tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2145367389527980151.post1787838602109261518..comments2023-03-03T23:07:23.807-06:00Comments on Irenist's marginalia: War (of the Stray Dog) in HeavenUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2145367389527980151.post-25734692634525928722015-10-10T19:23:40.466-05:002015-10-10T19:23:40.466-05:00Thanks for your comment, Randy.
There couldn'...Thanks for your comment, Randy.<br /><br />There couldn't be heavenly dogs for just the reasons you've described. As it happens, Aquinas doesn't seem to have thought there'd be animals or plants in the general resurrection, either, AFAICT. This is one area where (as with the Immaculate Conception), I'm quite happy to disagree with him. Although the resurrected saints won't need plants or animals for anything, it seems awfully Gnostic to me to think that the consummation of Creation would really be complete without them--I hope to see transfigured animals and plants in the New Jerusalem. So while I can't endorse animals in Heaven, I am contradicting Aquinas in this post, and thus, I hope, meeting a thinker like Hart halfway.Irenisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16870614125489778250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2145367389527980151.post-39024032278869817282015-10-01T11:51:35.321-05:002015-10-01T11:51:35.321-05:00To say that animals do not go to heaven is not the...To say that animals do not go to heaven is not the same as there being no animals in Heaven, is it? That is, couldn't there be heavenly dogs? Of course, I suppose the Thomist answer would be that these would need be immaterial beings, thus not with the same soul or form that animals as we know them have, and thus not animals in any true sense, despite appearances. Randy Mnoreply@blogger.com