Mass. Gay Marriagegreenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread |
A disturbing sign of hte times...http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/04/national/04CND-MASS.html?ex=1077166800&en=6b2f83762e9a47eb&ei=5004&partner=UNTD
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 04, 2004
President Bush responded Wednesday evening to a decision in support of gay marriage by Massachusetts' highest court by calling the ruling "deep ly troubling." "Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," Bush said in a statement. "If activist judges insist on re-defining marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the constitutional process. We must do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage.""I believe and have fought for the principle that we should protect the fundamental rights of gay and lesbian couples, from inheritance to health benefits," Kerry said.
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 05, 2004.
Suppose , what would you do if the (next) gouvernment or the (next) president allows gay-marriages ??What is it that make you more or better than other people ??
I thought discrimination is a sin or am I wrong ??
What give you the right to take off the happiness of other people ??
What is the definition of happiness ??
Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:
-- Laurent LUG (.@...), February 05, 2004.
Voting against Gazy Marriage isnt discrimination, its preservation. Gays currently share the same ighs we have as a society, they want a new right. Remember, if Gay marriage is passed,t hen I can gett married to a mmeber of my sex...even though I m persnally oppoed the right woul be granted to me to do so as well... Gays, likewise, have the right to marry women, just as currently do. It doesnt mean they are compelled to do so... juust that the point is that they already have the same rights as everypne else, so disallowing Gay Marriage isnt discrimination, nor denying anyone any rights.Further, as tot the happiness queastion, what if it made me enormousnly happy to steal large and small sums of money form people, who are you to deny m my happiness? Sorry , thats an invalid queastion, especially considerign the fact hat you can learn to be happy in most situations.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 05, 2004.
Laurent,
The Chruch has come out against the legal recognition of unions between homosexual persons. I was tracking the reactions to the latest news and reactions from the 2 candidates most likely to run against each other. I think, again, we have a distinct difference between the two candidates on this topic as well.In Christ,
Bill
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 05, 2004.
marr iage is dying in the very the same place that first recognized gay marriage.
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 05, 2004.
Well , as you know I've got no problem with gay-marriages , but I don't like the extreme "extravagantly" attention !! __ Let them !!I've seen the Vatican link before , also the otherone , I disagree !!
Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:
-- Laurent LUG (.@...), February 05, 2004.
If it kills off or helps to kill off a national institution that is a foundation of our society (i.e.,marriage) than, I think the attention given to it is justified.
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 05, 2004.
You've got the right to give it attention , yes , but not over- attention , that counts for both sides !!Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:
-- Laurent LUG (.@...), February 05, 2004.
Foundations of our society deserve more attention than football. So sit back and be patient.
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 05, 2004.
Bill , agree !!Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:
-- Laurent LUG (.@...), February 05, 2004.
its a matter of time before gay marraiges are common in the western nations. i say let it be. how does a gay marraige threaten one between a man and a woman? it doesnt.im not saying this is OK w/ God, but our values and beliefs shouldnt prevent same sex couples who are truly in love to celebrate their love with a marraige commitment.
and please-- there are plenty of hetero couples marrying just for tax benefits, or other reasons of convenience.
-- jas (jas_r_22@hotmail.com), February 05, 2004.
and please-- there are plenty of hetero couples marrying just for tax benefits, or other reasons of convenience.Even gays who marries a woman , or a lesbian who marries a man !!
I agree !!
Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:
-- Laurent LUG (.@...), February 05, 2004.
Jas,
I heard a commentator last night say that it is only a matter of time that we had porn during the family hour on broadcast TV. Sure, if Catholics and other believers are silent, and passive, yes, those who want to sell porn and promote hedonism will win. There is no virtue in being silent now.
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 05, 2004.
As Catholics, we are not allowed to sit silently and allow sin around us to go unchallenged.We cannot condone homosexual behavior because it is our belief that 1) God exists 2) HE does not approve of homosexual behavior and 3) Thumbing your nose at HIM has dire consequences.
We cannot approve of behavior that endangers the immortal soul of any person and we also cannot allow sinful behavior to be defined as OK by either a religious OR a secular leader and thus damn other souls that might be drawn into such behavior.
