HEAVEN FOR ANIMALS?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

IS THERE ALSO AN ANIMALE HEAVEN ACORDING TO CATHOLICS?

MY COUSIN ROBERT TOLD ME THIS ONCE

-- PUNKER (GREG_PISAHOV@HOTMAIL.COM), January 11, 2005

Answers

Response to HEAVEN FOR ANIMALES?

No. Animals do not have an immortal soul. They are not created in the image and likeness of God. They are part of the natural environment, along with plants, rocks and minerals, water, air, and energy. None of these things will last forever.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 11, 2005.

Response to HEAVEN FOR ANIMALES?

I'm curious, has that been defined somewhere? I thought "creation itself will be released from its bondage into the glorious liberty of the children of God" (Romans 8). Ha, Elijah had fiery horses pulling his chariot!

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 11, 2005.

Response to HEAVEN FOR ANIMALES?

Pul M likes to say anumals have no immortal souls as it has been declared by the Cahtolci chruhc, but in my researhc I find no such doctorinal decree form any Pope or ocunsil.

Neither does the Bible say Animals lack immortal souls and onky Humans endeure.

its Paul M's speculationhe presents here as fact, regretabley.

I personally beleive animals DO in fact persist after death, and ther e spirits, free form Sin, return to God who gave it, as it says iN ecclesiasties chapter 12.

No Verse in the Bible says only man has an immortal soul, nad no teaching that has been shown form the Catholci curc says this either.So Im fre to say these things, unless priven wrong.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 11, 2005.


Response to HEAVEN FOR ANIMALES?

Indeed, this article is nice onthe subject.

http://www.all-creatures.org/ca/ark-186soul.html

Note: even the Current Pope, John Paul 2, says they possess souls...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 11, 2005.


Response to HEAVEN FOR ANIMALES?

http://www.dreamshore.net/rococo/pope.html

fOIDN WHERE THE pOPE SAID THEY HAD SOULS...

now lets se Oaul say " but not Immortal souls"...Noentheless the Pope has spoken.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 11, 2005.



Response to HEAVEN FOR ANIMALES?

Zarove,

of course animals have a soul. the root word of soul is animos... it is what drives any creatures existance. HOWEVER, animals do not have an IMORTAL soul. they do not make moral decisions, they have no understanding of right and wrong, they act purely on instinct, not on rational belief. They cant possess an understanding of God and they do not have any understanding of eternal salvation. frankly, we may see our animals again when we die, but if so it will be a fabrication for our pleasure, as animals do not have the TYPE of soul which requires salvation.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), January 11, 2005.


Response to HEAVEN FOR ANIMALES?

Paul H, this is unsuported. sicnece aline tells us that animals ar emroe than mere automita that lack the ability to reason, a posiiton long held and now long refuted by evidence. anumals jave personalities, taste, independant emotional states, and varn degrees of rational capacity dependant on speicies.

They do NOT merley act on Instinct.

that said, een thouh they lack a mroal conciosuness, which was sometign man hoimself lacked tll he fell form grace, this is not a prerequisit for them having an immortal soul.

all thats needed for there soul to be Immortal is that the osul you jujst admited htem haivng not perishing upon physical death, which is what I beleive.

Neither the Bible , nor your own chruch, tells that this si the fate f the animal soul. Its speculation, and not fact.

My own, based on understanding of the scritues, leads to t the deductive conclusionthat they DO have immortalk souls, because the soul itsself cannot be extinguished.

I base this othe fac thtta they DO have suls and all sousl return to God,a nd the facthtta God look after the animals, as t says in scriotures, and thr factthat they will pause God. if they will praie him, why ar hye condemend to oblivion, and man, the creaue who rebelled, allowes to persist, even in hell?

In short, why shoudl I beleive htey have no immortal soul?WHAT authority said this? No passage form the Bible, no chruch tradition, and No papal infallable teachign on the matter exists as I am aware.

so sayign tis as a fact is not supported.

Granted, saign thye persist fter deaht isnt supported direclty either, but the case is stornger than he case for extinction of there suls, and I have NOT ventured to say mine is anslute fact.

So, if you will you sya its a fact, pelase present sme evidenc tat it is a fact.

and forgive the slight tone of hstility, I re-read this entry, and htough I am calm in the pesentaiton, it may come off diffeently in text. Noenthelss, I must stand firm on this issue.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 11, 2005.


Response to HEAVEN FOR ANIMALES?

Animals have a soul, but they have no spirit. The soul is the "mind, will and emotions" something that animals do exhibit. (There is a scripture somewhere in Genesis to this effect).

To think there will be no animals in heaven is preposterous! Animals have been there all throughout the Bible, and at virtually every major biblical event. They are also depicted in Revelations "The lion lays down with the lamb." There will be extraordinary animals in heaven. God is an artist, He's the creator! "We ain't seen nothing yet?" I bet there will be animals in heaven that we can't even imagine. Heaven will be breathtaking in its creativity, music will be beyond anything we can dream of. The colors! Oh the colors of heaven!

It will be awesome, and I don't expect to see a "No pets allowed" sign posted to the pearly gates!

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), January 12, 2005.


Response to HEAVEN FOR ANIMALES?

Animals have a soul, but they have no spirit. The soul is the "mind, will and emotions" something that animals do exhibit. (There is a scripture somewhere in Genesis to this effect).

Gail is correct. Animals do not possess a spirit. Man however is a tripartite being, not body-soul entity only as unfortunately many Christians believe.

Proof texts to show that we are tripartite instead of bipartite are:
1 Thes 5:23 - "And the God of peace Himself sanctify you wholly, and may your spirit and soul and body be complete, without blame, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."

And Hebrews 4:12 - "For the word of God is living and operative and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit and of joints and marrow..."

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), January 12, 2005.


Maybe there will in a sense be animals in Heaven. If it helps you to think of having your pet with you in Heaven, go ahead. Just like Christ used the analogy of the wedding feast for Heaven, but I don't think that literally means there will be food and drink there, but a greater state of happiness far surpassing any happiness brought about by food, drink, pets or any earthly thing. But there is definitely no "animal Heaven" for the "good" animals. (Does Robert think the bad dogs go to Cur-gatory? :-)

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), January 12, 2005.


Steve, as I said to the teo Pauls, PROVE IT WITH SOMEHTIGN MORE SUBSTANTIAL THAN MERE ASSERTATION.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 12, 2005.

Zarove,

You are the one who has to offer more than mere assertion. So far the only "reason" you have offered for your assertion is that the Bible doesn't specifically say that animals won't go to heaven. By that line of reasoning we should be able to take our cars to heaven, since the Bible doesn't specifically say we can't. However, the Bible does say why WE are able to go to heaven - because we are God's children, created in His image and likeness. That reason does not apply to any other living entity - just human beings. So, if you have some OTHER reason why dogs and cats and horses and whales and dinosaurs and rats and cockroaches should go to heaven, please offer it.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 12, 2005.


God does not have a relationship with my car. But according to Psalm 104, he *does* have a relationship with animals and cares for their needs. There is also that Romans 8 passage, where we see that creation has been handed over to death and decay, yet looks forward to release from that bondage "into the glorious liberty of the children of God". Might the imagery of Isaiah 11 (lion with lamb, etc.) not also be suggestive? Ha, and Elijah's fiery horses! While I don't think animals in heaven is necessarily *taught* for certain in Scripture, I would be hard pressed to deny it....

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 13, 2005.

Zarove, You are the one who has to offer more than mere assertion.

The difference is, I dont teahc my veiw as fact. you do. You asert every time this sisue ocmes up that animals do NOT have ijmortyal souls, that this is the Teaching of the Cahtolci Churhc and the TRUTH, and that ther eis no argung the cae tot he contray.

Yet, this to you is a statement fo fact and not a mere asseetion, based on what?

all I said was that the case cannot be dismisse dou of hand, there is neither a Catolci Teahcing for any cunsil or papal decrfee or scripture, and scriptrueal cases can be made for my case. I never said or even claimed mine was hard, proven fact. This si ocntrary to your prfesentatiosn which are always given as fact wiht nohtign bakcing them up but yor own say so.

Since mine is speculation presented as speculation, I odn have to present anyhtign to nakc it up.

But yours is a staement of fact. animals have no immortal souls. You do not support this with scriptrue. You do not support this with Papal teachigns. You do not support this with teachigns of the magestrum. You do not support this with Cunsil teachings. Its only a sttement of fact proped up by thin air.

since,as mihcael pointed out, there can be a case for my veiw made, and sicne no real case has been presented to the contrary to my view, why SHOULD I accept your teachign as fact and not mere pinion?

As much as I have a repsect for your intellegence and reasoned repsonces, you must see that you merley saying something is not evidence enough to convence me.

So far the only "reason" you have offered for your assertion is that the Bible doesn't specifically say that animals won't go to heaven.

That and the fact that they clealry have souls. In addition to god carign for them several tiems in scrtporue, balams ass beign an example. as Michael said, God has a relationshp withhte naimals. Sdeveral verses can, and int he past have, been rpesented only ot be dismisd by you because its a fac tthat animals have no immortal soul, a fact you never support with anyhtign other than mere assertion.

All I say is that you cant discount the possibility. Mine sint an asertion and I admit my limits, all i ask is for you to do the same.

Or at leats back up your claims.

By that line of reasoning we should be able to take our cars to heaven, since the Bible doesn't specifically say we can't.

