Pope Francis tells boy whose dog had died that heaven is open to all

[Derek V]

Source: CBC (Canada)

CBC News
Posted: Dec 12, 2014 8:23 AM ET

Pope Francis suggested recently that even animals have a place in heaven, while trying to soothe a young boy during a public appearance at the Vatican's St. Peter's Square.

"Paradise is open to all of God’s creatures," he told the boy, whose dog died recently.

“One day, we will see our animals again in the eternity of Christ,” said the leader of the Catholic Church, according to Italian news sources.

The Pope made the comments at a weekly general audience at the Vatican.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/pope-francis-tells-boy-whose-dog-had-died-that-heaven-is-open-to-all-1.2870888

---

Well, if there is a heaven, animals deserve it a LOT more than we do!

[CTyankee]

1. well, that's very cool.

I guess nobody is going to ding him for that. After all, he may be right after all...however, I think it is a pleasant, benign fiction that he kindly told a grieving child. I guess as fiction goes, it's as good as any...it doesn't hurt and I'm sure it helps!

[NV Whino]

2. Open to all except

Dick Cheney.

[Ken Burch]

85. Haliburton has its own Heaven.

They got federal money to build it.

I hear the burgers suck.

[NV Whino]

88. They probably have KBR meals

Or is it KRB?

[jberryhill]

3. So if a dog viciously mauls a child to death...

...and then the dog is put down, that dog gets to go after that same child again in the afterlife forever?

Or is this only for "good" dogs?

[Derek V]

6. Dogs aren't vicious

Some of the two-legged assholes who raise them are.

[jberryhill]

10. Who said they were?

I did not make a characterization of any dog. I said that if a dog viciously mauls a child to death and gets put down, then does the dog get to go after the kid in eternity?

[Orrex]

39. I imagine that these self-raised dogs weren't vicious, then.

http://www.argusleader.com/story/news/crime/2014/11/19/official-dog-attack-killed-girl-pine-ridge-reservation/19286029/

I'm sure that the victim's family will be comforted to know that their 8-year-old daugher was killed by non-vicious dogs. Whew!

The most important thing, after all, is to make people feel better about dogs.

[thesquanderer]

19. To go to heaven, the dog must accept cheeses. (n/t)

[renate]

73. :)

Love it!

[robbob]

87. ....as their personal flavor?

eom

[Sunlei]

21. only good dogs go to heaven :)

got to watch your back in heaven a lot of dogs gonna pp on you and your car tires

[Shivering Jemmy]

37. Yes

in heaven, a vicious dog gets to maul spirit children to death.

However, because the spirit child is already dead, the vicious dog doesn't have to actually do anything, so it will just chill instead.

[Orrex]

40. Glad to hear there are chilly dogs in heaven.

Delish!

[ProfessorGAC]

69. Good One!

Had me laughing at my desk.

[Reter]

79. By "open to all" he meant all those who are good

He's to the left of any other recent Pope, but I doubt even he thinks bad people/animals will make it in.

[Ken Burch]

86. The dog isn't acting out of viciousness.

If it does something like that, either it was rabid or otherwise diseased, or trained to be violent by humans, or in some way made to feel frightened.

Animals don't do human-style meanness.

[FLPanhandle]

4. I guess if people can believe in heaven, then why not have animals there?

I certainly wouldn't want to spend time with the folks that think they are heading there.

[mountain grammy]

57. Now, there's my idea of heaven; me and my mutt cuddled together for eternity.

[wcollar]

62. People and dogs in heaven

Mark Twain covered that, "When I reflect upon the number of disagreeable people who I know have gone to better world, I am moved to lead a different life."
And "Heaven goes by favor. If it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in."

[meow2u3]

93. Heaven wouldn't be heaven without my cats

[Orsino]

117. To put it another way, Heaven couldn't be Heaven without dogs. n/t

[brooklynite]

5. Let's follow the logical progression...

Somewhere in the world, there's a Catholic couple who got divorced, and fought over who got the dog. How does god work out visitation rights in heaven?

[snooper2]

8. Just cut the dog in half, seal the sides with some clear plastic, you have two working dogs

Might look a little funny but hey, gawd can do anything!

[christx30]

59. A hard core Catholic will tell you

that divorce is a sin, so a Catholic couple wouldn't have to worry about who gets the dog in Heaven. Neither will be there.

I hate religion, but I read a lot of religion sites to see what they are saying.

