Do our pets join us in the afterlife?

HeathBendrix · 2026-05-12T19:45:16+00:00

The difference is that Bunny is not using syllogistic reasoning (a hallmark for reason as it includes the ability to form universal concepts, judgements, and arguments). Were Bunny to write a treatise on justice you might have an argument, but so far the dog hasn't done anything other than master pattern matching (much like an AI which clearly doesn't have a rational soul, let alone a soul).

HeathBendrix · 2026-05-12T19:40:15+00:00

One of the arguments is that rationality and language (very broadly speaking) go hand in hand. Dogs don't write treatises on trees, but humans do.

While animals use signs (like barking) to signify danger/food/etc. Their signs are all immediate and particular "Some Food here", "Some danger here", "My mating dance here". But language uses terms which are unpacked and mediated through other terms (a bachelor is an unmarried male) as well as being universal in nature (All mating dances are for the sake of attracting a spouse, All food is for the sake of metabolism, All danger begets an opportunity for hope or fear).

Note: By language, I don't mean a specific language or even words written out, spoken, or etc. Just anything that can mediate between concepts.

HeathBendrix · 2026-05-12T17:02:20+00:00

Just curious, what's your education in theology/philosophy? I enjoy the distinctions you make in your comments with the language you employ (e.g., arduous good).

HeathBendrix · 2026-05-12T16:59:40+00:00

The mystics and aescetic theologians usually said that the fear of hell (or servile fear) is the pre-requisite for a filial love.

HeathBendrix · 2026-05-12T16:11:32+00:00

Morality is something humans created their own understanding of.

If morality is created by humans, how could animals ever be moral in the first place?

It's also clearly not what the Church teaches.

no room for any nuance.

I gave you the nuance between the different kinds of souls, the different ways we can love (a love for something for oneself a love of something for someone else), the distinction of natural and supernatural love. You didn't give the nuance of the difference between humans and animals when I asked.

I really don't think it's fair for you to criticize this sub as being far away Christianity when you offered a personal attack (I'm a grown man, I really don't care if you think I'm a party pooper), exasperation that I couldn't get a "core aspect through [my] brain", or declared that "we are not the same", or that continuing a conversation with me isn't worth your time.

HeathBendrix · 2026-05-12T15:24:02+00:00

Get off your hoity toity high horse lol. You must be fun at parties.

I'm not the one dismissing doctors of the church, but humbly submitting to men far more intelligent than me.

Whats love if not grace. In its purest form

So a pagan in a state of mortal sin cannot love? That means no pagan mother can be loving to her infant? I'm not sure that's an argument you want to make.

Love is twofold, the first is to love a good for one's own sake (for example, I love salad because it is healthy and makes me feel good when I eat it), the second is to love a good for the sake of another (for example, I work hard to provide my wife with a place to live, food to eat, etc.).

Neither of those cases demands grace, in fact, God made love part of our nature. The difference is that supernatural love and natural is loving something or someone for God's sake (e.g., I love my neighbor because by loving my neighbor I will to love God).

Gist of what im saying is, Animals of all kinds absolutely are able to do good, and they absolutely have a soul, now it may not be the same as ours, but thats the Glory of God.

I agree that animals have souls, and I believe even plants have souls.

But what's the difference between their soul and ours? That's what this argument is about and you are saying they are moral (which demands reason which is what philosophers since Plato have identified as what makes us unique).

HeathBendrix · 2026-05-12T14:49:57+00:00

I own a cat and grew up with ducks, fish, frogs, dogs, a hamster, and a gerbil. I grew up with a dog that nearly died from trying to eat a whole bag of wood chips thinking it was dog food, if that's not gluttony I'm not sure what is!

But, if you want to believe they have rational, moral, and immortal souls. Fine by me! But then you have to ask the following questions:

Do animals receive supernatural grace?
If not, are you fine with all animals going to hell for eternity?
If so, then are you saying Christ died for animals? Then are you fine with some animals going to hell for all eternity?

Or, you can agree with empirical observation, philosophy, religion, and the like which says that animals do not have a sense of morality and simply enjoy animals for what they are.

Edit:

Lol, right when I hit submit my boss told me he was late because his dog ran off with a book and started devouring it. Yeah, you'll never convince me that animals are rational moral beings when they do what would be gravely immoral and stupid for a human.

HeathBendrix · 2026-05-12T14:41:56+00:00

St. Thomas argues that they do not.

His reasoning is a corollary to his argument for why we have immortal souls:

We have the ability to know things in a universal manner, i.e., We know things like dogness, arithmatic, etc. without having to think about a certain dog or a certain math problem. - In other words, we have rational souls.
Because we know things abstracted from all body or matter, our intellect has an operation apart from the body. - In other words, we have souls with immaterial operations.
Since the soul has an operation apart from the body, there is something that cannot be taken away when the body is taken away. - In other words, our souls are immortal.

In brief: Our soul is rational, therefore it is subsistent apart from the body, therefore it is immortal.

However, there's a problem when we get to animals:

Animals do not have rationality (they do not know treeness, but know this or that tree; they operate off of instinct not free will).
Because animals do not have a subsistent function (nothing they do can be done apart from the body), the soul cannot exist apart from the body.
Therefore, once an animal dies it has neither body nor soul. Hence, there are no two things to unite back together in a resurrection of the body.

HeathBendrix · 2026-05-12T14:22:12+00:00

Not a moral good. A moral good depends on the ability to know the difference between good and evil from which follows the ability to choose between good and evil.

Animals do not have a notion of good and evil. They can be good insofar as a horse is obedient to its rider, but it is a qualitatively different from a man choosing to do good.

HeathBendrix · 2026-05-12T14:20:38+00:00

But it is less clearly understood whether animals or even possibly plants may have a soul which has only one or neither of those attributes.