Im not sure who decided that Christianity is all about tolerance. God is no pushover and HE is not our big buddy in the sky. Catholics fear the loss of these souls as well as the loss of future souls if this activity is allowed and thus must let their feelings known.
-- David F (dqf@cox.net), February 05, 2004.
For Catholics, marriage is a sacrament. Civil marriage has no bearing on this.Who cares if the State reduces civil marriage to a contract?
-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), February 05, 2004.
Pat we should be concerned even if it is civil because it is government sanctioned sin. Abortion is the same type of issue. The government says its OK but God says otherwise. We cannot just capitulate in the face of these issues.If the government in time decides that Catholics should be rounded up and slaughtered it wouldnt make it right. The Church and God say homosexual union is wrong and we must agree with this truth.
-- David F (dqf@cox.net), February 05, 2004.
How well do you know your priest?
-- jake (j@k.e), February 05, 2004.
For Catholics, marriage is a sacrament. Civil marriage has no bearing on this. Who cares if the State reduces civil marriage to a contract?Just because someone who is Catholic does not get married in a Catholic church doesn't mean they don't believe that marriage is between a man and a woman only. We all should care. Marriage is a sacrament, a contract, a commitment between a man and a woman. This is not just a Catholic issue here, folks. Other Christian denominations believe the same thing, as do many people who don't profess to belong to any organized religion.
-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), February 05, 2004.
I know Im not Catholic but I find this site interesting, But I am 16 years old, and I am baptist. I got to school EVERY DAY and see Lesbians and Gay people and Its disgusting, I agree with President Bush, Even though the next president might allow Gay marriages, I dont sgree with it, Marraige is a holy thing that should be shared between a man and a women. Thats why God made Adam *&* Eve NOT adam *&* Steve! I really do think its groos, and i actually do have friends that are gay, i dont agree with it, but if they dont talk about it, or make it know, im okay, Im NOT discriminating, so dont even say that. But thank you for reading this and taking note of my views, please respond. If you dont agree, thats okay! Im just giving my opinion! God-Bless!
-- Rachel Knox (angel_wings_37857@hotmail.com), February 05, 2004.
I was fortunate to hear a Supreme Court Justice speak about this privately. That justices views were as follows:If the state of Massachusetts wants to sanction same sex civil marriage, its a political decision. If the United States wants to amend the Constitution to outlaw this practice, it is also a political decision.
I'm not aware that the catholic Church has taken any position on this other than to declare that homosexual conduct is a sin. I don't see a sin in allowing them to enter contracts with each other.
Eventually, this action in Massachusetts will draw people to the Church as we sanctify what is really marriage. This is one reason I feel so strongly about this sacrament as my other posts show.
Sacramental Marriage is the very foundation of a God-respecting society. That is why God raised it to the level of a sacrament.
-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), February 05, 2004.
They say animals can relate in a homosexual way sometimes. Maybe so. But animals cannot sin. Men and women can.God forbids the coupling of man with man, woman & woman. We are commanded to obey, no matter what the private ''orientation''. It isn't a matter of taste or social acceptance. If it were only that, everyone would understand. No one would blame another person.
It's a matter of giving God first place in our lives. Choosing His divine Will over our human will. Maybe this is one reason God allows men/women to undergo the test. To see whether they will obey God or obey their own animal instincts. It should be seen as a crucial test of man's free will. --Give God His due, or refuse Him for a selfish desire. This is asked of heterosexuals as well. To sin and enjoy this passing life. Or to live as righteous souls and give God our complete obedience. It all returns back to that Original sin of Adam.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 05, 2004.
Pat,
The Church's position is in the document legal recognition of unions between homosexual persons.
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 05, 2004.
God has all the rights. He allows men to exercise authority on earth and it is their duty to rule according to the will of God. Thus no man on earth has the "right" to legalize gay marriage. And we are further obligated to refute evil men. Thus we don't complacently hang out with gay people without making their conversion the top priority, otherwise we are implicitly (or explicitely if you will) supporting those evil deeds. We don't vote for those fools eithers!