[ProfessorGAC]

71. Not If They Get A Tribunal Dissolution

I am a fallen away catholic (as in, fell away at Warp 8 when i was a freshman in high school), but my mom actually worked for the diocese canon law center. She was a transcriptionist in the dissolution courts.

It is amazingly simple with only modest barriers to get a marriage dissolved by the church. With that comes automatic absolution.

The "divorced people go to hell" thing is quite overstated. And remember, i'm not defending the church here. Just providing some first hand knowledge about their internal law system

[hrmjustin]

7. I want my pets to go to heaven with me.

The deserve to go there more than I do.

[snooper2]

12. careful what you wish for, sometimes they come back- not the same, the ground has gone sour

[hrmjustin]

14. Great movie.

[bigworld]

9. Does this means animals can go to hell too?

[HERVEPA]

11. Of course

[Xolodno]

13. Nope.

They all go to heaven: Romans 8:18-26

Only humans can choose to be assholes.

Oh don't show that passage to a fundie....they'll go nuts...well... more than usual.

[candelista]

16. There is nothing in the passage you cite about animals.

[Sunlei]

26. humans are animals too

mammals

[candelista]

34. And a cabbage is a vegetable.

But not all vegetables are good with corned beef.

[Sunlei]

38. oh I love cabbage, delicious!

I don't buy corned beef its to expensive, the drugs they use remain in the meat and so cruel the production 'process'.

probably for the best anyway, animals that are stuffed with corn/fattening drugs really suffer horrible agony those couple of finishing months in the 'tightpack' feedlots.

[Xolodno]

30. Read a little bit closer...I think you are looking for the obvious...

Also, I'm using the RSV version.

Note that humans are called "children of God" (verse 16) and "creation" implies everything else (creation is often referred to all creatures not human, mother nature, etc.)

[19] For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God;
[20] for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope;
[21] because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God.
[22] We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now;
[23] and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.

Verse 21 will get fundies furious...and verse 23 reaffirms the distinction between humans and the animal kingdom.

[Arugula Latte]

78. Pope Francis has said he believes in evolution. Soooo ...

At what point in human evolution did humans become "children of God" as opposed to lesser "creation"?
Astralopithecus Afarensis? Homo habilis? Neanderthals? ... Or only Homo sapiens?

Sad that people still put any stock in this silly, primitive book.

[Xolodno]

91. If thats your view...

...then why even bother responding to me? If you want to belittle faith...your free to do so. But its plainly obvious...you are looking for an argument. Why, I don't know.

Your acting like a fundie. I didn't seek you out, attempt to engage you, try to convert you, etc. But you felt it necessary to belittle like fundie belittles those without faith...or in my case, they would condemn me because I'm a heretic. I only answered someone's question....that had nothing to do with you.

You want an argument....go argue with a fundamentalist. By the end both of you will walk away feeling smug thinking you've accomplished something.

[Sunlei]

25. only if they ride on the roof of the republicans car or are trapped in the republicans factory farms

[Bradical79]

41. I would say yes and no

If animals lack the ability to make moral choices then it seems under the system of sinners who have not accepted God's forgiveness going to hell, they would not be eligible. Of course God being a being with infinite power, if he wants to send an animal to hell he could do it. Nothing is impossible.

[jberryhill]

46. Hades has one at the gate, if that's any indication

[candelista]

15. This is actually a big deal.

Traditional Catholic doctrine is that only people have souls, and hence only humans can go to heaven. (Christians of all denominations share this view.) This has been a cause of animal cruelty even before Descartes. So it will take more than an off-the-cuff remark on the part of His Holiness to change this doctrine. He will have to have a retroactive finding ex cathedra to address this issue. And I doubt that this will ever happen. It was just a nice lie to tell a kid.

[Sunlei]

27. what is a soul?

[rjsquirrel]

103. A fictitious invention

of European peasants.

[Sunlei]

104. no I think a soul is the feeling of comfort I had when I see the Pope comfort a child

[Bradical79]

29. Seems like a scenario would be easy to come up with

We're talking about a creator or with infinite power after all. Having no soul could make it equivalent to an object for example, and there would certainly be souless objects in heaven. If a dog helped provide true happiness to a child why wouldn't a loving God with infinite power bring back the dog to be this person's companion in the afterlife? I don't believe in one groups mythology over any other but I don't think it takes a lot of imagination to work in pets in heaven.