You misrepresent my case, Paul M. Besides, the Bible does say you cant take matiral possessions with you to Heaven. It also said God cares for his creation and has a relaitonship wthhe animals. based on this I can conlcude loigclaluy that your statement that theylck immortal souls, lackign any evidence to support it, can be rejected without relaly cotradicting either the Bible or your own chruhces teahcings.

My line of reasonignworks this way.

1: animals have souls, as mentioend in sciropture.

2: God cares fr his animals, and spaks otthem, and provides there needs.

3: God loves al his creaton.

4: spacific animals in sciture where iven favour.

5: all souls return to God who gave them, as it is witten iN ecclesiasties.

form thse five facts I cn decdiced that Animals persist after death. Cars lack souls and have no relationshps with anyone. Least of all God.

So befoe you try to mutilate the acutal chain of logic I employ, try presenting some evidnece pleae for your own assertion.

even if mine where based on your own statements of how my midn works, which my midn clealry dosnt work this way, as is showmbfore,im a careful scholar, and thourough, you cnnot prove yor sttaement right by proving I use bad logic.

However, the Bible does say why WE are able to go to heaven - because we are God's children, created in His image and likeness.

we can also go to Hell. and rmember, animals where created by God as well. and no real teacing says they lack imorta souls.

If tou want to prov me wring, then show an actual teahcing that says htis that has any auhtority .

Bible. Tradition. counil teahcings. Thats what Cahtolics use, am I correct? show me form THOSE sources, not for yor own, or else admit that thi isn a proven, hard line fact ans toyr speculation.

That reason does not apply to any other living entity - just human beings.

Says who? exaclty? WHY shoidl I beleive this? Your own lin oflogic is criticlaly flawed since you aSSUME THAT BECAUSE NIMALS WHERENT SPACIFICLALYMENTIOEND AS RETIRNIG TO gOD, THEY DONT. THIS SI THE AME KIND OF LOGIC YOU CONDMENED MY ARUGMENT FOR.

Its exacly the same, only in reverse.

Now, try to do bete than mere argument.

either admit you haveno solid proof, or show me solid proof.

I admit I have none, but do have the gorunds for a cae in my favour. You have what?

So, if you have some OTHER reason why dogs and cats and horses and whales and dinosaurs and rats and cockroaches should go to heaven, please offer it.

I did, several times, but you seem to ignore the case.

scripture tells us that God loves his creatures. scurotrue also said they have souls. scuture says God provides and cares for them. soture tells me that oudl return to God.

My linefo thouht is dedictive, and not based on emotioalsim, as its usualy alled, or bad logic,as ou said now. indeed, you use the same bad logic you said I used. You cant rellay back up the fac thtta animals have no immortal souls. You just sort of asme they do and trahc it a a proven fact wiht no real auhtority behidn the statement becsude your own say so.

Again, I did not prsent a well reasoned case, because aaisn you I knwo its worhtles. Uou dismissed it last time I tried, why shod this be diffeent. so I tried a new approach.

I asked ou to present somethign auhoritative that actually says this.

so, what have you to show me?

I at leats can quote John Paul 2. He DID say bakc in 1990 that Animals had souls.

No handwrignign on what he meant either. you cant say for sufe he didnt mean imortal souls any moe than I can say he did. But he also called the animals our "Bretheren".

Interesitng for a Pope to say this, wiht your veiws, no?

Coem on, is it so unreasobalnable to ask tha you bakc up oyr claims? I backed up my case with scriorue int he past, and admited its not absolutley proven. all I ask is hat if it is a proven fac tthta animals lack immortal souls, you show it from a source with this auhtority.



-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 13, 2005.


When the Bible is silent on a particular issue all we can really do is speculate. BUT we can look at the character and nature of God in order to "speculate."

There is no scripture that says aborted or miscarried babies go to heaven either, BUT we can look at the merciful nature of God as revealed in scripture, and say "Yes, I believe they are in heaven."

When it comes to animals, I believe God enjoys the animals that he creates. I believe he rejoices over ALL creation, not just HUMANKIND. I believe there was a reason why animals attended the birth of our Lord.

So am I assuming? Yes, just a little bit, but I am basing my assumption on what I know about God based on His holy word.

It boggles my mind to think that God would give us the enjoyment of animals here on earth, but not in heaven.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 13, 2005.



Hey, Zarove, what about plants? Just like animals, plants have been there all through the whole story of salvation history, and mentioned approvingly many times in Scripture. Why can't every single individual plant, from a sequoia to a daffodil to each of the weeds that we poison or pull out, go to Heaven when it dies? Why not fungi? Why not bacteria? Why not viruses? God made them all and loves all His creation. I fear you are too affected by the profoundly atheist belief that humans are nothing special, just very intelligent animals.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), January 13, 2005.

If animals go to heaven then what about hell? I can picture alot of pit bulls, poodles and chihuahas in the fiery pit.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), January 13, 2005.

Steve, before you mokc my vbeleifs, why dont you try the challenge I gave Paul M.

I have given arugments for animal persistance after death before, and recieed ridicule. its a known FACT that animals do not havd an immortal osul like humans, he repeats this often enough.

Like him, you now mock me for the stand I take to get me to back down.

what you do NOT do is rpeset ANY evidence AT ALL that the posiiton that they lakc immortal osuls is correct.

So I repeat.

1: whre in Holy scripture is this fact found?

2: If not in Holy scrpture, which Pope inflalabley decreed it a fact?

3: if no Pope decreed it inflalabley a fact, which counsil clarified this teaching?

No arguments about my emotional sttae, leanigns, ateism, or anythign else.

Prove the fact that Animals lack immortal souls, or else admit its speculation on your part.

Thats all I ask.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 13, 2005.


Zarove, your argument essentially boils down to “if a fact is not specifically stated in Scripture, an infallible Papal declaration of dogma, or a dogmatic statement by a Church Council, then it is not true.” I’m pretty sure there’s nothing in Scripture or dogmatic declarations which state that cars do not have immortal souls, but there doesn’t need to be. It’s just common sense. And no I wasn’t “mocking” you and I don’t think Paul was either. I was just showing you the logical consequences of your argument.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), January 13, 2005.

My arugment does not boil down to that.

My argument on this thread alone doesnt boil down tot hat, and Im not even tyign to argue anyhtign other than the fact that some posters, yourself included, seem to think that you caneclare a fact and not expect to bakc it up.

why SHOULD I bakc up my cliam? why CANT I just do like you and Paul M and just delcare that animals do, in fact, have Immortal sols? why needs sources? Obviosuly, you dont.

My argument has been made inthe past, and ignored.

Its an "Obvious truth of the Catholci Church" that animal lack Immortal souls.

all i ask is that, if my arugments are ot be dismissed, I be shown the autority by which they are dismissed.

Now, do you have anu evidence that animals lack immortal souls, or is this speculation on your part?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 13, 2005.


Well you could try reading the Catechism:

"356 Of all visible creatures only man is "able to know and love his creator".219 He is "the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake",220 and he alone is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God's own life. It was for this end that he was created, and this is the fundamental reason for his dignity:

'What made you establish man in so great a dignity? Certainly the incalculable love by which you have looked on your creature in yourself! You are taken with love for her; for by love indeed you created her, by love you have given her a being capable of tasting your eternal Good.'221

358 God created everything for man,222 but man in turn was created to serve and love God and to offer all creation back to him: What is it that is about to be created, that enjoys such honor? It is man that great and wonderful living creature, more precious in the eyes of God than all other creatures! For him the heavens and the earth, the sea and all the rest of creation exist.

1703 Endowed with "a spiritual and immortal" soul,5 the human person is "the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake."6 From his conception, he is destined for eternal beatitude.

2415 … Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity."

The Church plainly teaches us that God made man, and no other wordly creature, for the purpose of being with Him in Heaven; and that He made animals, plants and all the rest of creation for the purpose of man's use in this world.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), January 13, 2005.


yet I can find other Catechism verses that do not concuse wht this, and other catechisms.

what I asked for is one of the thre thigns below, which you do not present me with.

1: Sacred Scripture to support your claims.

2: Papal teachigns to support your claims.

3: Counsil teahcigns to support your claims.

The Cagechism is a valuable referernce book, but can be wrong.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 13, 2005.


Come on, Zarove, you’re grasping at straws. If you’re seriously suggesting that there are other statements in the current Catechism, or in other formerly approved Catholic Catechisms, which contradict those above, prove it. You deride others for making unsupported assertions, yet you do just that, after I have provided very solid support for my own assertion from official current Catholic teaching. And yes I know the Catechism isn’t per se an infallible papal statement, but it is a very reliable compendium of Catholic teachings published by authority of the Pope.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), January 13, 2005.

Steve, you said "Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity." Yes, Steve, they are for OUR use! So what!

"Future humanity" does not translate "for this world," Steve. You are reading into the text what you want it to mean. In fact, I could turn that quote around easily enough "future humanity." Will we not have our "humanity," though glorified, IN THE "FUTURE" HEAVENLY REALM?

There is absolutely NOTHING in your quotes to support your "theory" Steve, and that's all it is . . . your educated guess. You believe that though God has created all of this glory FOR man on earth, that heaven will be LESS! How ABSURD! (Oh gee, I can't wait to get there)

And just for the record, of course there will be plants in heaven. Good gracious, what do you think, we're gonna ride around on big fluffy clouds all day. You envision a heaven bare of anything remotely resembling earth!

