Would dogs enjoy heaven?

[jonathan_hili]

Right. However there are some who migh actually consider that to be a good argument.

Yes really. The spelling of the words has nothing to do with theological matters.

A dog is a purely physical creature. As such it experiences nothing at least until the Resurrection, if it were raised in the general Ressurection it would experience Perfect natural happiness.

Sigh Would someone really consider it a good argument?

Whether dogs are in, could be in or would enjoy Heaven, I think, is pure speculation. I don’t think we can be definitive in any direction the argument goes. However, I’d made a couple of points:
(i) I don’t think dogs are purely physical creatures. Certainly, they don’t have immortal, rational souls as people do - and therefore, as you rightly point out, would not experience anything after death (unless God miraculously willed it) - but they must have some kind of soul, if you hold that the soul is the form of the body. If you follow this line of thought, the form can never be a material part. The capacity of this immateriality, however, is obviously not the same as that of people.
(ii) By dogs being in Heaven, don’t we mean this with regards to the general resurrection and “new heaven and new earth”? If God’s Creation now is so abundant, shouldn’t we expect the new one to be a super-plenitude?

 

[Love4All]

I don’t see any reason why there wouldn’t be dogs in heaven. I think what dog owners are thinking about when they want dogs in heaven is that they want their dog to “go to heaven,” i.e. they want to be reunited with their beloved pet the way they want to be reunited with their grandparents. That seems to me a human attachment, based on affection but not perhaps on love. People feel affection for and from their animals, but affection is not the same thing as love, love is the Interior Life of God. He shares His Life with His human creatures in a very special way among living beings. It does not seem to me that a dog, lacking an intellectual nature, could appreciate the contemplation of the Inner Life of the Blessed Trinity, which is the defining characteristic of Church Triumphant. So I do not think dogs participate in Church Triumphant. But in the New Heaven and New Earth, I think there will be dogs, I just don’t think they will experience it the same way angels and humans will.

 

[GEddie]

Where are you getting this?

A dog would say humans can’t smell worth a hoot.

There’s no reason they wouldn’t value their powerful noses the way we value our philosophical mind.

ICXC NIKA

 

[devoutchristian]

Sigh Would someone really consider it a good argument?

Yes there are unfortunately some who would.

(i) I don’t think dogs are purely physical creatures. Certainly, they don’t have immortal, rational souls as people do - and therefore, as you rightly point out, would not experience anything after death (unless God miraculously willed it) - but they must have some kind of soul, if you hold that the soul is the form of the body. If you follow this line of thought, the form can never be a material part. The capacity of this immateriality, however, is obviously not the same as that of people.

I believe St. Thomas Aquinas addressed this. Animals have physical souls, which can not operate separately from their bodies.

A dog would say humans can’t smell worth a hoot.

There’s no reason they wouldn’t value their powerful noses the way we value our philosophical mind.

ICXC NIKA

They can’t think such thoughts.

 

[chocongdonghn]

Up cho bác nè!!!

Xem phim HD d? nét cao t?i www.phimLike.com

Click --------> Phim tam ly

Click --------> phim loan luan

Click --------> phim sex

Click --------> phim hanh dong

Click --------> phim ma

Click --------> Phim tâm lý

---

Composed/Posted with WYSIWYG BBCode Editor

 

[jonathan_hili]

If this were so, dogs would delight in God on Earth but of course they don’t. Dogs do not have spiritual souls. I think Aquinas answered this well in chapter 82 of Part II of “Summa Contra Gentiles.”

Since God is immaterial, there is no reason to believe dogs (or cats or chimpanzees) could detect Him.

Frankly, I worry about people who cannot distinguish between the material souls of dogs—who are incapable of abstract thought and reflection—and the immortal souls of human beings.

I agree that animals like dogs don’t have immortal, rational souls, but it doesn’t follow that they have “material souls”. In fact, if the soul is the “form of the body”, there’s no such thing as a “material soul”. Could you explain what you mean here?

Also, higher animals are certainly capable of cognition that could find pleasure in Heaven, especially if we mean - and I took it to mean - the new heavens and new earth after the general resurrection.

 

[jonathan_hili]

I believe St. Thomas Aquinas addressed this. Animals have physical souls, which can not operate separately from their bodies.

Certainly, but that doesn’t mean that their souls are material or physical. They have “sensitive souls”, capable of sensation but these souls are also immaterial. Now, by saying they are immaterial, it doesn’t mean that they are naturally immortal, as they lack certain qualities that could extend them beyond the physical without the physical, such as self-awareness and reason.

