you are referring to is God’s creation of the first, sole, true, human beings, known as Adam and Eve. They are the founders, parents, of humanity. In addition, God lovingly created animal populations – knowledge of how the diversity of animals came to be is not necessary for Salvation. What is necessary is to understand that Adam and Eve are unique, totally distinct from every kind of creature populations. God loved Adam and Eve and He loves their direct descendents, you and me.

Blessings,
granny

“Scottish Folds reflect a part of God’s love and pass that love along to us if we are blessed enough to see God’s reflection in a simple cat.” from a post by Little Soldier

 

[StAnastasia]

The word “theory” as it is used in science means a group of organized and relevant facts that are able to explain the data. A theory derives from observation and a hypothesis (informed opinion) based on the observation. Thus a theory is stronger than an individual fact. This does not mean that a theory can never be revised; it certainly can and must when new observations arise and data are analyzed which the present theory cannot explain. Science is a continual process of discovery and change. But theories–such as the theory of evolution–are the best we have in science at the moment. When people use the word “theory” in everyday speech, what they really mean is “hypothesis.”

Indeed. The evidence supporting the evolutionary explanation for terrestrial biodiversity (including human) is stronger than the evidence supporting the theory of gravity. That’s why scientists accept evolution as the most coherent explanation, and why every Catholic theologian I know and work and publish with accepts it as well. (There are a few outliers who reject evolution, like Bishop Robert Vasa and Robert Sungenis.)

StAnastasia

 

[grannymh]

Indeed. The evidence supporting the evolutionary explanation for terrestrial biodiversity (including human) is stronger than the evidence supporting the theory of gravity. That’s why scientists accept evolution as the most coherent explanation, and why every Catholic theologian I know and work and publish with accepts it as well. (There are a few outliers who reject evolution, like Bishop Robert Vasa and Robert Sungenis.)

StAnastasia

While I happily admit that my study of animals in natural science has increased my appreciation of them, it is important to note that there is a difference between the creation of animals and the creation of human beings.

Regarding your explanation of human origin, post 277, may I respectfully point out that it does not matter how many theologians you know, the fact is that there are two, sole, parents of the human species according to Catholic doctrine. Furthermore, as one learns natural science, it becomes very obvious that it cannot absolutely rule out Adam and Eve. Thus, Catholic doctrine stands.

Blessings,
granny

Genesis 1: 24-25

 

[grannymh]

Regarding thread topic.

I am wondering if taking care of our pets, loving and nourishing them, is their heaven on earth.

Blessings,
granny

“Scottish Folds reflect a part of God’s love and pass that love along to us if we are blessed enough to see God’s reflection in a simple cat.” from a post by Little Soldier**

 

[RSD]

"And for hundreds of thousands of years hominids were evolving characteristics that would eventually make them into Homo sapiens. There was no sharp dividing line between pre-humans and humans, since they evolved into “full humanity” as a population. I’m not sure God would deny “heaven” to people who were a dozen generations short of full humanity.

StAnastasia"

My God - we are NOW trying to say that Jesus redeemed humans who were not fully human yet, using the definition of homo sapien vs. homo erectus or homo ergaster?

When is this going to end . . .

THIS is the danger of the THEORY of evolution. It never ceases to amaze me how people will make fun of the Catholic Church for not “believing” in Darwin’s On The Origin of Species, and yet even scientists call it A THEORY!!!

It’s one thing to say “I want to be reunited with my pets in heaven”. But we are now taking this thread to the level of trying to determine when God put that divine “spark” into man so that he became capable of redemption/salvation . . .

Based on the Church’s definition of sin (especially, mortal), then I respectfully submit that it does not matter what level of “human” became capable of being redeemed/saved. The key is not evolution - the key is knowing/determining when “man” could formulate the concept of right and wrong and had the “free will” to act on that concept/knowledge instead of acting simply on instinct (which is primarily what drives animals).

I now really do (and I am sure, much to the pleasure of many) exit, stage right, on this discussion . . .

See, this is exactly the kind of thing I mean when I say that I agree with you on more important points than I agree with many people who came into this discussion holding the same view on this particular thread that I did. I hope that sentence was not too confusing. I mean that I totally agree with you, and incidentally the Catholic Church, that no matter what physical events preceded the Fall of Man, there were 2 original human beings who were essentially different from all other previously created living things, in having an immortal soul, free will to choose whether to obey God or not, and the awesome responsibility that the rest of mankind would suffer or benefit from their choice. I do believe, in agreement with statements from the teaching authority of the Church that the theory of evolution is the best statement of how God decided to create living things on Earth, but of course that refers only ONLY! to the physical part of human beings, and does not contain any statement at all as to when God put a soul into those bodies. There were 2 people who had souls, and no one before them did. They did not “evolve” souls.

Even if I seem to agree with people who say that there are animals in Heaven, if that means that they believe that humans are no more than animals, they have so much wrong that I cannot even begin to say that I agree with them.

God created very primitive life on Earth, God created this neat way for this life to become many different forms of life (so what if it took a while. God has time), God took two of these creatures and gave them a soul, they made a BIG MISTAKE, and so on.

Then, I do believe that when God designed Heaven for us to enjoy, He included many things which He gave us as gifts to enjoy here on Earth. Including our pets. I do not think that pets are necessary in Heaven, any more than humans are necessary to God. He just seems to like creating things, and giving us gifts. Rejoice!

 

[StAnastasia]

There were 2 people who had souls, and no one before them did. They did not “evolve” souls.

So you accept all sciences except genetics? The genetic evidence is that the human population never sank below 3,000-10,000 breeding pairs. The “founder effect” refers to what happens when a small population of animals (e.g. isolated on an island) restarts a population from just a few pairs. Hominids/humans never experienced the founder effect; our species never shrank to a single Adamic pair.

You can of course reject the science, as is your right. You might not be able to get a science teaching or research position, but to attain “salvation” Catholics are certainly not required to accept evolution or gravity or plate tectonics or cell theory or atomic theory or relativity or quantum mechanics or any other scientific theory.

StAnastasia