(Oh, BTW, there is a very essential difference between animals and cars . . . one is MAN-MADE and the other is GOD-MADE. I'll let you figure out which one is which!)

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 13, 2005.


“"Future humanity" does not translate "for this world," Steve. You are reading into the text what you want it to mean.”

No Gail, I’m afraid YOU are doing that. Read the whole passage in the Catechism. It’s about judiciously using and preserving the WORLD’s animals, plants and mineral resources so that they will remain for future generations of humans in the WORLD. We will have no use for these things in Heaven.

Here is the full quote:

Respect for the integrity of creation

2415 The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity.195 Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man's dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.196

2416 Animals are God's creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory.197 Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.

2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image.198 Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.

2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons. “

We cannot imagine or describe adequately the happiness of Heaven. I already said, in one sense there “will” be animals (and plants) in Heaven, and you can think of Heaven that way if it helps you picture happiness. (As it helps me; there’s nothing I enjoy more than going for a walk in the woods and enjoying the wonders of nature which God created for us.) But the happiness of being in God’s presence face to face is infinitely greater than the happiness we get from stroking a cat or smelling a rose or looking at a snowcapped mountain. But the individual animals and plants we see here on Earth are destined for our use on Earth and will not go anywhere else when they die. Man alone of all visible creatures is destined for Heaven. There’s no “educated guess” by me here, it’s all plainly stated by the Church.

“You believe that though God has created all of this glory FOR man on earth, that heaven will be LESS! How ABSURD! (Oh gee, I can't wait to get there)”

On the contrary, Heaven is far, far MORE. All the wonderful glory of the created universe is NOTHING compared to the glories of Heaven. You may (as I and I'm sure most people do) imagine Heaven in terms resembling the Earth. But that's not literally true. There are no animals or plants or clouds there.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), January 14, 2005.


Personally, I don't believe that our eternal dwelling place is "heaven".

The bible reveals that the believers become the eternal dwelling place of God. The New Jerusalem, the Bride, comes down out of heaven. Paul M, I think you were trying to refute me by saying that in eternity there will be no more Earth, only heaven and hell. This contradicts what scripture teaches, which is that there will be a New Heaven and New Earth. The argument can then turn the direction of "What is the New Earth?" but I'd like to see more of what you have to say on this matter before I press further.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), January 14, 2005.


"There are no animals or plants or clouds there."

I'm glad you know so much about it, Steve, that you can make a blanket statement such as this based on what the Catechism DOES NOT say about heaven.

Scripture describes the heavenly Jerusalem with trees, streams and "lion laying down with the lamb". Everything you quote from the Catechism has to do with our earthly journey. It is not addressing heaven at all, AT ALL! It has to do with EARTH!

You have no IDEA what will be in heaven so how can you presume to make such a statement?

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 14, 2005.


Steve, I may be a theology suent in my spare time, but I havent read each and every Catechism. However, I know many traditional types reject the Modern catechism.

Liekwise, many SAINTS have disagreed with your cirrent statement.

Noentheless, all I said was this. And keep this in mind.

I make no argument on tis thread to date. I only ask a simple queatsion.

where in all of the authority of the HCurch has this been decreed that Animals lack Immortal souls?

where is it in scriptrues?

What Pope has infallabley taught it?

what counsil elaborated on it?

The Catechism is a REFERENCE BOOK often locally prodiced. It is not seen as infallable y the churhc, and subsequently can be in error.

Though I ongratulate yo for doing far mroe work than Paul M, I remind you that My argument has not rlelay been rpesented on this thread, so stop saign what My argument is. what Im addressing s the lack of argument Paul M and others possess when they say as a fact that Animals have no immortal souls, and present no documentation to prove it. This issue has arisenint he past, and een WHEN I present a scriptrual argmentfor my cause , its dismissed, so that " Animals lackImmortal souls" can be proclaimed wthout benefit of a proper argument.

so now Im not presentign an argument, Im askig for proof of YOUR argument.

And though you have (inally) presented somehtign more subtsatian than a decree, you have not offered me wat I asked for.

I asked for the Catholic Teacing on this matter, soacificlaly form the Bible, the Popes, or the Magestrum.

Why is this unreasoable?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 14, 2005.


Actually I think the Catechism of the Catholic Church is seen as an authoritative and trustworthy presentation of the magisterium by Pope John Paul II, who produced it.

I don't have the time to read Steve's full Catechism quote now, or his other comments, to digest them.

But my heart (surely not an infallible guide!) tells me that God loves all sentient beings and surely has some place for them in his eternal Kingdom.

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 14, 2005.


Paul M. is spot on once again. Only those with freewill and intellect shall reap the rewards that Heaven offers. Animals have neither of these God-given traits. Only God, angels and humans do.

Father John A. Hardon does suggest that animals may be permitted in Heaven after the Last Day as part of our “creaturely happiness” in the Heavenly kingdom (not that we will need it). Scripture bears this out. “The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and the little child will lead them.” Isaiah 11:6

-- Sydney (wayoutthere@universe.com), January 16, 2005.


Paul M. is spot on once again. Only those with freewill and intellect shall reap the rewards that Heaven offers. Animals have neither of these God-given traits. Only God, angels and humans do.

The torible wiht this "Spot on " statement is that its false. Animals actually do possess both free will and intellegence, and tis even been measured. the notion that they are simple automitons operatign on a preprogrammed route has been long since discredited. animals ahve personalities too.

So, if only things with free will and intellect may enter Heaven, why are animals excempted, sicne thye exhibit the traits htat you claim are prerequeisits?

and een if thye lacked these, whoever said they where prerequisits?

again, I want one of three things.

1: Scriptural support for the claim.

2: Papal teaching to support the claim.

3: Counsil teachings to support the claim.

Nothign else will do. especially thigns tat are proven false such as Animals lacjong free will and itnellect.

Father John A. Hardon does suggest that animals may be permitted in Heaven after the Last Day as part of our “creaturely happiness” in the Heavenly kingdom (not that we will need it).

And I care about his opinion why? again, three things, no oen seems ot be abe to present.

1: Scripture.

2: Papal statements..

3:Counsil teachings.

are we so arogant as ot beelive that only the thigns thya make us happy will get to heaven, and animals dotn deserve eternal life becUSE WE ARE SO MUCH BETTER HAN THEY? wHERE IS TH hUMILITY IN THIS? Least of all when you think fo them as mere automitons dispite the fact that this si contrary to relaity.

Scripture bears this out.

If this whwre true you cosl prove me wrong when I say anmals do persist after death, you cant cite any verse that proves this, or, as below you present, that the only animals in Heaven will be those we wany yhere fo our creaturely pleausres.

I find it not only repugnant, but arogant to think tha the whole prder of Creation revvles aroudn humanity.

I find it disturbign that no oen seems capable of supportign this claim with much of anything.

“The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and the little child will lead them.” Isaiah 11:6

but cant I ask the logical queatsion ehre? Where in this passage des it say that the only reason we have lions and lambs is because we wante them for our pelasure, as your statement was indicated that they only live there because we wan them to?

It doesnt. It does show that naimals will be rpeasent, it does not show that only animals we liked wll be there while the rest lay extinct.

Again, Human arrogance and interpretaiton I care not for, show me in Gods word, or on some auhtoritative statement, where it says ANYHTING about these matters, and I iwll aquiese, until then, you have no support for your claims.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 16, 2005.


Zarove, I think you’re misrepresenting the concept of free will. When a dog is hungry, he eats. True, he exercises a free choice when he decides to eat from his bowl of dog food instead of taking a bite out of your leg. But he doesn’t decide this based on which option is morally right. He decides based on instinct, on the training his human master has given him, and on his own self-centred desire to avoid pain, based on his experience that whenever he has bitten a human he has gotten a kick or other punishment. Humans are the only visible creatures which have free will concerning moral decisions, because they are the only ones which know right from wrong.

It’s not that we are morally “better” than animals or that animals don’t “deserve” heaven. Animals are innocent. No animal ever sinned. They can’t “deserve” heaven because they are incapable of doing anything morally good (or bad), or, needless to say, of having faith in Christ.

Yes it would be arrogant if man said, on his own initiative, “the entire vast universe is made for us”. But it’s GOD who tells us that this is so, a fact which should make us humble and in awe of God’s unbounded love for us.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), January 16, 2005.


Zarove, I think you’re misrepresenting the concept of free will. When a dog is hungry, he eats. True, he exercises a free choice when he decides to eat from his bowl of dog food instead of taking a bite out of your leg. But he doesn’t decide this based on which option is morally right. He decides based on instinct, on the training his human master has given him, and on his own self-centred desire to avoid pain, based on his experience that whenever he has bitten a human he has gotten a kick or other punishment. Humans are the only visible creatures which have free will concerning moral decisions, because they are the only ones which know right from wrong.

So before Adamand ve gianed the knoledge of good and evl, they lacked Free will. That is the lgical extensio here at leayt.

Think. If knowign right form wrong is what gives oen free will, an tis nto defined simpley as perosnal volition, then youhave to also admit that Adam and eve lacked free will.

since the premise is that Animals don have immortal souls because htey lakc fre will, then adam an eve lacked immortal souls rill they sinned.

simple logic really.

