/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Some protestants surely

>>795406

I don’t know about Heaven, but since both Heaven and Earth will be remade as one, there will probably be animals in the new creation.

>>795407

:^|

>>795406

No man hath seen

I hope so. I miss my dog George

>>795406

No, because animals don't have immortal souls. Their souls die at the same time as their physical bodies do.

yes all animals and plants go to heaven

>>795469

I don't see any Bible verses in your post.

You'll see the glorious lamb seated on the right hand of the Father, as if slayed!

No. Animals don't go to heaven, so say goodbye to your beloved pets when you die.

>>795494

Claiming animals have an immortal soul like humans pretty much makes you an evolutionist.

whole of creation will be transfigured

transfiguration != immortality

ok

>>795494

>I think we should still pray for our pets because they pray (Psalm 150) in turn.

According to this line of thinking we should preach the gospel to our pets and baptize them too

No, ask me why not

>>795594

Why not?

>>795685

You’ll still have eternal happiness in heaven

>>795685

If you unironically love dogs or other animals more than other people then you probably aren't going to Heaven anyway, so you have nothing to worry about.

>>795687

I know, I'm just goofing. Animals don't have souls so it's not possible anyways.

>>795690

heh

It's a mystery, but we should give God the benefit of the doubt, and stop treating him like some curmudgeon. You can at least infer that God has unfathomable love for you and won't disappoint.

"Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him."

This is why Jesus wanted us to not live in anxiety in general. Our concept of God is woefully small and we need to see him as Jesus told us. We often do this because we usually have little love in ourselves - and then sinfully project that on to God.. making him the least loving of all. But the problem lies with us. Just as it did in the Garden of Eden, when Adam and Eve hid themselves out of fear because of their nakedness.. and God asked them "Why are you hiding? Who told you this?"

But the most relevant passage to me has always been this:

"For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body." - Romans 8:22-23

The whole creation groaneth. Death will one day be no more. The Greek here is like English, in the sense that "creation" is related to the word "creature". A word that isn't something merely abstract, but intimate. Another way of putting it is "all of the creatures groan". Paul is saying we're all in the same boat and cycle of death, and we all travail. In the same turn, so will be the renewal.

The Resurrection is Cosmic - we who possess the Spirit are the firstfruits, but God will undo all evil. Salvation from death is not something privy or merely individualistic or to be interpreted in some insular and merely human "plan of salvation".

>>795888

You've got me thinking, if 1. separating a pet and its owner is immoral, and 2. God is perfectly moral, then 3. Pets and humans will reunite in the afterlife. My theory is that animals can't go heaven, but will be resurrected when heaven and earth reunite.

>>795406

Animals are essentially storage drives with data, so there is no reason for them not to be in heaven. They don't have souls but God can copy and preserve the data of their personalities in heaven.

So yes, our pets will be there. There is no reason for God not to transfer the data over.

>>795951

>If 1. separating a man and his property is immoral, and 2. God is perfectly moral, then 3. people will have all of their property in the afterlife

That's you. That's how dumb you sound.

>>795957

This is your brain on false equivalencies. Voluntarily relinquishing your property isn't immoral. To get into heaven one would have to have already have relinquished their attachments to the material. Animals aren't material. No one would condemn their pets to non-existence if they didn't have to.

Maybe we can pose it this way: Animals, upon death, return to the Earth, but we are told the Earth will be renewed. So the joy of heaven will include the fullness of a renewed creation, of a satisfaction and union far beyond everything available on this Earth. That is to say, dogs aren't in Heaven distinctly in the same way as people, but Heaven is made of renewed stuff of which your dog was made.

>>795980

It's not even close to being a false equivalence. Animals are property. Wealth in the Old Testament is measured in cattle and sheep for crying out loud.

>Animals aren't material.

Are you even listening to yourself?

>No one would condemn their pets to non-existence if they didn't have to.

Getting attached to animals like they are little furry babies is disgusting and sinful. Sorry.

>>795956

There is no "data", there are animal bodies and souls; of the latter, only humans and angels possess.