I think that technically human souls are only sustained without bodies by a special grace of God, that is to say, if there were no God, it is difficult to see how the human soul of itself can be capable of anything without the body, and even Aquinas admits that it is not complete without the body. What the human soul is capable of without the body is essentially due - in most part - to God’s grace, such as infused knowledge.

 

[Lochias]

There will be animals in the New Earth, but they will not be in Heaven. Our home will be in Heaven, and we will care for the Earth as God had originally intended for Adam and Eve. But the rule of “no animals in the house” will be applied - dogs will not eat of the Eucharistic Banquet.

Well, glad you’ve figured all that out after the Church has concretely said that we don’t know for sure. What other fathomless mysteries are you gonna tackle in one paragraph for us today?

 

[Lochias]

If you think Paul was talking about dogs and pigs and horseflies going to heaven because He loves them and wants them to be happy, but many people may go to hell just the same, I will—with best wishes for you and your loved ones—bow out of this conversation. I remember my seminary rector admonishing us not to tell children their pets don’t go to heaven; I never imagined so many adults would have a hard time with the notion.

Animals don’t have the capacity for intrinsic evil. And, your seminary rector doesn’t know the answer for sure any more than the teaching magisterium of the Church does, so perhaps he should have simply kept silent on the issue.

 

[Lochias]

Animals are purely physical creatures.

And that limits God how, exactly?

 

[markeverett49]

And that limits God how, exactly?

God, through an act of divine providence, could put the corpse of a dog in heaven, of course, though as dogs do not have immortal souls, it’s hard to see how they would enjoy it.

 

[markeverett49]

Dogs have material souls. If they had immortal souls, they would be moral creatures and it would be just as wrong to own a dog as it would be a person. Dogs are not moral agents and they have wholly material souls, as grasshoppers and ants and cockroaches do.

Yes, the form CAN be a material part. Aquinas is good on this matter in the second book of “Summa Contra Gentiles,” chapter 82 (-if memory serves.)

I do not think it possible for dogs to enjoy heaven because they lack intellects.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Dogs have material souls. If they had immortal souls, they would be moral creatures and it would be just as wrong to own a dog as it would be a person. Dogs are not moral agents and they have wholly material souls, as grasshoppers and ants and cockroaches do.

Yes, the form CAN be a material part. Aquinas is good on this matter in the second book of “Summa Contra Gentiles,” chapter 82 (-if memory serves.)

I do not think it possible for dogs to enjoy heaven because they lack intellects.

Maybe we aren’t meaning the same thing. By “material soul” I’m thinking you mean “made of matter” (i.e. physical stuff). If that’s the case, I don’t see how they can even have souls. If souls are the “organising principles” of matter, how can such things be material? It would be like the blueprints of a house being made of bricks and glass.

I’m not suggesting a “sensitive” soul is by nature immortal. I don’t see why it should be. Only that it can’t material.

 

[markeverett49]

Certainly, but that doesn’t mean that their souls are material or physical. They have “sensitive souls”, capable of sensation but these souls are also immaterial. Now, by saying they are immaterial, it doesn’t mean that they are naturally immortal, as they lack certain qualities that could extend them beyond the physical without the physical, such as self-awareness and reason.QUOTE]

You don’t know what you are saying here. Yes, that does mean that their souls are material or physical. “Sensitive souls” would by definition be physical, as “sensitive [sense] organs” are by definition material or physical.

It is the human ability to think abstractly that lets us know—even those who do not have religious faith—that there is an immaterial aspect to us, the intellect.

 

[jonathan_hili]

You don’t know what you are saying here. Yes, that does mean that their souls are material or physical. “Sensitive souls” would by definition be physical, as “sensitive [sense] organs” are by definition material or physical.

It is the human ability to think abstractly that lets us know—even those who do not have religious faith—that there is an immaterial aspect to us, the intellect.

Okay, we must have different ideas of what we mean by “soul”. What do you mean by “soul”, Mark?

 

[markeverett49]

Maybe we aren’t meaning the same thing. By “material soul” I’m thinking you mean “made of matter” (i.e. physical stuff). If that’s the case, I don’t see how they can even have souls. If souls are the “organising principles” of matter, how can such things be material? It would be like the blueprints of a house being made of bricks and glass.

I’m not suggesting a “sensitive” soul is by nature immortal. I don’t see why it should be. Only that it can’t material.