I dotn beelive it, but it is what flows frm your conlcusion.

oh and the trainign plus avoidign pain and slefcentredness of animals on your part is assumtion.Can hou rove animals lack the capacity to empathise wth others? To love?To place others needs bere tere own?

Or os this too just soemthign you beleive iwht no facts?

It’s not that we are morally “better” than animals or that animals don’t “deserve” heaven. Animals are innocent. No animal ever sinned. They can’t “deserve” heaven because they are incapable of doing anything morally good (or bad), or, needless to say, of having faith in Christ.

without sin, they d need a saviour. Plus, God said they have faiht in him in the Bibke, shoidl I disregard this in favour of your on statements? Likewise, before Adam and eve winned, did they lack immortal souls? Afrer all, befre they knew wat sin was they wher elike the animals and lacked the ability to know right form wrong. so, by extension, they mist also have lacked immortal souls, thus the fall fo man orm grace bestowed him immortality and glory. That makes sence to you? Ofr did you even think this out? I doubt that you even think Im fairly represetign it, but the logic is that before man knew good form evil, he codl not act morlaly, and was like the animals. isnce animals cnano enter heaven because htye cnanot act mrolaly, then the Amoral Adam and eve before they snned and knew what the sdifference betwen good an evil was also lacked immortal souls.

One cannot escape this conclusion ithhte given premise.

Yes it would be arrogant if man said, on his own initiative, “the entire vast universe is made for us”. But it’s GOD who tells us that this is so, a fact which should make us humble and in awe of God’s unbounded love for us.

The queatsion I have asekd repeatedly and get no answer form is "Where does God tell us this?"

Just sayign God said the hole Universe was made for man doesnt show me any of he below.

1: Scripture asserting all of Creation was made fr Humanity.

2: Infallable papal statements syaing all Creation was made for man.

3: Counsil teacigns syaing all of creation was made for man.

Likewise, you have fialed to present documentaiton for your claim that naimals lack immortal souls, een the Cagechism wotes dont say this, and the cateshism isnt itself completley inerent.

So no mor arugment and mroe documents.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 16, 2005.


If you believe the legend of St. Francis of Assisi (as I do) then there's good rerason to believe that animals may be in heaven. I have an excellent biogrophy on St. Francis by a Catholic priest as well as a historian (although I forget his name). Supposivly it's one of the best biogrophy's on the St. out there. The birds he talked to as well as the wolf surley understood who God was.

I personaly believe animals will be in heaven and if not then I will ask God if they can (if I get there as I'm hoping).

Some people think animals have no personality and act only on instinct. That is such nonesense! I don't think any animal trainer or lover will say that. Some will say "Oh, if your german sheper has died, just go and get a new one. What's the big deal?" Because it won't be the same german shepard.

I have two dogs, one cat, and three rats. I can reconize each of their personalities, especialy my dogs. My half german shepard hald lab Fawn is one of the most loyalist and strangest animals I have ever known. Seriously, it's pretty funny. Sometimes she's even jealous of my wife (which makes my wife quite mad). She protects the house and yard, comes when I call her, submits when I scold her, and much much more. She literaly jumps on me to give me doggy kisses (which grosses my wife out) when I come home and follows me like a shadow. There's something more though about her, you just know that it's "Fawn" when she's around. The way her eyes look and just her whole attitude all around. My other dog who is hald syberian husky and half german shepard likewise has her own personality as well as our cat, and yes, ESPECIALLY our rats Catrina, Jasmine, and Giddeon.

I do not at all believe that animals are more important than humans, but I do believe they are precious in our Lords eyes as He created them. I do not know if they have souls, but humans were created IN THE IMAGE OF GOD, animals were not. We are more important than animals, but that doesn't mean in the new heavens and earth they will just cease to exist. I pray they will be in heaven as we have no idea what Heaven will be like. My main hope for heaven is to see God face to face which makes me tremble at the thought.

I'm also sick of all the people moving up where I live and putting up "no hunting" signs ALL OVER THE PLACE. The deer population has dramaticly increased because of that. I was in a deer accident last monday. I was driving 55-60 miles per hour as well. Thankfully I'm ok but as I went back and saw the deer, I was greatly sad. She was dying fast as blood came out her mouth and nose so I pray that she was in shock and never felt pain when she died. I know I'm a little off the topic but humans just destroy everything. Animals are being forced out of their homes, then there's no hunting allowed, then they are slaughtered. It greatly saddens me and I hope that deer is in heaven.

God give you peace:)

-- Jason (Enchantedfire5@yahoo.com), January 17, 2005.


zarove, its not even a matter of free will. animals, of course, have free will. its a matter of moral culpability. in the matter of adam and eve, they did have a basic understanding of right and wrong in the sense that they could be morally culpable. its just that the only way to violate the law of God was to eat from the tree. they used their free will to violate their only understanding of wrong. but, as far as animals go, as steve said, they lack moral culpability. that means that if ANY animal has a soul which gets into heaven, then ALL animals must have a soul which gets into heaven. that or, as said, animals have a soul which does not exist entirely independantly and immortally. i do not doubt that there will be animals again, but do i think i'm going to see my pet dog from when i was five running around there? probably not. then again, i might, but it will be a reproduction, not an immortal soul. i wish john gecik was here, i think it was one of the saints who wrote about this subject.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), January 17, 2005.

I forgot to mention one time that was really wonderful about "Fawn." It was late at night and I had just returned from the animal hospital after putting my terminaly ill kitten to sleep. Well, I was sitting outside in the dark and my dogs were with me. I began to weep because I missed my kitten. Fawn came over, stared at me, begane to lick my tears and face, then put her two paws on me as if she was huging me. I thanked God for that.

-- Jason (Enchantedfire5@yahoo.com), January 17, 2005.

zarove, its not even a matter of free will. animals, of course, have free will.

Steve disagreed, he acutlaly siad it as limited and motivated by slf interest. This clashes wht anumals who die for there owners, leaping into burnign buildings is NOT what I call self interest...

its a matter of moral culpability.

If this were so, than Hmans who lack mroal culpability, such as the severelyu retarded or autistic, lack Immortal osuls.

Not only is moral culpability not a prerequisit to having an endeuring soul, it is not even remotely relevant to even discuss this aspect in lght of steves blanket Generalisations abut animals not backed up with anything.

in the matter of adam and eve, they did have a basic understanding of right and wrong in the sense that they could be morally culpable.

And the Serpent didnt? Mind you, the Serpent isnt Human either, and no oen has awequately showm me any verse int he entire Bible to change my mind on this beign rellay Satan either.

He was more clreaver tan all the basts of the field , os he was obviously a beast.

If an animal can outwit man and get him to do what is wrong, surely this animal knows morlaity.

even my Dog knwos right frm wrong on a basic level. If you reject the above...

its just that the only way to violate the law of God was to eat from the tree. they used their free will to violate their only understanding of wrong.

And we knwo animals knwo the basic distinction between right and wrong. They dot knwo good and evil, but do knwo right from wrong.

That said, again, the Serpent begiled them, he was nto so ignorant himself...

but, as far as animals go, as steve said, they lack moral culpability.

which is not a prerequisit to an immortal soul, as far as I can tell...

that means that if ANY animal has a soul which gets into heaven, then ALL animals must have a soul which gets into heaven.

And htis is a problem why? This is exaclty what I propose.

that or, as said, animals have a soul which does not exist entirely independantly and immortally.

Since I go with option one, that all animals have immortal souls, Im not sure why this even matters.

i do not doubt that there will be animals again, but do i think i'm going to see my pet dog from when i was five running around there? probably not.

Bu the queatsion is, why do you bee,ice he lacked an immortal soul?

I beelive all anmimas have immortal souils. ( I know, I only want my pets here because I liek them and its all emotionalism... but come on... Ive said this repeateldy on this issue...)

then again, i might, but it will be a reproduction, not an immortal soul.

And the million dolalr queatsion is, says who?

Again, Paul H, pleae try to bare wiht me here. Im not beign unreasonable.

All I ask is for one of the following.

1: Scripture that says animals lack immortal souls.

2: Papal teahcigns that state animals lack immortal souls.

3: Counsil teahcigns that say animals lakc immortal soiuls.

Im not intereste din only my pets, nor do I lack concern for animals I never will meet or care about out fo ignorance.The Theological issue is " Do animals have immortal souls". I say they do. But instea of tryign to argue that again, Im askign you guys to prove that if your Dog is there ist jsta reporcdiction ebcause the dog lacked an Immortal soul.

why DOESNT the Dog have an immortal soul? Who said>?

where is your proof?

what evidence do o have?

I don care forr these arugments, I want documentaiton wiht autority. even steves Catechism didnt sya they laced immortal souls, just that they where crated soley form an, and I een disagree with this, bu even if I syb,ited to htis catechism ( which itsself isnt infallable) I STILL don have a clear statement that says animals lack immortal souils.

So why MUST I beleive yours is more logical, when especially you cant voice a logical objeciton o my stand, and seem to alwats approach it as if Im beign emotonal and want my pets there only. Its not about that. een before I had pets I thoguht animals ( and I mean, all animals) had souls that wher eimmortal. when I was otld they didnt, I asked to see the evidence in scriptrues. no one oidl show me that and, liek you guys, argued only, and the arugments clealry arent irrefutable.

Now Im sick of the arugments.

Show me evidence form Chruch teachings, actual clear documentaiton.