It's true that if God wanted to simply resurrect animals, He would do it, but your reasoning simply doesn't square with Scripture or how we understand the uniqueness of the soul.

>>795992

this sounds more likely

If there aren't animals in heaven then what was Isaiah 11:6-9 talking about?

>>796068

>There is no "data", there are animal bodies and souls; of the latter, only humans and angels possess.

>It's true that if God wanted to simply resurrect animals, He would do it, but your reasoning simply doesn't square with Scripture or how we understand the uniqueness of the soul.

There is no scripture that says that God can't replicate information in heaven, the data that is stored in their brains is what we're after when we see our pets in heaven, as it's through that data that they can recognize us. Only humans have souls but data inside of the brain is not a soul. Therefor there is no reason for God not to simply migrate that data over.

We will be with God, our eternal heavenly father, inherit entire universe as coheirs of Christ, command the Angels and people are still concerned about their puppies?

>>796400

Symbolism of peaceful co-existence between former enemies. Read some Pseudo-Dionysus, he basically called anyone who would consider immaterial world to be inhabited by animals as literal retards.

>>796415

Theres NOTHING to copy in the first place. Animals do not have personality and act on their instincts. Only human and angels have personalities.

The only reason why people might think otherwise is simple. Just like God made humans in His Image and Likeness, we also try to make things in our image and likeness, which results in sometimes falsely ascribing human characteristics and traits, to animals and other objects, anthropomorphizing them.

>>796446

Read the entire sentence. He said loving them not as animals but as actual humans. And yes its sinful because you're degrading human beings on the level of animals.

If animals don't go to heaven, then why was St. Francis of Assis turned into a Saint? He achieved a Mystical Union with God via contact with animals.

No Clergy ever managed to reply to this one.

>>796465

I might be wrong, but my understanding is that ideally we should love all of creation to the utmost. Loving dirt to the utmost doesn't devalue humanity to the level of dirt, just as loving an animal to the utmost doesn't devalue humanity to the level of an animal.

>>796500

based and redpilled

It's shit like this is why Buddhism's cycle of reincarnation makes more sense.

Next life, an evil man shall live as a dog.

>>796602

Well, good thing that he isn't venerated in Orthodoxy it seems.

>>796709

Even the most malevolent of human being is thousand miles ahead of any kind of other being in creation out of virtue of being made in image of God, being Child of God and what's most important, Christ sacrificing himself for him.

It seems to be an odd coincidence, that such great animal lovers also often turn out to be such misanthropes, isn't it?

>>796433

>>Theres NOTHING to copy in the first place. Animals do not have personality and act on their instincts. Only human and angels have personalities.

>t. literal autist that has never lived around animals

why are you spreading lies anon? None of what you said is even remotely scriptural. Humans are unique purely because they're made in the image of God, and that is obviously significant, but the exact details of this likeness are never fully explained. We can infer that it likely has something to do with our capacity to exercise free will and Logos, but even that is speciation, and neither of those things are required for the development of distinct "personalities" anyway. An animal with no capacity for free will or Logos may still exhibit unique traits and behaviors that set it apart from its other brethren of the same kind, in a similar way that no two used laptops are likely to have identical contents due to them reflecting the preferences of their owners. If you ever interact with any 2 animals of the same kind for any extended period of time, you'll see obvious differences in behavioral patterns between them that would be enough to say they have distinct "personalities". Even creatures as primitive as ants easily disprove this nonsense, because ants in a colony are known to have distinct roles/specializations hardwired into them, which are little more than primitive forms of "personality" in a creature that very obviously lacks any sort of free will or Logos. If freaking ants are enough to make you insecure about your status as an icon of God, you need to do some serious work on your faith.

>>796741

>Humans are unique purely because they're made in the image of God.

Note that part of being made in the image of God, includes our unique role and relationship with animals, which resembles God's role and relationship with us.

>but even that is speciation

speculation*

>>796741

I actually had four cats in my life and have three kittens now. But I am not as delusional to ascribe human traits to them. And what you are staying has absolutely nothing to do with personality whatsoever. What you are staying is merely a different forms of adaptation and your comparison of then with computers doesn't really help your case. You basically ended up with admitting that animals are basically biological automatons and your feefees in this particular case doesn't matter.