[candelista]

31. No.

Pan animism contradicts the Christian anthropocentric conception of reality.

[Bradical79]

35. What is pan-animism?

I'm not familiar with that specific term. Though I'm not sure how any man concocted term would limit the ability of an all powerful God to give a boy their dead dog. Any explanation in which something so simple is impossible is equivalent to saying your God is not all powerful. There are many unscientific imaginative ways in which the existence of a dog in heaven can be explained since we are talking about a being that supposedly created this universe.

[bananas]

112. Catholic.com: "Animals have souls--and so do plants."

Catholic doctrine is that all living things have souls.

Some references:

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/do-animals-have-souls-like-human-beings

http://www.all-creatures.org/ca/ark-186soul.html

http://www.padrepiosworld.com/page17.php

http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/pets_in_heaven.htm
"For more information on how the Church sees animals in the lives of human beings, check the Catechism of the Catholic Church 2415-2418."

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P8B.HTM

[candelista]

121. Not immortal ones.

From one of your own links:

Animals and plants can't do anything which transcends the limitations of matter. Although some animals seem clever, they don't actually possess conceptional intelligence. They can't, for instance, conceive of the abstract notion of justice.

Animals and plants also lack a moral sense. When you scold Spot for chewing the carpet and tell him what he did was "wrong," you aren't assigning guilt of sin to him, since he can't commit a sin.

Animal and vegetable souls are dependent entirely on matter for their operation and being. They cease to exist at death. (There's no "doggie heaven.&quot

Human souls, by contrast, aren't material. They're spiritual. Only a spirit can know and love, a spirit's two chief faculties being the intellect (which knows) and the will (which loves). We know human souls are spiritual since humans can know and love.

We also know human souls are immortal because spirits can't decompose. They have no parts: Only a thing with parts can fall apart. A spirit is a unit. It has no top or bottom, no left or right, no inside or outside.

http://www.all-creatures.org/ca/ark-186soul.html

[Bluenorthwest]

17. And what of Sparky?

On South Park, Stan learned to love his gay dog Sparky. I wonder if Frances can find the humanity in himself which exists in a character cut from cardboard? The suspense mounts.

[Feral Child]

18. This is contrary to church dogma

(please don't think I meant a pun).

Protestants of the evangelical fetish absolutely deny that animals have "souls". It reinforces their need to deny evolution, since that reduces humans to a less-than-special species.

I'm not a student of the fallacies of religion but I've never heard any priest or minister suggest that animals have "souls". I think this Pope, in his normal attention-seeking strategy of seeming reasonable and humane, has cynically repudiated dogma with this statement. Catholics can certainly correct me, and I'll respect their response (as valid only on dogma, not reality, of course).

I'm absolutely certain about fundamentalist evangelicals, though. I've suffered politely through their rants often enough to realize that they consider all animals, the entire earth, actually, as their special fief based on an extrapolation of the Genesis pronouncement that their god has given them the planet to rule over.

At any rate, evangelical "salvation" can only be achieved by recognition and acceptance of their imagined messiah, and I don't think my mixed-breed rat terrier Jake is capable of making that leap of faith.

I'll pare down my usual loquaciousness (which many seem to find offensive) thus:

I think this insincere and camera-loving Pope staged a "Mission Accomplished" moment, without the additional cod-piece. Pure marketing tripe.

[candelista]

20. Right.

And not just evangelicals believe that animals have no souls. Catholics, too. Indeed, all versions of Christianity teach this invidious doctrine, which has been the source of much animal mistreatment for many centuries.

[Feral Child]

22. Thanks for the back-up.

Yep, just another cynical, insincere photo op for this Show-boat Pope.

[Brewinblue]

28. Wow!

Are you sure it's the Pope that's the cynical show-boat here?


And I say this as a dyed-in-the-wool atheist.

[Feral Child]

48. Indeed,

I admit to being a bit heavy-handed in my expository style. It's a conceit, surely, but is often misunderstood as arrogance.

Truth is I'm pretty reclusive and my normal social outlets consist of greetings to grocery cashiers and being lectured by health-care professionals; therefore, I tend to be a bit extravagant in expression here and the one other internet social network I belong to. I happen to enjoy well-crafted prose. I'm sorry that some find me insufferable and merely ask that my critics attempt to consider there may be reasons they can't see, flaws other than mere smart-assedness (if I may be allowed a neologism).