-- Sean (s22w22@yahoo.com), February 06, 2004.
Thus no man on earth has the "right" to legalize gay marriage.Thus no man on earth has the "right" to forbid gay marriage.
I got to school EVERY DAY and see Lesbians and Gay people and Its disgusting
That's the big issue , seeing them kissing and (the idea) having sex !!
Well , what would you do if you see a man & woman kissing eachother ??
They say animals can relate in a homosexual way sometimes. Maybe so. But animals cannot sin
Why ??
For Catholics, marriage is a sacrament. Civil marriage has no bearing on this. Who cares if the State reduces civil marriage to a contract?
Something else:
Well , if that contract doesn't matter to you , suppose you've got a business , suppose you got to divorce , and suppose you're wife or man takes it all , what you gonna do about that ??
Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:
-- Laurent LUG (.@...), February 06, 2004.
Why ??Animals cannot sin, because animals don't have free will. They act the way they are "programmed" to act, according to their genes (or, as some people like to refer to it, "instinct"). When they do something abnormal, like homosexual activity, it may be due to damaged genes. They cannot choose to do good or evil.
-- (That's@Why.com), February 06, 2004.
"Animals cannot sin, because animals don't have free will. They act the way they are "programmed" to act, according to their genes (or, as some people like to refer to it, "instinct"). When they do something abnormal, like homosexual activity, it may be due to damaged genes. They cannot choose to do good or evil. "Sorry, I disagree. I know form experience, as well as from recent studies into animal behaviour, that they can and do make desisions for themselves, and do not act totally on instinct. Much action is learned form them, not merley preprogrammed. Just as it is with Humans.
Animals, no matter if Digs, or Cats, or even Chickens, have distinctive personalities as well, I have seen this, as no two, even of the same speicies, axct the same way, and do, indeed, change over time their behaviours.
I beleive animals are innocent of sin, I do not however beleive they are free of sin because they have no free will, I beleive they do, indeed, have a will of their own, and ar enot merely automitonical machines. I have seen evidence iwht my own eyes of this fact, and wull attest it.
I beleive htey ar einnocent of sin simpley because they have no conception OF sin, like Adam and Eve before the fall.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 06, 2004.
the answer to the question: why can't animals sin? is quite simple.Zarove, you are right. animals do have free will, and can be taught to resist their instinct when NOT under pressure. A key difference between humans and animals is that we are able, even when under pressure, to subvert our instinct.
The reason animals cannot sin is because they do not have a soul in the sense that humans do. They have an animos soul, which is what drives them and makes them different from a rock, but that is nowhere near the same thing as a human soul. this begs a different question... is there a heaven, or a spot in heaven for the animos (animals soul). while we can't definitively know this for sure, the current church ruling states no, this is not possible.
-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), February 06, 2004.
I disagree witht his as well, as theor are no scriptures to attest that an animals soul i different than a mans. Neither is their reason to deny that they can be foudn in heaven. Indeed, many passages in the Bible refer to Gods care for them, why then do we presume Humans are the only creaturs with which God woudl permit an eternal existance?Even soem Popes have agreed with me on this, I beleive.
-- ZAROV E (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 06, 2004.
For an animal to have an immortal soul they must be able to reason right from wrong, have understanding and to crave to be with God. That 'why am I here', 'what is the meaning of life', and knowing in their heart what is right and what is wrong. I see no evidence in the animal world of this. The Church sides with St.Thomas who said all living things (plants, animals, and men) have souls. They are the animating principles of life. But only man has a soul which will live forever even after it is separated from the body.There is no evidence in the Bible that a particular animal would live on in heaven after death.
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 06, 2004.
"For an animal to have an immortal soul they must be able to reason right from wrong, have understanding and to crave to be with God. "- BillI disagree, their is no preset requisit,a nd even soem humans lack this these abilities, sych as the severely emntally handicapped, or mentally abnormal. They, too, by this standad, lack an immortal soul.
A soul is merley the animating force, and I agree their, I simp;eu disagree that humans possess the only souls that endeure eternity.