Or else, admit this is speculation.

Thats all Im asking.

i wish john gecik was here, i think it was one of the saints who wrote about this subject.

Several, and they disagreed. St.Thoas Aquinas is who you refer to. he said ANimals lakced immortal, spiritual sousl and had only material soiuls. St.Fransis of assisi disagreed. as Jason noted.

The toruble is, that Neither saint Fransis or assisi nor Saint Thomas aquinas are final auhtorities, least of all since hey disagreed onthe matter.

St.Francic beleived they had immortal souls.

Can I use him as evidence?

what I want is beliow, agaimn.

1: Scripture that tells that Animals lack immortal souls.

2: papal teahcings that state Animals lack immortal souls.

3: Counsil teahcigns that state that Animals lakc mmortal souls.

Out of all of this, I ask for only oen clear statement form these sources combined, and all you can do is grant arguments thta arent even suffecent to begin your case.

Im not even arguigng my case.

Im askign you to prve it from chruch teachings.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 17, 2005.


Z, it was YOU, not me, who brought up the idea that animals have free will as a purported argument that animals “deserve” to go to Heaven. Your remarks about Adam and Eve only show up the hole in your own previous argument.

Dogs are pack animals. Once they have been trained to recognize a human family as the leaders of their pack, they will be subservient, occasionally even to the extent of risking their own life in attempts to save their “pack leaders”. I cannot bring myself to believe that a dog sees his master in a burning house and thinks to himself “it would be a good and noble thing to save his life”. Though we love to anthropomorphize animals and pretend that they think like this, they do not. They act on instinct.

Catholics along with I’m sure 99.9% of other Christians agree that the talking serpent of Genesis is the Devil, NOT a mere animal. I’m dismayed to find you taking such an extreme literalist view in your desperate attempt to support your assertion. And as far as I know St Francis did NOT agree with you that animals have immortal souls. And Jason, I sympathize with your wife. Your doggie kissing grosses me out too. I hope she makes you scrub your face before you kiss HER.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), January 17, 2005.


I agree with Zarove. There is absolutely nothing which teaches that animals will not be in heaven, therefore one can make as good an argument that they will as one can that they will not. Actually, the argument that they WILL is stronger due to biblical evidence.

As far as animals having "souls" as man has a soul? No. Do they each have individual personalities? Oh yes they certainly do. Nobody will ever convince me that God who created them doesn't love these wonderful creatures and doesn't "somehow" reunite them with their loving human companions.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 17, 2005.


The great majority of animals do not have "loving human companions". In fact, great numbers of animals spread disease and pestilence among God's people. Some of them, when given the opportunity, even feed upon God's people. Which brings me back to my earlier question. Will ALL animals be in heaven, because they are all God's creatures? Or will heaven be reserved for those individual aninmals that some human being has domesticated (in which case we, not God, decide which animals will go to heaven and which won't)?

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 17, 2005.

I will tell you a short story of my dog named Beau. He was special not only because he was a rare breed (Beauceron), but because he had this strange connection with me as do most animals. My uncle who was in his 80's and also someone I would turn to spiritually was tired of living. He had outlived two of his wives (one was my aunt..dad's sister), and he would talk about death to me. I of course would try to cheer him up, but he wanted to die. At one point in our conversations (we only talked on the phone because he lived in NC while I live in CA) I told him how my dad visited me in a dream after he died and how I saw my aunt too. He (uncle) asked me if God would allow him to visit me in a dream if he could. I told him I would welcome it. This was our last conversation Dec. 28, 1999. I took Beau, and Emmy (my Rott) out to the ranch for a run. While out there I had a big pain in my chest and at that very moment I knew it was my uncle. I ran back to my truck to race back home. I knew in my heart he was gone. The moment and I mean moment, I got home the phone rang. When I answered it I answered by saying, "Please don't tell me". I could hear crying on the other end and then I started to cry. Was told how my uncle was in a wreck and was thrown from his jeep and it landed on him crushing his chest. He lived long enough to ask if the other people in the car were OK..the wreck was his fault and yes thank God the other people were alive and well. I told Brian and he knew I had to go the funeral even if I was nervous about the whole thing (Y2K etc). The day I was going to fly out I decided to run my furbabes one more time. I kept sensing something about Beau. My heart even felt a little more heavy when I ran. Before I left I told DH to make sure the dogs were up and take care of them. Long story short..went to the funeral and then dreamt of my uncle. I had no idea he would come to me so soon! My dad didn't yet unlce did. I was bawling and hugging him and he just laughed at me and hugged me and told me to not be sad because he was so happy and that God was good. He even twirled around with a big smile and told me to not waste my tears on him. He started to walk away from me going back to this warm bright light and I felt sad again. Then out of the blue my dog Beau comes jumping around me acting all goofy and made me laugh. He always had this special way about him. :o) I remember being confused that Beau was there, but he licked my tears and then he left. I woke up and knew Beau was also dead. He was and I didn't know until I came home. We have still never found him, but the fireworks on New Years Eve scared him off. I prayed one night on my knees bawling to God to end my toying with my mind (yes I can doubt my dreams) and to let me know if he (Beau) was alive or dead. To just give me a sign and any sign. I have pictures if anyone wants proof, but a vulture came over and hung out on my roof for at least 4 hours. The stupid thing wouldn't leave no matter how many things I threw at it. I accepted even as harsh as it might have seemed that I would not get my Beau back. I now have a new Beauceron and she is almost as sweet and we have a special connection. I do wash my face after kisses though. LOL Love them, but know they are animals and they do lick their ( i )'s at times. When I am especially down God always sends a few of his feathered friends to cheer me up. I can not tell you how many times a small bird will fly around me or perch close to me when I feel blue. God does give us animals as gifts here on earth and maybe in heaven we won't need them, but who is to say they will not be there.

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), January 18, 2005.


Possibly only new animals will be seen in heaven. Glorious ones; but not the ones we were happy with in this life.

Their time is over. Ours is immortal, because we are made in the image of God. Heaven is new and everlasting life. New animals who have never lived before in any other world, seem ideal (for me) as our heavenly companions in glory. They'll likely be tremendous; great, beautiful and immortal? Didn't Jesus say, ''Behold I make everything new,'' ???

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 18, 2005.


--

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 18, 2005.

Beautiful story Jalapeno :)

LOL at Steve. Doggy kisses yay :)

Why are some people just so flat out to "prove" the other wrong? Perhaps I'm judging most of you but I believe the majority of you all are just trying to "prove" the other wrong out of pride. Usualy it's the sarcastic commets that give this away. Forgive me if I'm wrong and by God I hope I am wrong!

I have never heard an infalliable statement by a Pope that animals do not have souls. I used to believe they didn't until I read St. Francis of Assisi's life. And I do not think a dog thinks it's a "noble" act as well if it goes into a house and saves it's master, or family. I think it goes in because it cares about the humans inside. That's a God given gift within that animal I believe for yes, us humans.

God give you peace:)

-- Jason (Enchantedfire5@yahoo.com), January 18, 2005.


I also can care less about saving someones life as being "noble" or as if I "deserve" something for such an honorable deed. I care not and I would only go to save the peoples lives acting on love not greed or selfish desires.

-- Jason (Enchantedfire5@yahoo.com), January 18, 2005.

Paul M, you ignore two facts.

Fact one: As I stated to Paul H, yes, all animals have immortal soiuls in my beleif, not jus t those with Human companions. this is NOT soley about my emotionalism as its been accused in the past over me wantign my cat in heavenwith me. Ive alwys beelived this and have no clear evidence to contradict my beelif.

Rather or not they spread diseases is irrlevant, since humans likeise spread diseases just fine to themselves and even to animals, whats worse, they uttelry destory the environment in which the animals and themselves live.

The argument you make about diseases is therefore irrelevant, unless you want to say humans are somehow immunce fom spreading diseases and wiping out entire speicies...

Cact 2: There is nohtign in Churhc teahcing that says animals lakc immortal souls. syaing they lack immortal sousl as a fact and saying that teahcign otherwise conradicts chruch teahcing is uttely false. There is curently no Chruhc teahcign that states animals lack immortal souls.

Ultimatley thats the point Im tryign to get accross to you. Argmens batu mroal cu;lpability and mans preemenence fall short.

I dotn care anu more. Its the same rehashings.

what I want is, if you nd the others want to insist animals lack immortal souls, is one of the following.

1: Scripture.

Actual Biblical evidence that Animals lakc immortal souls.

2: Papal Teachings.

A statement by a Pope that is seen as infaallable and clarifyign a Doctorine ( Not a popes opinion) an infallable Papal decree on the matter ex Cathsdra that states uneqivicaly that Animals lakc immortal souls.

3: Counsil teahcigns.

Nicea. Lantern. Carthage.Trent. Vatican 1. Vatican 2. Ect...

The teahcign of the Magestrum.

soemthign form them that states aimals lakc immortal souls.

No level of " Animals lac immortal susl because I said so" will do, since you insist this is a fact and Churhc teaching, its up to you to present the Chruch teahcign that illuminates this fact.

Otherwise, admit its sheer speculation on your part.

This goes for everyone.

Again, to close and repeat.

I want one of the following to prove animals have no immortal souls.

1: Scripture.

2:Papal teahcings.

3: Counsil teahcings.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 18, 2005.


WOOF! WOOF!