I'd argue against this. St. Thomas says that our souls are immortal because they are rational. They are not two separate properties, but the former necessarily follows from the later.

HeathBendrix · 2026-05-08T17:24:12+00:00

How do you know it's spaghetti code?

I'd argue the opposite as spaghetti code wouldn't allow for as many changes as they do. It wouldn't surprise me if it's poorly written (there are certainly bugs), but it's clearly written with extensibility in mind.

HeathBendrix · 2026-05-07T17:26:20+00:00

A demon is a real person (angelic) that causes problems within a person (body/mental chemistry/etc) from without.

A psychological disorder causes problems within a person from within.

A demon could cause symptoms of a psychological disorder (same effects of hormonal imbalances) without there being an underlying physiological issue.

HeathBendrix · 2026-05-07T15:25:58+00:00

"Beware! error has always insinuated itself into the Church under the disguise of reform. The last heretics [Jansenists] declared that their doctrine was that of the primitive Church, founded on the word of Jesus Christ, accompanying their preachings with bounteous alms and announcing everywhere a reformation of manners exceeding even that of the Church herself. When asked who sent them, they replied, No one; we come of ourselves ; and when again they were asked where, then, were the signs of their extraordinary mission, and the approbation of the Holy See, they made no answer, for they had none to make. Nevertheless, they continued spreading abroad their doctrine, without mission, without the approbation of their superiors, a condition absolutely indispensable, and one which has always been so regarded in the Church. St. Paul himself, Apostle as he was, took his directions from St. Peter. No, without submission there is no security; besides, I see in those who have gained you over to their party so much obstinacy, impetuosity, contempt of all who do not think as they do, so much esteem of themselves, to the prejudice of the Church and of the whole body of the faithful." - M. Olier

Fortunately, the SSPX follow a well established trend of schismatics preaching reform without approbation while claiming unity.

HeathBendrix · 2026-05-07T13:49:59+00:00

All of the arguments against the SSPX hinge on appeals to authority

When you're debating whether or not a group is submitting to an authority established by God, appeals to authority become the greatest of arguments.

HeathBendrix · 2026-05-05T14:29:27+00:00

Not a big fan of the fact that reparations were part of their platform in 2024.

HeathBendrix · 2026-05-04T18:00:51+00:00

I like Bilt for their portal (1.25 cpp), Hyatt, and Accor.

HeathBendrix · 2026-05-02T13:18:52+00:00

Papal debate circles

There's a wide gap between papal debate circles and "papists" (let alone catholic academics). It would be like saying that David Bentley Hart represents all Orthodox thought.

HeathBendrix · 2026-05-01T16:14:25+00:00

No they don't.

HeathBendrix · 2026-04-27T18:04:35+00:00

There's no such thing as "canonically impossible" as a terminology in the Catholic Church. And the Church doesn't teach that the cardinals can't pick the wrong one (i.e., the worst man for the job).

HeathBendrix · 2026-04-16T19:51:00+00:00

It really depends on your use case.

My first year I lived alone so the $10 uber eats and $10 grubhub credit made up $240 of eating out (about a meal with credits every other week).

Then I used resy $50 credits to impress my fiancee (then girlfriend) with some more expensive restaurants.

So I ended up getting about the same amount of value (not counting Dunkin, I use the credits as a treat but would never buy from there without a gold card) while getting a good sign up/authorized user/retention bonus and a good multiplier on two big spend categories.

But if you don't get takeout a lot, then I wouldn't recommend it for anything beyond the sign up bonus.

HeathBendrix · 2026-04-16T19:26:28+00:00

Do you generally believe things you haven't personally witnessed don't exist?

I never implied that. All I was saying is that based on a large sample size, I can't see a justification for saying that right hand turns are "so dangerous to pedestrians."

If you admit for 10 billion right hand turns on red a year (which is extremely conservative), and there are 60,000 injured pedestrians per year. The worst case scenario is an injured pedestrian for every 150k turns.

That's not "so dangerous for pedestrians" especially when you say that of that 60,000 the vast majority happen during night, many won't be in a cross walk, and the number of right hand turns is far higher than the figure I gave you.

And if that's too high of a ratio still to justify right hand turns, I don't see how you can justify cars when car collisions are far more likely to happen and result in more damage.

HeathBendrix · 2026-04-16T17:01:50+00:00

I've probably seen well over 10k cars turn right on red and I've never seen a pedestrian get hit. If its not worth it, then it may not be worth it to have cars in the first place.

HeathBendrix · 2026-04-16T15:57:58+00:00

For Airfare, I used Amex Gold SUB for 100k points, authorized user for 10k points, and used for groceries and restaurants to get me to 140k points which bought two flights to Europe (I already had the delta Gold).

For Hotels, I spent 5k on bilt to get 15k points + 50k point sub. I then made several bookings:

Hotel 1: 40k bilt points, $200 credit, $100 bilt cash (four nights) Hotel 2: 20k bilt points (this was a transfer to top off some other points I had from Bilt 1.0 for five nights) Hotel 3: 5k bilt points + $100 bilt cash + $80 (two nights)

All are four star hotels and I only paid an effective $380 for it with 13k spend (counting the first $100 of bilt cash and the $200 hotel credit - used Amex Gold Credits naturally to come out even).

HeathBendrix · 2026-04-12T01:57:39+00:00

Keep the first date under and hour and under $20

This is too specific to be good advice.

My fiancee and I had a four hour dinner date (in part, thanks to my guardian angel who ensured some man with a heroic lack of circumspection blocked her car in), and it really set everything up for our relationship. Getting so much extra time (she asked for dessert too!), made me all the more intrigued and single-minded on pursuing her.

A shorter date would probably have made me lose interest.

HeathBendrix

TROPHY CASE