"That 'why am I here', 'what is the meaning of life', and knowing in their heart what is right and what is wrong."-Bill
Adam lacked the ability to sin or know right from wrong, so this means he lacked an imortal soul till he sinned...sorry that makes no sence, neither is their a reason offered wshy reason itsself is the prerequisit for a soul to endeure.
"I see no evidence in the animal world of this."-Bill
I see no evidence that this is a prerequisit.
"The Church sides with St.Thomas who said all living things (plants, animals, and men) have souls. They are the animating principles of life. But only man has a soul which will live forever even after it is separated from the body."-Bill
Then I disagre with St.Thomas, and beleive that God, in his grace, coudle asily have granted an eternal existance to all livign things, shodl he so desire, and see no reason why this shoudl contradict the scriptural treachings.
"There is no evidence in the Bible that a particular animal would live on in heaven after death."-Bill
But none also, one can say, that they perish at death. My evidence may be circumstantial, but it is superior to your own, as I can say that they have a soul, and say that I beleive that this soul will live forever, and all you may say is that you beleive otherwise. Your answer to this is that they cannot reaosn, which is only partially ture, and certainly not a reason to reject the entire notion of their immortality based upon a speculation, which itsself seems groundless.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 06, 2004.
ZAROVE,
Take a look at: Summa Theologica > Supplement > Question 91 > Article 5
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 06, 2004.
I still hold fast to my assertion however, and beleive that, in spirit , animals persist, just as mans spirit persists after death, and reutrsns to the Lord who sent it.Thomas's assertations aside.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 06, 2004.
Zarove,
I am just telling you what the Church teaches and why. This is not a personal opinion. Sometimes we need to go with the teachings of the Church after centuries of thought and tradition on the matter. After all, God told us it was OK to eat animals, in fact He told the Jews a number of times they must eat certain animals. He also insisted they perform animal sacrafice. It is hard to believe He would do this if animals had immortal souls. Add to that all the Church philosophical thought and theology from Aristotle onward that points to corruptable souls in animals, (see my previous posts on the topic), maybe this is a subject we need to listen to the Church on and not try to second guess. Scripture also tells us that at the end of time Christ will make all things new. What exactly this means, we do not know. But is possible that animals that existed before could be a part of this new creation.In Christ,
Bill
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 06, 2004.
Sorry, no puppies in heaven. But on the bright side, no cockroaches either. If one kind of animal rates immortality, then surely they all do.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 06, 2004.
To Paul I say the same, all forms of animal deserve eternity, and likewise, to the cockroachs, or even to men, who wilfuly disobeyh their creator.
To Bill Zarove, I am just telling you what the Church teaches and why. This is not a personal opinion. Sometimes we need to go with the teachings of the Church after centuries of thought and tradition on the matter.
{Trust me, mines not mere personal opiion either.Its base don yars of study.}
After all, God told us it was OK to eat animals, in fact He told the Jews a number of times they must eat certain animals.
{COnsuming htem doesnt mean they dont have a soul...more on this in a moment.}
He also insisted they perform animal sacrafice. It is hard to believe He would do this if animals had immortal souls.
{This is a common charge againt my position, however it si deeply flawed.Think ofr a moment about htis. Suppose animals lack a soul, and perish at the ne dof this life, whereas humans do not. This , in your midn, gives humans permission to kill them, but in reality, it gives humans no such right.For this life is all the animal has, it is all they ever will be, and hteir pnly chance for happness, advancement, love, or anyhtign else.(And yes, animals do love.) This beign said, you, as a human, ge to live eternally. You, because you are not limited merely to this life, have the ability to take the life of soemthign that is restircted to only htis life. You can take away all they are, and yet, they cannot take the better part of you. That is fair? This si the justice of God? That you may end the life of soemthign that has only this life? I liken this to allowing the risch to take ewhatever land he poor may have, alsthough the rich have two estates already. Fair it is not. Only a souled beign may be killed then, for only then can they be recompenced for hteir life lost.Otherewise, man has no right to kill an animal, for it takes all they have away from them.}
Add to that all the Church philosophical thought and theology from Aristotle onward that points to corruptable souls in animals, (see my previous posts on the topic),
{Aristotle has no absolute aihtority, nor was he right on many oth erhtings.}
maybe this is a subject we need to listen to the Church on and not try to second guess.