Hello , Im a ten month old pup with a guilty conscience. Ive been getting into the garbage regularly even though I know its evil to steal, is this considered a mortal sin? .

ps I think Im going to hell, does Lucifer accept German Shepards?

Bow wow clowns!

-- mangy mut (humans are crazy@farside.com), January 18, 2005.


Zarove sorry my sense of humour is going from bad to worse, but I really think youre barking up the wrong tree. Ok, Ok, seriously the idea that Jesus suffered and died on the Cross so that our dogs can go to poodle heaven ...

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), January 18, 2005.

onsidering my whole point is to illustrate ht those who say Animals have no immoal soil is a fact and condmen othes who disagre witht hem as disagreing withhte Chruch havent rellay a leg to stand on, No, Im not.

every time animal soisl comes up, peopel on the forum, like Paul M, say that naimals do nto have an immoral soiul, and his is a fact, and he matte ris settled.

For once I woidl liek to see the documentaiton for the alleded fact, thats all.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 18, 2005.


Fawn came over, stared at me, begane to lick my tears and face, then put her two paws on me as if she was huging me. I thanked God for that.

***Jason the above has happened to me too. God is good with giving us these fury creatures and you seem to know how to appreciate them. :o) I've read this some where and maybe someone in this forum also mentioned it, but when in heaven we will be so happy that none of us will remember our animals. Our happiness will go beyond our need to see them again. I don't expect my previous furbabes to be in heaven at all even though they were very special to me. I am grateful that God allowed Beau to say goodbye to me and allow him be there for me when I was feeling the way I was at that time.

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), January 18, 2005.


The queaysion is thoug, how do yoy know Beu isnt in Heaven?

Again, no Churhc teaching on this matter, so the fact that animals lack immortal souls is unproven, prevailing opinions aside.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 18, 2005.


zarove, you keep mentioning that there is no church teaching on this matter, and yet steve showed you the catechisms words on the subject which seem to indicate the same philosophy which we have already discussed here with you. the catechism IS the church teaching and catholics are required to lend full assent to the instruction of the Catechism. not saying that what is stated is clear cut, but it certainly points to the immortal soul of humans a being unique in this world.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), January 18, 2005.

zarove, you keep mentioning that there is no church teaching on this matter, and yet steve showed you the catechisms words on the subject which seem to indicate the same philosophy which we have already discussed here with you.

{

yOU HABET DISCSSED OHILOOSPHY. YOUR REPSONCES AR IRRELEVANT TO RATHER OR NOT aNIMALS HAVE IMMORTAL SOULS.

pLUS, STEVES QUOTES FORM THE cATECHISM DIDNT EVEN SAY THAT aNIMALS LACK IMMPORTAL SOIULS, THEY JUST SAID THAT all fo creation was made for mans benefit.This does nto indicate animals lack immortal souls.

Besides all that, the Catechism is a reference book, and not infallable. The current one in use in america repalced the Baltimore, and I beelive if memory serves disagreed on a couple of minor points.

what I asked for was one fo the below.

1: Scripture.

2: papal teacings.

3: Counsil teahcings.

withoutthese you cnnot say for certain what the chruches posiiton on any topic is.}-Zarove

the catechism IS the church teaching and catholics are required to lend full assent to the instruction of the Catechism.

{ Yes, where did the Catechism get its informaiton? besides, none of tseves quotes said "Animals lack immrtal souls".

And, many Cahtolis dotn agree fully wihthe Catechism currently in Use. tradiitonalists beign the most obvious.

and hwich Catechism? The one used int he USA? UK? romania? There are many Catechisms. Usually they agree but not on every detail.

what I asked was for the origin ofthe teahcing, NOT a reference book quotes that dotn even address direclty the tpic.

Like the lunacy that stated animals lack moral culpabiltiy therefore cnanothave immortal souls, even if I accented otthe Catechism ( which I dont, remember Im not catholic) one has to beg the queratsion of rather or not purpose of there reation is an indication of rather or not the lacked immortal souls? just becae htere initial creaitonw as to serve man doesnt mean they end there existance as persons at death. ( persons, incednetllay, beinv cvalid here sicn ehtye exhibit individual minds and thoughts.)

so aain, even steves catechism uotes prove nohtign as far as if they have or lack immortal souls.}-Zarove

not saying that what is stated is clear cut, but it certainly points to the immortal soul of humans a being unique in this world.

{No, it does not.

1: even under the assumption that animals sere crated to serve man, ther eis no indicaitonthat they lakc an immortal soul by virtie of this fact.

2: The catechism is not in and of itsself infallable. Its an outline of faith, used for instrciton, and can concvaley be in error every now and then.

3: The rest of the arguments palced forward for animals lacjogn immortal souls do not flow logiclaly frm the proposition. IE, moral culpability is nto a prerequisit to immortality of a soul.

Thus I repeat.

1: Scripture.

2:papal Teahcings.

3: Counsil decree.

That is what i heed, not arugments and not vain attemtos at philosophy to ustify an end.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 18, 2005.


I heaard a true story last year about a family who lost their dog while on a trip. Unbeknown to them the dog had been killed. While they were riding on a foggy highway they spotted their dog running along beside their car. They stopped the car and joyfully wanted to pick up the dog.

When they reached to get him he disapeared. A few moments later a highway patrol car pulled up and told them they were fortunate to have stopped. There had been a 30 car accident just ahead and many people were killed.

Don't laugh as the people swore that it happened. Ghosts of dogs? Try to explain it away.

-- John Smith (A@A.com), January 18, 2005.


The queaysion is thoug, how do yoy know Beu isnt in Heaven?

***Well in my dream he headed in the direction my uncle went and that is why I knew he was dead when I woke up. I don't think they go to heaven, but maybe if we ask God or remember to ask God for our little furfriends He will allow them to be with us. I've heard that our happiness will be so grand that we will not want or ask for anything. Just being in heaven will be enough.

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), January 18, 2005.


Mankind is the most important creature that God has created. Mankind is the only crature that He created in His image, that is why we are more important to God than animals are. But never the less, animals are important to God. They are His creatures too and maybe they do or do not have souls, but I just hope God will allow them in heaven with us. They are His creatures, not ours.

-- Jason (Enchantedfire5@yahoo.com), January 18, 2005.

I believe the Catecism also states atthe very end of it that "creation" not just mankind, but "creation" desperatly waits for the renewal of the world. I assume the new earth? And I much of the time hear Catholics say that creation itself is in a state of journeying.

-- Jason (Enchantedfire5@yahoo.com), January 18, 2005.

Yeah good one, “John Smith”. You “heard a true story” second hand, no names, dates, places or any other details. We’ll give this story all the respect it deserves.

Zarove, accepting for a moment your tendentious disregard of the Catechism quotes I gave you, there is, as far as I know, no quote from the Bible, ecumenical Councils or infallible papal declarations, that declares that stones, cars, baseballs or anything else do NOT have immortal souls. By your logic, all of these things also have immortal souls and are going to Heaven.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m very fond of animals. I’ve cried before when my pets have had to be put down, and I’m sure I will again. Jason, saying you do something out of “love” is the SAME thing as saying you do it because you know it’s the noble, right and good thing to do. Even if my worst enemy was in a burning house, I would (I hope) rescue him out of love, the love that God commanded us to have for all men. I don’t doubt that God sometimes uses animals, as He does plants and non-living things, to comfort us and show us His love for us. But an animal cannot “love” the people and other animals it forms attachments to. It doesn’t (on rare occasions) rescue them because it “cares” about them, but because of its instinct and training.

Yes, they are God’s creatures, but God has given them to US for our use. (Genesis)

And I’m not, I hope, conducting this discussion out of “pride”, nor I believe is Zarove. I respect him, and he and I have thrashed out our disagreements on several topics.

P.S. If there are roaches in Heaven, I don’t want to go there.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), January 18, 2005.


Yeah good one, “John Smith”. You “heard a true story” second hand, no names, dates, places or any other details. We’ll give this story all the respect it deserves.

mIDN YOU, DISREGARIDNG OTHERS IS AN ODD WAY TO START.especally in light of he below...

Zarove, accepting for a moment your tendentious disregard of the Catechism quotes I gave you,

The quotes formteh Catechism dont een say Animals lakc Imortal souls, only that they where made forman. Even if aceptign them, which I do not, there leaves the queatsion of hwo this relates yo your assertion.

there is, as far as I know, no quote from the Bible, ecumenical Councils or infallible papal declarations, that declares that stones, cars, baseballs or anything else do NOT have immortal souls. By your logic, all of these things also have immortal souls and are going to Heaven.

spurious and flase. You equate Living beings, animals, with cars, stones, ect...

The Bible DOES say Animals have souls, and the soul is inhenrent in ALL living things in both Chrisain and Jewish tradition.

So, instead of trygn to mokc my posiiton, why not actually address the point. Living things have souls by nature, this is what makes them living, If thye lost there osul, they woil not be able to live.Baseballs arent alive.Cars arent alive. Books, Televisions, and stones arent alive.

so no, by my logic they arent goign to Heaven, because they lack life, and thus a soul.

Animals arent the same as stones and cars and baseballs though, soemthign Humans may want to pretend sin a fact, but that is most evident.

However, if you admit that there are no COunsil teachings, no scriptue, and no papal teaching ont he matter, why shoudl I submit to the statement yo make as a fact?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m very fond of animals. I’ve cried before when my pets have had to be put down, and I’m sure I will again.