I find your concerns a bit curious. I haven't attacked you personally, in fact I wasn't aware of your existence until I read your unsolicited criticism. Which of us is offended, and which of us should be?

I humbly accept your criticism, but I have to counter that my exposition here was on-point, whereas yours merely consists of an attempt to injure my feelings and fails to contribute to the discussion here.

If I wanted to be a dick about it, I'd edit your post with red ink and hand it back to you with an appropriate grade, but instead I'll apologize for annoying you and ask that you consider that others have personality flaws and social ineptitudes. Perhaps you have some flaws of your own. It would seem that digression could be one of them.

Back on topic, do you have any substantial criticism to my message other than the way I expressed it?

A terse summation of my post, for those offended by elocution: He's a hypocrite and has lied to this boy in order to please an uncritical crowd; more a politician than a leader.
That's still wordy but more succinct.

Do you disagree with my premise? I'll certainly listen to a counter argument and resist any temptation to critique your response syntactically.

If the only point you wish to make is that you don't like me, I'll take that under advisement.

[Brewinblue]

109. I have no issues with you personally.

Not one bit. In fact, I have no idea who you are. But your ad-hominem attacks against Pope Francis just seemed misplaced. The man has advanced liberal thinking in the Church far beyond what anyone could have foreseen. So, what has he done to raise such vitriolic skepticism on your part?

[Feral Child]

113. I believe I've mentioned I'm done

with this thread.

Maybe you should try again later.

[jberryhill]

42. With the incidental effect of making a sad kid feel better

[Feral Child]

52. Entirely incidental.

It's pure sophistry to suggest that was his actual reason. The man plays to the crowd. This is a denial of dogma, and although he surely has the power to alter dogma, he may only do so by Papal Bull to my understanding ( I chuckle at the irony inherent in the phrase "Papal Bull&quot .
Thus, he's guilty of heresy, a religious crime committed solely to achieve popularity.

As a non-believer, I see gross hypocrisy in denying church dogma that's stood for nearly 2,000 years for the purpose of a photo Op Personally I'm offended by him lying to a child as well, either by my standards of belief or his.

Will he issue a Bull on the subject? Will all animals be declared to have souls now, by sacred decree? Will priests be giving last-rites to possums struck by 18 wheelers? So they won't fear the loss of Salvation or the pangs of Hell?

Or will he deny his denial, in the end?

Perhaps you, as a Believer, wish to declare his motives were pure. Those less naive question his motives and ridicule them.

[jberryhill]

61. "Perhaps you, as a Believer" what the ever-living fuck?

Perhaps you, as a person unfamiliar with the English language, cannot quite grasp the meaning of my post in this thread where I call religion "make believe".

But you have such a reaction formation issue on any subject tangentially related to the topic that it is necessary for you to believe that one who does not share your level of hostility is a member of the class you despise.

[Feral Child]

84. That's arrogant, jberryhill.

You think I've read your posts. How cute. A bit self-absorbed, but cute.

I made an initial statement in this thread and have plenty to do rather than look for wisdom from jberryhill.

I've been attacked for everything from my writing style to my understanding of patristic exegesis. Including some prosaic comment about him being nice to the boy.

I've been much too busy to read other posts in this thread. I responded to your Norman Rockwell delusion in a way that seemed appropriate. I felt the naivete of your post, actually thinking that he cares a sacrilegious shit about this little boy's feelings, to be indicative of the mind-set of a person of religious faith. If I was wrong about that, I apologize, but merely correcting me with out the hyperbolic condemnation of my character would have sufficed.
Had you posted, "Dude, You're wrong, I'm not religious." I would have apologized, quite sincerely. Just as sincerely.

I made a mistake. Act like an adult, point out my error, but get over yourself. You lost the moral high-ground as soon as you fabricated your insult.

That "unfamiliar with the English language" dig was particularly cheap. If you're going to insult me, use a little imagination and say something more likely to actually injure. I'd suggest, "You're a pompous ass!" or "You're conceited and talk down to people." Close enough to the general opinion here to raise a welt. But, calling into question my understanding of English is so obviously inaccurate that it's just silly and childish. Might as well say Audubon hated birds.

The only thing that has ever struck me about you is your Bessie the Cow avatar. I think it's sweet, and it's original enough to be memorable. I can't say that of your posts. I must have read something one time or another or I wouldn't remember your avatar, but damned if I can recall what you had to say.

So, while you have every right to get indignant without provocation and vent your spleen, I'd suggest you save it for someone who gives a shit.