{I am not second guessing, I am postulating what I beleive ot be truth, or I have studied the scriptues, and learned philosophy, and sede no objection to what I have said, even in what you have presented.}
Scripture also tells us that at the end of time Christ will make all things new. What exactly this means, we do not know.
{We do know.Christ will restore the earth an the heavens, purged form sin.}
But is possible that animals that existed before could be a part of this new creation.
{I beleive that all life, created of God, is cared for by God, and will be in soem way cmdoted by God for htier life.}
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 07, 2004.
PAUL, finally, something we DISagree on! 'No puppies in heaven' indeed!Seriously, though, why would God create animals for our pleasure on earth but not in heaven? No sense does that make at all, AT ALL!
Gail
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 07, 2004.
Gail,
It is very possible that when we are in heaven we will be enraptured within the Beauitific vision and really not care about animals. However when the 'world is made new' it may have animals in it, we simply do not know. Anyway, animals don't have immortal souls for a number of reasons as outlined by Thomas Aquinas.
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 07, 2004.
I cheerfully disagree with Thoman Antiquitas. I beleive they DO have immortal souls, and base this on a numbe rof reasons, and have already refuted your claim about eating htem, which you do not address.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 07, 2004.
Zarove,
The Church teaches that animals do have souls. Just that the souls are not immortal, that they parish at death. This has been the teaching of the Church for as almost as long as there was a Church.Take care,
Bill
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 07, 2004.
If you define "soul" as a "life principle", then anything alive, by definition, even a yeast cell or ameba, has a soul. However, that "soul" is not created in God's image, and is not immortal. It has no moral capacity, no need for salvation, and no possibility of salvation. The teaching of the Church, fully supported by the revealed Word of God, is that all of physical creation will cease to exist at the end of time. This includes all matter and energy, every atom that exists, as well as space and time themselves. It includes this speck of dust called earth, with all of its inanimate substance as well as its animal, plant, and microbial inhabitants. The ONLY element of physical creation that is described as immortal anywhere in scripture or the Tradition of the Church is human beings, and only because we are distinctly created in God's image and likeness. You can't take it with you. That includes your money, your home, your car, your art collection, your rose garden, AND your pets.The idea of your beloved canine/feline companion sharing eternity with you may engender warm fuzzy feelings; but it is completely unsound theologically and practically. There is no rational or theological basis for the expectation that animals could enter heaven. Such ideas are purely emotional. Pets are simply wild animals that have been domesticated. If they have access to heaven, we must ask how this is so. Does this immortality apply only to those individual animals which human beings have kept as pets? Do wild dogs simply cease to exist when they die? Do they go to hell? If immortality applies only to pets, then apparently we, not God, have the power to make something immortal. How is that possible? If only pets are immortal, does this apply to pet rats? Pet frogs? Pet tarantulas?
Or, is immortality an innate quality of ALL animals? Will every crocodile, whale, king cobra, skunk and rat that ever existed be in heaven? Every mosquito, housefly, cockroach, tick, and tapeworm? Every Tyranosaurus and Brontosaurus? If so, human beings will be outnumbered by billions to one. If this is the case, it's odd that none of the visions of heaven granted to men, including that recorded in the Book of Revelation, ever mentioned it.
The fact is, the things of this word are passing away. ALL of them. Only those called to be children of God and heirs of heaven will someday spend eternity with their heavenly Father. This is the teaching of the Church. He who hears the Church hears God. The Holy Spirit guides the Church to all truth.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 08, 2004.
That's funny Gail, because I agree with what Paul writes above here, especially that last paragraph. Maybe the better part of understanding Catholicism comes from always being aware of that last paragraph; easier said than done and a daily struggle.If everything on the market is going down, and the only things going up are willing souls, then buy uncovered calls on souls.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 08, 2004.