Yet int he same breath you compare NAimals with onliving things such as baseballs and cars.

The rteal queasion is rather or not you KNOW they lack an immortal osul, or if this is merly speculation on your part base don yuor understanding.

whenever I attmept to argue the case htta they do have immortal souls, all I get is peopel liek you and Pail M sayign Im wrong and they lakc immortal sols,a nd the same useless arugments thta arent wholly logical. Such as your own moral culpability arument. Moral culpability not beign a rperequisit to anyhting concernign immortality.

he bottom lien is this. I get the feelign that its to be rpesented thta I beelive that animals have immrotal suls, bty you and others knwo for a fac thta they odnt and Im just wrng and emotional.

That ends.

evidence befoe assertion if you want o assert facts.

Since you admit there is no fact hat you know of that confirms your statement, then why shoudl I yeild to its authority?

Jason, saying you do something out of “love” is the SAME thing as saying you do it because you know it’s the noble, right and good thing to do. Even if my worst enemy was in a burning house, I would (I hope) rescue him out of love, the love that God commanded us to have for all men. I don’t doubt that God sometimes uses animals, as He does plants and non-living things, to comfort us and show us His love for us. But an animal cannot “love” the people and other animals it forms attachments to.

You know this how? Or is this speculation based on uor modle that they do things only oput of instinct? Modern sicnes ealone has dismissed the instinct-alone mere biochemical auto,iton teory of animal life years ago, yet you cling to it to show Human preemenence, when the Bibel itsswlf said man is not rpememenet above the beasts. ( Read Ecclesiasties chapter three...)

Animals do love, and out of love rescure people.

You say they dotn love us or other animals and operate on instinct, but you say so base don yuor bias that animals cannot love because they lack an immrtal sul and fre wioll, statements you fail to back up with any relevant informaiton.

It doesn’t (on rare occasions) rescue them because it “cares” about them, but because of its instinct and training.

The instinct of most animals is to presrve there own life. Trainign cannot override fear in an animal that is fully preporgrammed and not self aware, and one that operates totally on intinct and lacks free will cannot overrided any of the self-interest serivng instincts to dart into a brnign house and sve another, thus triaign a dg to do so woild be near imposisble.

Your statements, such as animals lajcing free will and acitng only on instinct, themselves lack any credible researhc to back them up.

what evidence do you have that this is the case an tha animals dont love us? exaclty where is your proof that tis all instinct?

Yes, they are God’s creatures, but God has given them to US for our use. (Genesis)

False. God created us to be stewarts of creation, he did not create everythign for mans use, if he did so, why then is th Univese not much mor ocnveneintly designed?

And I’m not, I hope, conducting this discussion out of “pride”, nor I believe is Zarove. I respect him, and he and I have thrashed out our disagreements on several topics.

ThNSK,same to you. But on tjis matter I must remain adament. Too many statements are made as if proven fact that lack evidnece. such as your statements that animals lac free will and operate only on instrinct and dotn love us. This is not a proven fact either, and modern researhc conradicts this.

P.S. If there are roaches in Heaven, I don’t want to go there.

well, roaches where created to enjoy Hell so they can assist with the curses of the Damned and give us a fortaste. either that or they are glorified iN heaven and no logner a neucanse. ( Do not read too much into this closing remakrk...)

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 18, 2005.


cLOE ITALICS.

-- ZAR (ZARODD3@JUNO.COM), January 18, 2005.

Zarove,

Grow up with this animal thing!

The Catholic Church only canonizes some holy Saints. In a reality your argument is pathetic at best. I never read a dog a canonized saint!

Shut up or put up something about a dog in Heaven instead of your assine dribble.

-- - (David@excite.com), January 18, 2005.


Coincidence that DOG is GOD in reverse? Thatsort of makes them closer to God than you might think.

Anybody who doesn't hold hope for his pet to be in Heaven with him cannot talk about his crocodile (oops) tears and his "feelings" for animals

-- John Smith (A@A.com), January 19, 2005.


Hey the fact that I cried doesn’t “prove” my dog had an immortal soul and is going to Heaven. I have cried (or come close to it) over NON- living things, eg when I went to the address of the house I grew up in and found it had been demolished. I cried because I knew the dog was GONE forever.

God gave man “dominion” over every other creature. And yes I think the universe is VERY convenient for us. How would you “improve” it Zarove, if you were God?

JS, I don’t think reversing the name of God makes a creature “closer to God”. Satanists say the Mass backwards to get as far away from God as possible.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), January 19, 2005.


Zarove, Grow up with this animal thing!

yOU KNOW, i Cn say the same thign of you.

The Catholic Church only canonizes some holy Saints.

Which is utterly irrleevant here...

In a reality your argument is pathetic at best.

My argument is that, without clear Chruch teachings, you cannot say as an absolute fact that every one MUST beleive that Animals lack immortal souls.

I havent realy adovcated an argument for them having immortal souls in this thread. eery time I try, Paul M steps in, says the churhc teaches they habetn immortal souls, and talks abut how unique man is.

Then steve joins in

Then others.

No matter what arugment I make, nor how silly theres is, Mine is presented as opinon and these sas fact. Paul M exspecially got me angry on tis thread becase h ONCE AGAIN dictated his view as if it wehere fact.

My point is this.

with no clear Chruch teaching, he cannot tell me I MUST ubmit to this as a faxct.

Thats the sum of my arugment.

Thats not pathetic, thats logical.

The arugments for them lacking immortal sousl in this thread, hwoever, is apthetic. steve compared them to innanimat eobjects, Paul M made decrees abotu how Man was the only thing wiht an immortal sul, and a few peopel said they lakced fre will, concious, and true feelings.

Noen of this proves they lack immortal suls, and hte latter part aboutthem lakcign fre will and conciosuness and have no ability to love us is uttlery unproven and inded disputed by the current research.

If My arugments are pathetic, and my arugment is that the chruh dos not teach as a fac tthat animals lack immortal souls, a point COnceeded by Steve already, then what of these that dtn logiclly flow to the conclusion?

I never read a dog a canonized saint!

1: isnt it posisble that sme unkwon man who won no fame in life and died in the middle ages , and who left no records of his life, may be a saint s the Catholci chruch defines them? we dnt knwo this mans name, or exacltyw hen he lived, and all living today are ognorant hat he ever existed. But hes in heaven. Thus he is a saint by the Catolic deinition. Simpley ot beign recognised by the Chruhc doesnt negete your fate int eh afterlife. The Churc only cnanonises people it knwos about.

2: animals may not be "Sints" as defined by the Catolic cruch and yet stll b in heaven. im not certain if NonHumans ( And nonangles) wo ar ein heaven wodl constitute. btu if they do, then Animals woidl need cannonisaiton as tey are alreayd Heaven bound and there woil rellay be no queasion to them.

Shut up or put up something about a dog in Heaven instead of your assine dribble.

My assinine dribble is that, without clear cruhc teaching that states emphaticlaly that Animals lakc immortal souls, you cannot teahc it as an inarguable fact.

Many have presned it as an inaruable fact. when I ry to arue my case for them haivn immortal souls, its shot down with " Thats nice, but the CHurhc teaches that Animals lakc immortal suls, God said so, the case is closed."

Such arguments dotn go very far, so I instead asked, and demanded, clear, unambiguous chuhc teachigns ont he subject int he form of papal decree, Counsil teahcigns, or scripture.

Noen where presented.

That is my whole point.

Steve, Paul M, Paul H, and even you, Davd, ccannot take the storng position of notneeding proof and pontificatin ont he matter.

its not like I have to uttelry an totlaly prove my case, and you dont have to do a thing.

Your case isnt that storng that its almost unueasiuonable, and thus leaivng me with the work of presenging all the eience for you to reject or accept. why dot you present soem evidnece for a change? Im tired ofpreentign evidence thats ignroed, so I want evidence hta Animal lakc immortal sousl int he form of curhc teahcing.

if hats assinine ddribble , so be it, but tis better than the above lunacy that moral culpability is equivolent to possession of an immortal soul.

Now, to steve.

Hey the fact that I cried doesn’t “prove” my dog had an immortal soul and is going to Heaven. I have cried (or come close to it) over NON- living things, eg when I went to the address of the house I grew up in and found it had been demolished. I cried because I knew the dog was GONE forever.

But you dont know its gone forever. and again, a Dog isnt the same asa House. Dogs have monds. And your satement that they cannot love us or othe animals and lak free will and such isnrt proof that they lack those thigns, much less an immortal osul.

So, how do you KNOW FOR A FACT they where gone forever and Im wrong that they lakc immortal souls?

God gave man “dominion” over every other creature.

This was never in dispute. what I queatsionedwas that man was unique in the possession of an immortal soul. Simpleybeign the ruler of the animals dosnt make man the only animal that is immortal...

And yes I think the universe is VERY convenient for us. How would you “improve” it Zarove, if you were God?

Less empty space, no dangeous asteoids, Earht in centre or near centre , and grant man the ability ot acutlaly SURVIVE in the vid between the worlds.

Plenty of things are inhospitable to mankind in this Universe, that be no resemblanc ot haing been cread for man spacificlaly.

JS, I don’t think reversing the name of God makes a creature “closer to God”. Satanists say the Mass backwards to get as far away from God as possible.