[bananas]

115. No, Catholicism teaches that animals have souls and must be treated with respect.

I posted some links in post #112: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=964847

[candelista]

118. Whatever your links say, they are wrong.

[jberryhill]

23. A dog would not need salvation...

...unless you are also saying there was some sort of dog Adam who ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thus casting the entire dog species into original sin from which salvation would be required.

You can take the position that dogs have neutral moral agency, but that does not mean they lack a spirit any moreso than man before the fall.

When playing make-believe, there are no rules anyway.

[Feral Child]

54. Forgive me

if I find the convoluted intricacies of the Roman Faith to be intolerable tedious. Does not entry into Heaven equate to Salvation?

The invented dialectics of papist dictates is illusory.

[hedgehog]

58. According to THomas Cahill's "Heretics and Heros",

the concept of "soul" is a Greek invention. Judaism at that time did not split a person into body and soul. That's one reason the concept of bodily resurrection was so important. The notion of living on as a floaty spirit in some other world was not attractive to these people.

[Feral Child]

64. You're certainly

a more astute scholar than I am.

Does that mean that there's is no afterlife, according to this source?

Was he a Reformer, one of the Protestants of the Great Schism (as opposed to today's Protestants of the Almighty Dollar)?

Is the Catholic faith, with it's belief in Heaven, an artificial construct?

I'm confused. I'd kind of prefer limiting discussion to the Pope's hypocrisy since I think all religion is barbaric mythology, propagated to exert control over the gullible.


At any rate, I've got to attend to chores so it may be awhile before I can respond.

[hedgehog]

68. Thomas Cahill is the author of a series of very readable books discussing

the foundations of Western culture. SOme may think he places too much emphasis on Judaism and Christianity. He formerly worked as a publisher of books on religion. He is a Catholic very much in the mold of John XXIII. Among his other books is "A Saint on Death Row."

How the Irish Saved Civilization

The Gifts of the Jews

Everlasting Desire of the Hills

Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea - Why the Greeks Matter

Mysteries of the Middle Ages

Heretics and Heroes

[Feral Child]

80. Thanks.

Probably interesting but I think I'd find his focus nettling. To be honest, I find religion, although it has definitely shaped society and still wields considerable influence to be so totally irrelevent to me personally that I haven't been able spare time for it at all.

My understanding of all organized religion is that there are intrusive and annoying, more concerned with aquisition of wealth and power than anything else and that the evangelicals are going to make it more intrusive and infinitely more annoying as they continue to infiltrate government.

I'm hoping that it won't get much worse within the brief time left to me.

I've been described as militant, intolerant and non-progressive for my refusal "respect" and tolerate them. Truth is I'm quite tolerant. I haven't tried to reason with a believer in years. I ignore them unless they refuse to be ignored. I find that tolerant enough.

None of this was intended to in sult you personally hedgehog. I don't know you're interest in the matter but you certainly haven't intruded, just supplied information.

Thanks for the references and your comments.

[hedgehog]

90. Glad to be of help. Cahill is rather critical of organized religion himself,

but one who advocates a Christianity based on charity.

[Feral Child]

101. Folks misunderstand me sometimes.

I have no real problem with people seeking the Answer. Staring into the Void without one is scary shit. Like a roller-coaster, I just dig it.

My problem is with organized Religion, and the enabling fools who insist on defending it despite the obvious culpability of the Grifters.


Again, thanks for your assistance.

[onehandle]

66. Dogma that has changed many, many, many times over 2000 years.

So, whatever.

[Feral Child]

81. I understand that and am not quibbling.

I understand they need to change it as they try to keep themselves relevant in order to not fade into the oblivion they forced onto other faiths more often by the sword than not.

Papa is breaking his own rules, but that's cool with some folks as long as it fits into their personal Norman Rockwell view.

I'm just pointing out his hypocrisy and cynicism in using this boy's grief as a photo op. If others want to lap up this pablum and marvel at his "humanity", that's OK, but I still get to hold up the mirror. It's interesting to watch people engaged in emotional acrobatics in order to defend the charlatan. I learned a long time ago how useless it is to try to actually discuss this logically with Believers.


You amuse yourself stirring up the Gunslingers, I like to prod the Saved. Neither of us is going to alter reality. It's all a waste of time, mere harmless entertainment, neh?

[onehandle]

92. A conversation between the Pope and a child was reported in the news.

Do you think there was some kind of collusion between them?