Zarove, The Church teaches that animals do have souls. Just that the souls are not immortal, that they parish at death. This has been the teaching of the Church for as almost as long as there was a Church. Take care, Bill{Wiht due respect Bill, I disagree, and see no reason behind the assertion.}-Zarove
If you define "soul" as a "life principle", then anything alive, by definition, even a yeast cell or ameba, has a soul. -Paul.
{Correct.}-Zarove
However, that "soul" is not created in God's image, and is not immortal. It has no moral capacity, no need for salvation, and no possibility of salvation. -Paul
{Many of these thigns are not related. Further, no wher ein passages of scriptur does it say that only those things in Gods imafe ar eimmortal, and no reason to beleive this is the case, except for human arrogance.}-Zarove
The teaching of the Church, fully supported by the revealed Word of God, is that all of physical creation will cease to exist at the end of time. This includes all matter and energy, every atom that exists, as well as space and time themselves.
{Yet the earth endeureth forever coems to mind...likewise, their is no passage durectly challenging my claim that Animals can pass into eternity bu the crace and will of God, and plenty, such as in Job, or the Psalms, or even form Jesus's own words, claimign God so loves the animals. Your assumption is based on the idea of Human preemenance, which is psoekn agaisnt in Ecclesiasties, and is irrelevant in any form to rather or not Animals have persistance after death, which is a claiM I make and is not, in scripture, disallowed.}-Zarove
It includes this speck of dust called earth, with all of its inanimate substance as well as its animal, plant, and microbial inhabitants.
{This is presumption, to say that aznimas are no more than part of Phsical creation, htey, like us, have minds, can reaosn, feel, imagine, and give love, why then are they denied an etenrnity by the same creator we share? Simpley because we like to think ourselves so muhc the better than they that even a final reward is denied them? even though we have the righ tto say them? Such I think is error.}- Zarove
The ONLY element of physical creation that is described as immortal anywhere in scripture or the Tradition of the Church is human beings, and only because we are distinctly created in God's image and likeness.
{Likewise, one can argue that animals, having souls, are no exception tot he rule that souls live after death, and no sripture denies the claim I make. }-Zarove
You can't take it with you. That includes your money, your home, your car, your art collection, your rose garden, AND your pets.
{Who said anyhtign abiout me takign anyhtign with me? I merley said that they persist after death, ntot hat their persistance relies on me in any way dhape or form. I am not arguing form emotionalism, nor am I claimign I will carry my Cat to heaven with me, I am claimgn that my Cats soul will endeure death, as an independant thing, just like any member of my family, any of my human friends, or anyone else.This sint about gree don my end .Likewise, I already said all animals, not jut pets or the ones we like, persist.}-Zarove The idea of your beloved canine/feline companion sharing eternity with you may engender warm fuzzy feelings; but it is completely unsound theologically and practically.
{Reducing my argument to mere emotionalism and claimign I beleive this soley on a warm fuzzy feelign ignores the fac tthat to daye no one has offered any real reason in scriptue to reject my claim, neither has Thomas Aquinas the final word on all maters pertainign to this isue, need I go through and refute all his points in a proffessional manner before you see that this, ot me, isnt abotu a warm fuxzzy feeling? Or shudl I reverse it and say that, even though you get a warm fuzzy feelign form the idea htat Humans ar eht eonly thigns God loves in all the Univers ehtat he created everythign for their use and pleasure and olnly allows them immortality, while condemnign acountless billions of souls to obvlivion simpley because they arent human, doesnt make it so. Human arrogance seems thr basis of this theology, NOT anyhtign scriptural.}-Zarove
There is no rational or theological basis for the expectation that animals could enter heaven.
{Yes their is. The rational is rejected by you, and you seem tot hink its based entieely on emotionalism, but its their. The rational i simple. Animals have no sins and thus no need for salvation. Likewise, they have a soul. Tgus, knowing the soul persists even after Physical death, it is then asusmed the same principle coudl apply to Animals. It is a rational, wholly valid theological theory, in which makes perfect internal sence and conforms to all available evidence. Your own is likewise merely a theory, but you seem tot hink it immutable fact, though it certain.y sint proven to be such.}-Zarove
Such ideas are purely emotional.
