March 7, 201313 yr I am interested in the question asked, are animals allowed in Heaven? Of course have you never seen the movie. All dogs go to heaven.
March 7, 201313 yr My unpopular opinion would be I hope not, I am not a fan of animals, sorry that people will now think I'm evil because I don't want them around me. Having said that, God knows what he is doing, and whatever he has for us then it will be perfect.
March 7, 201313 yr See I don't think that is very clear towards that point at all. Is the prophet talking about "The New Heaven" or "The New Earth"? What about the other prophesies in the same passage? For instance: in verse 20 he says a man that dies at age 100 will be thought of as a mere child. There will be no death in Heaven, right? So how could he be talking about Heaven? I lump "new heaven" & "new earth" together into one word "eternity." I believe Scripture teaches there will be animals in eternity. There were animals in the first Paradise, so why not in Paradise restored? As for our pets making it to the other side, I have my reservations. Not impossible by any stretch, but there isn't any Biblical support for that idea.
March 7, 201313 yr I lump "new heaven" & "new earth" together into one word "eternity." I believe Scripture teaches there will be animals in eternity. There were animals in the first Paradise, so why not in Paradise restored? As for our pets making it to the other side, I have my reservations. Not impossible by any stretch, but there isn't any Biblical support for that idea. "Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, everything in the universe, cry out: ‘To the one who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor, glory and might, forever and ever'." - Revelation 5:13
March 7, 201313 yr I think that's one of the things that we'll just have to find out when we get to the other side. My belief in the Christian teaching about the resurrection of the body on the last day tells me that, for now at least, there are only souls in heaven. Animals don't have souls, and therefore my logic tells me that they do not go to heaven. However, I also believe some people find a degree of true happiness in their pets, and I believe that heaven is a place of complete and true happiness...so logic could lend towards believing that, for our sake, God will choose to have our pets in heaven as well.
March 7, 201313 yr My mom has a bible versus on a fridge at home about this. I will quote it when I make it back this weekend.
March 7, 201313 yr Pets in Heaven The link above explains what I was taught to be the position of the Catholic church. In summary: Animal's and plant's souls die with them. Only man's soul is immortal as man is the only organism with the intelligence to choose its path between right and wrong. Many will not miss his/her pet in heaven as he/she will be so consumed with the glory of God. This is just another reason why I no longer attend church. I want no part of that god. Or maybe I should say I will worship God that gave us the beauty of creatures, trees, oceans to enjoy a piece of the Heavens on Earth. And as such, he appointed us as stewards of these of which in general we are failing miserably....and in my opinion due to much of the same type of arrogance that is included in the position above. Edited March 7, 201313 yr by doomer
March 7, 201313 yr ^ So I'm clear... You're asserting that animals and plants are capable of making decisions between right and wrong? or Are you saying that the -- for lack of a better term -- hierarchy of souls is fine but that the conclusion the writer reaches from it is wrong? Edited March 7, 201313 yr by Getslow
March 7, 201313 yr ^ So I'm clear... You're asserting that animals and plants are capable of making decisions between right and wrong? He's referring to the Aquinian/Thomastic approach on souls, that there are three types: vegetative, sensitive, and rational.
March 7, 201313 yr He's referring to the Aquinian/Thomastic approach on souls, that there are three types: vegetative, sensitive, and rational. Right, and what I read made it appear as though he rejected that notion. That's why I wanted clarification. I don't see a problem with Aquinas' view of the souls, but I can see how a certain type of animal lover would be concerned with the conclusion that it can lead to.
March 7, 201313 yr He's referring to the Aquinian/Thomastic approach on souls, that there are three types: vegetative, sensitive, and rational. Readers digest version: Vegetative souls are the parts of plants or basic organisms that give it the indescribable spark of life. Man can arrange cells and particles, but only God can make those particles live and grow. How does He do that? By giving it a soul and breathing life (of some sort) into the plant. Sensitive souls are the souls belonging to animals, below the function of rational humans. It is able to sense things like pain, affection, and fear, and it is able to react to those senses. Again, the soul is the spark of life put into that animal by God. Rational souls = human souls. We've got 'em. We can rationalize thought, emotions, feelings, and faith.
March 7, 201313 yr Right, and what I read made it appear as though he rejected that notion. That's why I wanted clarification. I don't see a problem with Aquinas' view of the souls, but I can see how a certain type of animal lover would be concerned with the conclusion that it can lead to. Oh...gotcha.
March 7, 201313 yr ^ So I'm clear... You're asserting that animals and plants are capable of making decisions between right and wrong? or Are you saying that the -- for lack of a better term -- hierarchy of souls is fine but that the conclusion the writer reaches from it is wrong? I didn't assert anything actually. I assert that everyone should believe as they choose. I choose to reject a notion of Heaven that does not include many of those things that we are blessed with on earth, especially an interpretation which then many extend to, since only man has a soul, that other creatures are merely here for our utilization any way we see fit. Regarding plants...I believe they are important, and a part of environmental responsibility, but I have yet to find any brains and/or conscienciousness whatsoever. Thus I would not lump them in the category with animals. And...as far as animals, an evolutionist could say the brain has developed from back to front. Medusa up to neo-cortex. Man of course having the most developed neo-cortex. So, I can ask a question back. The neo-cortex development of an autistic person is believed to be (and this according to Temple Grandin herself) that part of the brain which is their most likely misfunction. Temple would liken the brain function of an autistic person such as herself as much more closely resembling many animals. This fact then, why she believes she can most closely relate to them. So then if animals do not have souls, does that mean that highly autistic or other mentally challenged people do not have souls and thus cannot go to Heaven?
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.