Do you think the kid was reading from a script?

Did the two of them have earpieces and lines were being fed from the Vatican's PR department?



Hardly an 'op' of any kind.

Except maybe for the news agency.

[Feral Child]

100. Hmmm....

I think I'm done with this topic.

Synopsis: The Popeman sucks Crucifix.

[LanternWaste]

82. Try Sshweitzer, Lewis, Augustine or Chesterton

" but I've never heard any priest or minister suggest that animals have "souls"."

Try Albert Schweitzer (On the Edge of the Primeval Forest), C.S. Lewis (The Four Loves), Augustine of Hippo (Retractationes), and G. K. Chesterton (The Everlasing Man). Each of the listed either state out-right, or imply the ability of animals to hold souls. These being in addition to my own humble and not-well-known Presbyterian minister.

[Feral Child]

89. I'm just not interested.

I have to be honest, and I have been; I find the entire subject of religion so tedious and unrealistic that I have no interest in reading theologians. My foci of study were Modernism, (which lead me to) Old English and Medieval literature.

Those scholastic days are well behind me. I appreciate your intention, but I'm more interested in reading about techniques for using organic fertilizer than anything else these days.

My only forays into the complex and futile subject of religion are here, and they mostly consist of ridiculing the Pope for striving for popularity through pretentiousness. I don't think he had any more regard for that boy than he has for the LGBT movement, even though he kissed up to them before actually telling his troops to go ahead and persecute them.

I believe you're trying to be helpful and I appreciate that, I do. This topic has become more tedious than I care to endure. I have 5 comments on my 1st post alone, most of them personal attacks, and I haven't even looked at my responses to my attackers yet.

Thanks.

[Yo_Mama]

98. Catholic article on the question saying differently:

http://onetruecatholicfaith.com/Roman-Catholic-Articles.php?id=658&title=Do+Animals+Go+To+Heaven%3F&category=Catholic+Articles&page=1

[Feral Child]

99. Ok, I was wrong!

Jeez on a cracker...

[Kingofalldems]

24. I love this pope!

[candelista]

32. He sure is better than the last guy.

[hamsterjill]

55. Me, too!!!

He just "gets" it so much better. I love that he advocates for the REAL traits that should be exemplified in Christianity - like compassion and brotherly love.

[FLPanhandle]

33. I'm an atheist and even I wouldn't tell a little kid his dog won't be in heaven.

It's just making a kid feel a little better, not a theological statement.

[jberryhill]

43. That's what makes The Invention of Lying such a great movie

But, yeah...

"Kid, face it. Your dog is dead and that's that. Get over it. Next?"

[Bradical79]

45. Well, it is the Pope's job to think about such things

When you're Pope, any statement about these matters is a theological statement to somebody. Kind of comes with the teratory.

[TwilightGardener]

36. Why would God deny me the chance to see my beloved companions again, what kind

of "heaven" would that be? What, just people up there? Lame. Anyhoo, theology aside, the Pope's a nice man comforting a sad child.

[Orrex]

44. You've actually destroyed the concept of heaven, as a matter of fact

what kind of "heaven" would that be?

Indeed! And if I go to heaven while a beloved friend is banished to hell, then I will suffer as a result of that knowledge despite the allegedly perfect bliss of heaven.

If that knowledge is kept from me, then heaven is a place of deception and therefore evil.

If I am transfigured in a way that makes me "accept" or "not care" that my friend is in hell, then I will have been so profoundly transformed that I can't claim to be "me" anymore.


Makes more sense to call the whole thing out as a fairy tale IMO.

[TwilightGardener]

50. You're bumming me out.

But yeah, if my heaven isn't full of the animals and people I loved on earth, and miss, and long to see again, then it's logically going to kind of suck--for eternity.

[cpwm17]

106. I find it disturbing that so many people show so little concern about

the people that are allegedly going to hell. In fact, many people enjoy the thought. It's common in Christianity.

I'd rather there be no heaven if even one person had to go to hell, even if it was my worst enemy. Hell is just that repulsive.

[kiri]

75. heaven is now full of holes

All these rockets going up have been punching holes in heaven. And the forever circling satellites. I fear that a dog (or god, dog spelled backwards) could fall through.

[Xolodno]

94. 1600+ Years of...

..Doctrine, Dogma and Donkey Shit has completely destroyed the concept of Heaven....and Hell.

