Monday, September 25, 2006

Saint Peter, Doggie Style

So, I was thinking about the question of sin. Do all dogs get to go to our dog-centered afterlife, or are some dogs genuinely bad dogs? I've been thinking about it, and think that there is probably a dog at the Bacon Bridge who weighs the earthly record of any dog who approaches. Think Saint Peter, only with buttsniffing, which as we know is the true measure of anyone's character. Now, I'd like to let everyone run free at the Bacon Bridge, but I just can't see letting in dogs who attack other dogs or people without provocation. However, I think any dog who is denied entrance due to general assholery gets sent back to Earth to try again if they fail to make it past the Buttsniffer. This combo afterlife/reincarnation thing will provide for the concept of sin but give everyone a chance for a "do-over." Thoughts?

8 comments:

Tin Tin Blogdog said...

Hey Sid,

some interesting postulations, doog.

First off, I vote for St Roch as the dude on duty at the Bacon Bridge. He's patron saint of dogs, apparently, so he's likely to be more sympathetic to the border(collie?!)line cases.

And we need to include crotch sniffing, please. Don't limit it to butt sniffing. (My preference, of course, but I suspect there'll be support for that.)

But the most interesting question is whether or not there are dogs who are genuinely bad. Or are there certain breeds of dogs which, when subjected to particular treatment, turn bad.

I'm likin' your suggestion that they return to Earth for a while; another round of putting up with human stupidity should be penance enough.

In fact, that should get us all past the butt/crotch sniffer first go.

We've all put up with humans. I'm sure Wally (dogsthatblog.blogspot.com) would have something to bark about that.

Chow for now,

Tin Tin xo

Sid the Dog said...

Good call on the crotchsniffing and possibility of St. Roch. But would St. Roch be responsible for the actual buttsniffing and crotchsniffing, or would there be a dog in charge of this and then St. Roch would be there to supervise? Just curious...

My thought on "bad" dogs is that as long as that mean golden retriever who bit my ear without provocation (ran up to me and just bit me without any sort of warning) has to go through a "do-over," the system is fair. I feel that some dogs (understandably) react violently when treated poorly, but the root of their problems doesn't make it easier for us to deal with them at the Bacon Bridge. After all, we've all met dogs that we'd choose to ignore.But I do feel that it often isn't their fault, so I think my suggested approach will acknowledge that while circumstances can lead to dogs who simply do bad things such as attack other dogs or people without so much as a raised hackle or other warning sign, all dogs are basically good at heart and will do great things when given the right chance. So... Do-overs! And then the people responsible for their dog's behavior will be sent below to turn on a spit over the fiery coals of hell for all of eternity. Because let's face it, that's only fair...

Simon said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Simon said...

Agreed. Can I also propose there to be a Gospel of Simon?

Sid the Dog said...

Good suggestion Simon! I think it would be fabulous to also include the Gospels of Sid, Wally, Miles, Selma, Lulu, Tin Tin, Meeshka, and Buster. I hope I'm not forgetting anyone who has written in with suggestions...

wally said...

in the gospel according to wally, we all get in. only humans have that 'original sin' problem. we didn't eat the stinkin' apple--or if we did we didn't feel bad about it because it was an apple and it was put where we could reach it so, really, what were you thinking, god? anyway, the "bad dogs" were probably 1) miswired (which would be the so-called intelligent designer's fault anyhow) or 2) screwed up by stupid naked apes.

here's how i feel about it--whatever it was that made is messed up royally by making the naked apes think they get to tell US what to do. to make up for the bungle, we go to bacon bridge ruled by doG which is not so much a deity or entity but a ruling set of principles. ok, just one ruling principle--dogs rule!

Kaluah-lu said...

Sorry, my darling Sid. I've been overly busy of late because you KNOW I wouldn't miss ONE single post of yours for an oversized platter of butterflied filet crusted with gorgonzola. Re: this post, the concept of sin is purely subjective, is it not? I'm not sure what I, myself, would assess as sinful since "bad dog" criteria is strictly human biased. Most human religious sects, or cults, condemn the duality of the human animal. Emphasis is put on suppressing the animal instincts and glorifying the metaphysical nature of the soul. Humans, then, believe that the animal should be punished for being, in part, what it is…an animal. By virtue of the human evaluation tool, I would think that dogs would be good for following their instincts. Putting the human spin on what is good really complicates things. In fact, human interaction has a direct impact upon the freedoms that are necessary to set up an appropriate good vs. evil system. We should consider free will and that can’t occur with humans in the picture. I mean... if we are taught to do tricks and we happen to do them well, is that good? By whose standards? Is it less good if we do tricks BECAUSE we get doggie treats for doing so? Is it sinful to widdle on the carpet if a human isn’t home to let us out? Oh, there are so many questions. I say take the humans OUT of the equation and let dogs be dogs. Maybe it is best to go with the idea that, all dogs go to heaven. I think Disney said it well. Was he a dog? Sorry about my ramblings, but your postings have a way of doing this.

Kaluah-lu said...

Oh, yes.... I forgot!

I LOVE the bacon hymn... it's positively perfect.