I agree, but I don think that declaring animals lakc immortal souls as if its a fact is evidnec ehtat they lakc immortal souls, and declarign that they lack free will and emotiona dna operate on instinct alone makes this a proven fact either.

To clarify for David.

im not arguing spacoficlay tha hey have immortal souls, Im arguing hat Im not the only person who has t prsent evidence that they have immortal souls whole others hwo beelive they dotn have mmortal souls cna sit baotu and declare they don becaue there case is so storng and self evidnet.

thus my whole argument was over the oponants to my posiiton proving theres wth soem evidnece.



-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 19, 2005.


Ok Steve, I was thinking of "Noble" in a way that makes mankind look prideful. I guess I'm used to hearing that word with a meaning that way and didn't know the true meaning of it. But I still disagree with you about the rescue issue. I believe that (especialy a dog as it's a pack animal and is very involved with the family) a dog rescues out of love as it CARES for it's master. I'm not saying animals talk, think, and act like us humans and I believe they are NOT created in God's image, but they DO have personalities, FEELING OTHER THAN SEX AND FOOD, and show much emotion. Especial monkeys, ape, gorillas, dolphins and wolves as well as dogs. Do you know an elephant actualy CRIES tears when a loved one of theirs dies? They also bury their dead just as primitive man did, you know, while we were still evolving and were just an animal without a soul yet.

I do not have time right now but when I come back from work I have a true story to tell (and no it's no ghost story).

God give you peace:)

-- Jason (Enchantedfire5@yahoo.com), January 20, 2005.


Ya know.. This is one of those threads that simply make me want to stay in bed.

Since the Church is silent on the subject, then people are free to THINK whatever they want to think.

And so why do some folks seem to feel it necessary to go out of their way to say "my opinion is better than yours"?

If you are comforted by thinking your dogs are in heaven, then wonderful. If someone else doesn't think animals go to heaven, fine. Is it really necessary to go back and forth on this?

Eventually, we'll ALL find out one way or the other anyway. At least if animals DO get into heaven, they sure won't have to explain to God why they were so uncharitable while they were here on earth.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 20, 2005.


The Church is not "silent on the subject". The Church clearly teaches that all of physical creation will "pass away", and that man alone, created in the image and likeness of God and redeemed by the death and Resurrection of Christ, will endure forever, either in glory in the Beatific Vision of Him in whose likeness man is created; or in eternal separation from same. Animals are part of the physical world, the natural environmentm, regardless of what we do with some of them or how we feel about some of them.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 20, 2005.

POual, the poin I made was that the churhc is silent. its been admited. You can say all you want " The Hcurhc teaches aimals do nto have Immortal Soils", and thats infe. But tis wrong.

you see, every time I pesent an arguem for them having immortal souls, all yo do is step in and declare they dotn no matter how I feel and claim ine is mere emotionalism.

The probaem is, the CHurhc doesnt teahc Animals lack soiuls, nor does it teach there souls are not immortal.

it does teahcthey have souls, and even the Current Pope said this.

There is no reason to beelive that all the physical world paisng away means animals as well.

This is a gross presu,ption on yorpart.

without scriptue to back you up, wthout Counsil yeahcings ot back you up, wothough apapal teahcings to back you up, simley claiming that naimals are merley aprt of the natural envrioenment and cease to be at death dosnt cut any mustard.

Simpley declarign it as an inarguable fact that, to disagree with is to disagre withthe chruch , is false.

There are no clear teachigns on this matter, and the only way toprove there are clear teachigns on tis mater is to present one of the below.

1: Scripture.

2:Papal teahcings.

3: Counsil teahcings.

without any if the above for documentation, I am at liberty to voice arugments in favur of animals ahving immotal souls, and you cannot simpley declare htye dtn as an absolute an dinfaallable teahcing, sicne you sdoin have that kind of autority.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 20, 2005.


Someday soon, the Lord will return to offer full salvation to both man and beast. In that day, ALL of Creation will be brought back into perfect harmony and restitution with God and with each other, and then we will all praise the Lord together. All of Creation, both physical and spiritual, will be brought back into subjection to Him Who is all in all by the hand of His Son Jesus Christ. And then, even Jesus Christ will submit Himself unto His Father's will. For as we are told in His Word:

"The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea." (Isaiah 11:6-9)

"The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD." (Isaiah 65:25)

-- John Smith (A@A.com), January 20, 2005.


Dear Zarove, I work nearly 12 hours. I rarely can make to this catholic posting even though I love to.

This discussion has gone so long. Your questions are difficult to answer the way exactly you want because the Bible and doctrines are mostly centered on only things that involve God and His relationship with man. Everything else is not so important there, but we, Paul, Steve, etc., being catholics can sense the mind and heart of the church, hence what they say about may be taken as correct. Regarding this that serpent symbolizes devil, please see some passages, Wisdom.2:3, 2 Cor.11:3, and Rev.12:5.

I can understand you, because I too have felt great sorrow when a animal whom we are attached to, dies and to think it just perishes to oblivion forever. Why? We even struggle with the thought that unbaptised human children may not go to heaven, but we do not rashly give into our feelings and conclude, but commend them God who is merciful.

May God give us more wisdom!

-- Leslie John (lesliemon@hotmail.com), January 21, 2005.


Oops! Sorry, its actually Wisdom.2:24, 2 Cor.11:3, and Rev.12:9.

-- Leslie John (lesliemon@hotmail.com), January 21, 2005.

> "In that day, ALL of Creation will be brought back into perfect harmony and restitution with God and with each other, and then we will all praise the Lord together. "

John,

Isaiah 65 is a metaphorical description of relationships among men and nations, not a treatise on zoology. The animal names mentioned there are to be understood figuratively, not literally. A lion that kills and eats another animal is already in perfect harmony with God's plan and in full subjection to Him, because that is precisely how God designed and created lions, and is precisely how God intends them to live. A lion's anatomy and physiology, designed and created by God, are utterly incompatible with a diet of vegetation, and a lion which attempted it would soon die, as such behavior would be in direct violation of God's plan for lions.

However, a nation which preys upon other nations is not in harmony with God's plan for nations. And a human being who is a predator upon fellow human beings is likewise in violation of God's plan for human beings. In a world where mankind is in harmony with God's plan, it is these lions and lambs who would coexist in mutual acceptance and perfect peace, not the four-legged vartiety.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 21, 2005.


Revelations 12 doesnt proive Satan tempted eve. simpley callign satan a serpent is not the xame as a positive Identification.

There is a difference between comparing soemtign as soemthign else, using a term metaphoriclaly, and positive identification. i know, most protestants say Satan tempted eve and use the same arugment form revelations. But even the apostle Paul said it was a serpent, and made no attempot to connect it to Satan.

Logical fallacy is to connect the Satan referenc ein revelation, which is metpahorical, to the cratioN acont in Genesis.

And you may be CaHTOLIC AND "fEEL THE HEART AD SOL OF THE chURHC",BUT OTHER cATHOLICS HAVE DISAGREED WITH YOU ON RATHER OR NOT aNIALS HAVE IMMORTAL SOULS.

So, we are left with this. If no docotrine clealry states animals lakc mmortal souls, ti cannot be taugt as fact.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 21, 2005.


Hi brothers and sisters, check this story out:

"In Northern Montana, in the heart of the range country, there is a monument to a real canine who waited long years for his master's return...The dog's statue looks out over the river and the railroad track, always watching for a special train. The inscription below the dog's statue reads: SHEP'S STORY In August, 1996, a casket containing a sheepherder's body was loaded on a baggage cart here, headed East for burial. A dog, of collie strain, watched with anxious eyes. He was to be there to meet every train, year after year. Conductor Ed Shields by 1939 pieced the dog's story together, linking Shep with the body shipped that August day. With the real story known, Shep became famous. Many, many well intended offers to adopt him were gently declined. Friends knew Shep's sole aim was to keep his vigil. Shep died January 12, 1942, slipping on the tracks before an incoming train. His passing was mourned by all who knew his story. He was laid to rest atop the bluff above the depot. His funeral was attended by hundreds. Rev. Ralph Underwood took as theme Senator George Vest's "Eulogy on the Dog," a tribute to a dog's faithfulness to his master which Shep so fully exemplified."

Also: "When a national news magazine ran an article which questioned the possibility of animals grasping human words, a golden retriever owner responded by letter: "No one who has ever owned and hunted with a golden or labrador retriever will believe the statement "It's very unlikely that a dog...actually understands the words its owner speaks to it." [ "What animals say to each other," June 5] I have had two golden retrievers and now have a labrador retriever. I have found that dogs not only understand full sentences but are more effective communicators than at least one laywer I often try my cases against. Their other qualities would exaust all of the things a Boy Scout is supposed to be."

This is all from the book "One Hundred Cranes, Praying with the Chorus of Creation" by the Catholic Priest Father William J. Fitzgerald. It's a wonderful book and it really shows just how "spiritual" animals can be in comparison to God. They are a blessing from Him and I do hope they are in the New Heavens and Earth. The verses in Isaiah to me seem to be much more than just figurative speech. Although we must be careful not to put animals BEFORE people. We are much more important in God's eyes but stll, they are important.

God give you peace:)

-- Jason (Enchantedfire5@yahoo.com), January 21, 2005.


OOPPS I meant 1936 instead of "1996" hehe

-- Jason (Enchantedfire5@yahoo.com), January 21, 2005.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