The immaterial is immortal----the immaterial cannot know death because it is outside time. Look, the soul is the first principle of living things. Fruits and vegetables have souls but those souls are wholly material and they do not live on after the fruit goes out of existence. Grasshoppers have souls and so do termites. But these are mortal souls. The human souls is immortal. (This is why one hears it that way, ‘you are endangering your immortal soul!’) Dog souls are not immortal.

The confusion results from many people assuming “a soul is a soul” and that if dogs have them, they must be like ours. This is the result of not having learned such basic things. It is not to late!

 

[jonathan_hili]

The immaterial is immortal----the immaterial cannot know death because it is outside time. Look, the soul is the first principle of living things. Fruits and vegetables have souls but those souls are wholly material and they do not live on after the fruit goes out of existence. Grasshoppers have souls and so do termites. But these are mortal souls. The human souls is immortal. (This is why one hears it that way, ‘you are endangering your immortal soul!’) Dog souls are not immortal.

The confusion results from many people assuming “a soul is a soul” and that if dogs have them, they must be like ours. This is the result of not having learned such basic things. It is not to late!

I know dog souls are not immortal, but I don’t think it’s the “immateriality” of the soul that makes it immortal. For example, Aristotle believed the soul was immaterial but he didn’t really believe in immortality of the soul because of its conjoined nature with the body. Similarly, Aquinas had difficultly in dealing with the issue.

If the soul is “the first principle of living things”, what does this mean? Do you mean “the thing that makes it alive”?

 

[markeverett49]

I know dog souls are not immortal, but I don’t think it’s the “immateriality” of the soul that makes it immortal. For example, Aristotle believed the soul was immaterial but he didn’t really believe in immortality of the soul because of its conjoined nature with the body. Similarly, Aquinas had difficultly in dealing with the issue.

If the soul is “the first principle of living things”, what does this mean? Do you mean “the thing that makes it alive”?

The immortal cannot die. The human body can die; it is mortal. The human soul, however, is immortal. In general, the terms “immaterial” and “spiritual” refer to the same thing. Sadly, in our day the “spiritual” is often associated with the emotional.But back to the point: immaterial things have no parts, they are “simple” (-as understood by philoshophers and theologians) and cannot decay, or know death. Dogs lack this immaterial aspect that allows us to ponder things such as justice or laws, truth and the good society.

 

[jonathan_hili]

The immortal cannot die. The human body can die; it is mortal. The human soul, however, is immortal. In general, the terms “immaterial” and “spiritual” refer to the same thing. Sadly, in our day the “spiritual” is often associated with the emotional.But back to the point: immaterial things have no parts, they are “simple” (-as understood by philoshophers and theologians) and cannot decay, or know death. Dogs lack this immaterial aspect that allows us to ponder things such as justice or laws, truth and the good society.

Of course the “immortal” cannot die, but it doesn’t follow that something that is immaterial cannot. Also, “immaterial” doesn’t mean “spiritual”, even in general terms. There are lots of immaterial things that aren’t spiritual: moral values, logic, mathematics, etc.

I know that dogs lack certain aspects of their souls, I’m not denying that, that’s why I don’t think dog-souls are immortal. What I’m trying to argue is that, being a soul, a dog-soul cannot be material.

I could be wrong, but from the way you describe the soul, it sounds like you conceive it as a kind of “spiritual thing” that inhabits or is infused into a material body. Is that right?

 

[markeverett49]

Of course the “immortal” cannot die, but it doesn’t follow that something that is immaterial cannot. Also, “immaterial” doesn’t mean “spiritual”, even in general terms. There are lots of immaterial things that aren’t spiritual: moral values, logic, mathematics, etc.

I know that dogs lack certain aspects of their souls, I’m not denying that, that’s why I don’t think dog-souls are immortal. What I’m trying to argue is that, being a soul, a dog-soul cannot be material.

I could be wrong, but from the way you describe the soul, it sounds like you conceive it as a kind of “spiritual thing” that inhabits or is infused into a material body. Is that right?

Actually, all material things are subject to the ravages of time. Death is the dissolution of a body into parts.
All the things you mention as being immaterial but not spiritual are things it requires an intellect to grasp. They are not sense particulars; it is our grasp, such as it is, of such things which shows us our minds are not wholly material. Nothing in the behavior of dogs suggests a grasp of such things.

Yes, dog souls are material. If they are not immaterial–and hence immortal–they are material. There’s no third option here! Angels have been called “minds without bodies,” and so they are. We are a mix of mind and body. Dogs are all body, no mind.