There is nothing in the Bible, Pseudopigrapha, Apocrypha, Dead Sea Scrolls, Gnostic Writings, etc. that says our pets, or nature in general won't be in heaven. If anything quite the opposite. The verses they rely on saying they wont be is very circumstantial and I pointed out in another post, that animals in heaven will essentially be our equals.

Even Hell isn't eternity. The Apocalypse of Peter, which was widely regarded as being written by him personally, even states those in Hell will eventually released. The book was excluded by the ecumenical church for the express purpose to strengthen the authority and power of the church.

[AtheistCrusader]

47. 'Well, it was a nice place, till all the damn dead bacteria started showing up

It's about 40 feet deep now..."

[Kablooie]

49. So there are more ants in heaven than here.

[Kingofalldems]

51. Fundies not liking this one.

[RKP5637]

53. The persistence of supernatural beliefs and imaginary creatures in the 21st century is

phenomenal. And the filling of heads with nonsense.

[mantis49]

107. Another fairy tale

to go along with the biggest one of all!

[KinMd]

56. I heard a comedian on the radio awhile back say...

"Billy Graham says that Heaven is like a family reunion that never ends. I shutter to think what Hell might be like."

[tclambert]

60. But my dog was a Protestant.

[progressoid]

67. And my cats have never accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

[tclambert]

70. I can't imagine a cat accepting anyone as its Lord.

Savior, maybe, if He brings Tuna, or opens the door to let the cat in when it starts to rain. This acceptance would only last about five minutes, though.

[amandabeech]

119. Your cat doesn't have to accept anyone as Lord, because he or she knows that he or she is Lord.

Be thankful that your cat allow you to serve him or her!

[blkmusclmachine]

63. https://apostchristiannation.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/free-poster-od25z5uyub-popemobile.jpg

[47of74]

65. Yeah, I'm hoping to see my late feline and canine family again...

...when my time comes.

[Brother Buzz]

72. "No Dogs In Heaven"

"No Dogs In Heaven"

An old man and his dog were walking down a hot, dusty road lined with a beautiful white fence on both sides. As they walked along, the old man and his dog became very thirsty and tired.

Soon, they came to a gate in the fence where, on the other side, they saw a nice grassy, wooded area surrounding a cool clear pool of fresh water. "Just where a thirsty 'huntin' dog and a man would like to rest!" thought the old man. But there was a sign over the gate that read "No Dogs" so they walked on.

Further on, they came upon a man in flowing white robes standing just inside a strong iron gate across a path that led to a beautiful, sunny meadow with a cool clear stream running through it.

"'Scuse me Sir," said the old man, "My dog and I have been on this road all day. Mind if we come in and sit in the shade for awhile?" "Of course!" The man said. "Come on in and rest. You look thirsty and tired." The old man said, "We sure are!" and started through the gate with his dog.

The gatekeeper stopped him. "Sorry, you can come in but your dog can't come with you. "You see, this is Heaven, and dogs aren't allowed here. He has to stay out here on the road." "What kind of Heaven won't allow dogs?" said the old man. "Well, if he can't come in, then I'll stay out here on the road with him. He's been my faithful companion all his life and I won't desert him now."

"Suit yourself," said the gatekeeper, "but I have to warn you, the Devil's on this road and he'll try to sweet talk you into his place. He'll promise you anything, but dogs can't go there either. If you won't leave that dog on the road, you'll spend all Eternity on the road with him. Better if you stay here."

"Well, I'm stayin' with my dog," replied the man and he and the dog walked on. Gradually, the fence became more and more faded and rundown until they finally reached a spot where the boards fell away completely leaving a gap. Another man dressed in old, ragged clothes sat just inside the broken fence under a shady tree.

"'Scuse me Sir," said the old man, "My dog and I have been on this road all day. Mind if we come in and sit in the shade for awhile?" "Of course!" The man said. "Come on in and rest. There's some cold water here under the tree. Make yourself comfortable."

The old man paused, "but what about my dog? Can he can come in, too? The man up the road said dogs weren't allowed here, and they had to stay on the road." The other man answered, "Well, you look pretty tired and thirsty. Would you come in here and rest if you had to leave that dog?"

"No sir!" the old man replied, "A glass of cold water and some shade would be mighty fine right about now but I won't come in if my buddy here can't come too. I didn't go to Heaven because my dog couldn't come with me, so I sure as how ain't about to go to Hell without him neither."