{No, their not. You wont listen to the reaosn and logic behond them, but they arent purtely emotional.Thats just your presumption.}-Zarove Pets are simply wild animals that have been domesticated. {Point being?}-Zarove
If they have access to heaven, we must ask how this is so. Does this immortality apply only to those individual animals which human beings have kept as pets?
{No, and I answered this earlier in that I also fully accept that Cockroaches have sul and enter eternity... this is why its nto pure emotionalism...}-Zarove
Do wild dogs simply cease to exist when they die? Do they go to hell?
{The answer is no to each. Hell requires sin, which we establishted they cannot perform. Likewise, if very living thing has a soul, then this applies to wold animals as well as domestic pets.}-Zarove
If immortality applies only to pets, then apparently we, not God, have the power to make something immortal. How is that possible? If only pets are immortal, does this apply to pet rats? Pet frogs? Pet tarantulas?
{Since I didnt just apply this to pets,a nd dont just beleive this so I can have a warm fuxxy feeling about my pets beign with me in heaven, and this sint about me takign anyhtign with me, the above is Moot. All these animals have souls and persist after death in my postulate, and so the above is irrelevant. I know you asusmed I beleived, on emotion only, this thing base don my emotional attatckment to my pets, but this is hardly ratiponal of you to concluse.On an aside, soem peopel do in fact keep Rats as pets/}- Zarove
Or, is immortality an innate quality of ALL animals?
{Now we are where we say, I knwo you drew this long line of reasoning to show me the folly of this beleif, but this is basically what I beleive. All Animals persist.}-Zarove
Will every crocodile, whale, king cobra, skunk and rat that ever existed be in heaven? Every mosquito, housefly, cockroach, tick, and tapeworm? Every Tyranosaurus and Brontosaurus?
{Vrontosaurs didnt exist. They where a mistake, a Diploticus head on an Apatasaurus Body. That said, I beelive, that in one form or another, these thigns will have a continuation. I see no contradiction in sctipture tothis claim.}-Zarove
If so, human beings will be outnumbered by billions to one.
{Kind of like right now. This is an issue for tyou why? Or is this emotionalism, the desire to have toyr own kidn outnumber all others, and the desire to have an exclusive plac ein Heaven...}-Zarove
If this is the case, it's odd that none of the visions of heaven granted to men, including that recorded in the Book of Revelation, ever mentioned it.
{Actually revelation DOES mention Animals. As tot he spacific fact that Animals outnumber humans...I see no relevanc ein mentioning it. But ig you read, the Book of Ezekiel, and the book of Revelations, both mentions animals in Heaven. In revelations, their are animals near the throne of God.}-Zarove
The fact is, the things of this word are passing away. ALL of them. Only those called to be children of God and heirs of heaven will someday spend eternity with their heavenly Father. This is the teaching of the Church. He who hears the Church hears God. The Holy Spirit guides the Church to all truth.
{But you, alone, are not the Church proper, neither does anyhtign I say contradict the word of God found in the Holy Bible. Neither does my argument tem form emotionalism, and it does possess logic and reason to it. Likewise, beign an heir tot he Kingdom does not mean that the Kingdm is barren of all life save the heirs. Animal souls may themselves not be of this world any more than a human soul.Does not God create both?}-Zarove
-- Paul M.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 08, 2004.
Laurent,Think that it is interesting how earlier you use the tired arguement that it makes people happy. I've got news for you though. There are people in this world that murder makes them happy. There are people in this world that having sex with you boys and girls makes them happy. There are people in this would that having sex with their sister or mother makes them happy. So should murder be legal? How about pedophilia? Or incest?
You see the problems of having a society were moral relativism is the order of the day?
-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), February 10, 2004.
Scott , I'm not stupid , or wild perverting meat-eating animal !!I'm completely aware there are psychotic weirdo's (hetero and gay) on this world !!
But , I don't see why gay-people should not be allowed to marry !!
Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:
-- Laurent LUG (.@...), February 11, 2004.