The man smiled and said, "Welcome to Heaven, and bring your dog!" The old man exclaimed, "You mean this is Heaven? And my dog can come with me? Then why did that fellow down the road say they weren't allowed in Heaven?" The man replied, "That was the Devil and he gets all the souls who are willing to give up a life-long companion for small comfort because they think it will make their lives a little easier."

The man continued, "They soon find out their mistake, but, then it's too late. The dogs come here, the fickle people stay there. God wouldn't allow dogs to be banned from Heaven. After all, He created them to be man's companions in life, why would he separate them in death?"

- Story is based on an episode of The Twilight Zone by Rod Serling

[yurbud]

74. And fleas?

[diabeticman]

76. My wife said when she was in catholic school the nuns insisted animals didn't go to heaven... many

school students with broken heart.


It is nice to see this pope giving some sort of comfort to a child grieving over a pet.

[brooklynite]

105. by making up a story?

[Arugula Latte]

77. Does this apply to uni-cellular animals, too?

If so, we're gonna need a bigger Heaven ...

Anyhoo, I'm going to ride Starshine Jellybean, my rainbow-glitter unicorn, when I get into Heaven!

Yay! Make Believe is FUN!!!

[Psephos]

83. All Dogs Go To Heaven - one of Don Bluth's best films.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096787/

[AngryAmish]

95. Black Francis beat him by 26 years or so.

[muriel_volestrangler]

96. Newsflash! It was Pope Paul VI who said this, not Francis!

Yes, I'm sure all the theologians who chimed in here with their expert opinion on this oh-so-current news about a report in an Italian newspaper on November 27th will be devastated to know that it's not just 2 week-old news they are gossiping about - the article says it was Pope Paul VI who said something like "one day we will see our animals again in the Eternity of Christ."

Here's what everyone is pretending is 'news', since there's apparently nothing else to talk about in the news today:

http://archiviostorico.corriere.it/2014/novembre/27/Papa_gli_animali_Paradiso_aperto_co_0_20141127_113a59e8-7607-11e4-8dd1-b9af854f838d.shtml

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=it&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Farchiviostorico.corriere.it%2F2014%2Fnovembre%2F27%2FPapa_gli_animali_Paradiso_aperto_co_0_20141127_113a59e8-7607-11e4-8dd1-b9af854f838d.shtml&edit-text=

It is said that Paul VI had comforted a child in tears for the death of his dog and said: "One day we will review our animals in? Eternity of Christ."

In other news, Paul VI is still dead. And has been for 36 years.

The question is: why did this non-story, reported in some English language media back in November resurface 2 weeks later? Is it a press release designed to make people think better of Francis? That's usually the case when there's not real reason for some brown-nosing of the Pope.

[Yo_Mama]

97. Of course, I INSTANTLY thought of this:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2228641/posts

Yes, yes, it's a freep post, but it has the best resolution, so that's the link I'm using.

[rjsquirrel]

102. Hey little boy, let Big Daddy lie

to you about fantasy land where ice cream lakes await your poor dead dog.

People believe in the dumb stuff, but "heaven" is really the dumbest.

[jmowreader]

108. I'm glad the kid didn't lose his dog under the reign of Benny the Rat

Pope Francis: "Don't be sad, my son. One day, we will see our animals again in the eternity of Christ."

Pope Benedict: "Dead dog? The devil cooked him up and ate him. Now quit crying right now or we're shipping you off to military school."

Regardless of your position on his religion, I think we'd all agree Pope Francis is a really nice man who at least tries to do the right thing.

[muriel_volestrangler]

110. Francis didn't say anything about dogs at all; it was Paul VI in the 60s or 70s

See #96, or the admission of error by CBC at the original link. So, no, Frank the Media Favorite didn't 'try to do the right thing'.

[jmowreader]

111. Scroll to the top of this thread

A child in the audience at his weekly Mass lost a dog recently, and the Pope was trying to cheer him up.

[muriel_volestrangler]

114. Follow the link, and read the correction from CBC

or, as I said, read #96. This whole 'story' has come about because an Italian paper speculated on remarks by Francis that weren't specifically about animals and remembered the Paul VI story from about 40 years ago, and then English language newspapers couldn't read the Italian properly, and decided Francis needed yet another 'isn't he dreamy' story.

[mulsh]

116. How many dogs can dance on the head of a pin?

that's what I want the pope to tell us.

[amandabeech]

120. Chihuahuas or Great Danes? n/t