Also, no, I don't need anything to "feel secure" about status of mankind, considering that angels exist, that possess far greater knowledge and insight than mankind in current fallen state and yet scriptures only talk about us being made in image and likeness of God and stating upon angels in Hebrews that they are merely servants to minister who will attain salvation. And angels are the closest in creation that can come to human. Which I repeat always boggled me: You will be with God for eternity, your Father, delve in unfathomable mysteries of God, be friends with Saints and Angels, your breathern, and yet people still worry about such vanities as if his pet chicken will be there too.

No, my problem is how society in general loves to elevate animals and degrade humans and don't start talking bullshit about how it isnt true. Instead of praising the guy who saved a kid by shooting harambe, society wanted to see him to be executed.

Steven Anderson might be a jackass, bit one thing I completely agree with him, is his position regarding current attitude of people towards animals.

Now you can keep going and calling me a autistic and cold hearted for telling the simple reality that people want to forget for some reason.

And before accusations start flowing, I do not advocate for hating anything or not loving anything.

>>796750

>And what you are staying has absolutely nothing to do with personality whatsoever.

You never explicitly defined how you're using the term "personality", so I used it how most normal people use it to refer to the "individual-ness" of behaviors. If anything has nothing to do with "personality", it's whatever you're on about, because you're just shifting goal posts here.

>your comparison of then with computers doesn't really help your case.

Re-read my post. The case was that animals don't need either free will nor Logos to manifest the "human-like" qualities people ascribe to them. Honestly it just sounds like you're mad because what I'm proposing is also compatible with the Bible and doesn't need to deny the overlapping human-like (but not god-like) qualities animals have.

>No, my problem is how society in general loves to elevate animals and degrade humans

you know, you could've started addressing that problem by reading the actual opinions of Christians on this thread first, instead of just using it as a soapbox to project and complain about liberal PETA/vegan retards. No one here has claimed animals are at the same status as (much less above the status of) humans. The human-animal relationship can be close while still being different in kind from the human-human relationship, much the same way you don't have the same kind of relationship with your parents as you would with your spouse or children, even though you would obviously be close to all of them.

I don't know what compels this strong non-biblical defensiveness and desire to separate yourself from animals so much. Do you guys just not trust God's word on it enough that we're different regardless? Or do you fear that seeing your pets' personalities might accidentally lead you to become tempted to fornicate with them or something? Because if that's the case, then I don't know what to tell you other than "Lord have mercy!". But otherwise I think it's safe to say most Christians wouldn't have this problem, and know their relationship with animals is different in kind from their relationships with other humans, regardless of how bonded they get to their pets.

>Steven Anderson

coolstorybro… but seriously, it sounds like you should be taking out your frustrations over on /vegan/ instead of here, cause you're just projecting a whole bunch of liberal attitudes onto Christians for merely wondering what the afterlife is gonna be like.

It's not a subject theologians agree on. And these are men who know more about the Word than I.

The best you can do is go forward knowing you'll be happy with whatever you find in the kingdom.

>>795406

This is the 275485th time we've had this thread

I'd like to think that animals will be in heaven but of course there's no scriptural evidence. So maybe, maybe not. As much as I want to see my cat in heaven, eternal happiness with God in heaven is worth it whether or not our pets are there.

>>797011

Happens every time we get an influx of redditors.

>>795594

Man is man

Man is on earth to fight a battle only man can fight

Animals are animals

Have no business in either heaven or hell

>>797011

>>797169

>You have to be a redditor to ask about animals friends being in heaven

I smell a dog hating Muslims.

Dogs were considered sacred animals in Zoroastrianism (A religion that also predicted the coming of Jesus alongside Judaism), although it puts good works/thoughts/words first there is no system for forgiveness of sins through faith.

They have to outweigh bad deeds etc though Hell is temporary in that religion with different levels.

"In Zoroastrianism, the dog is regarded as an especially beneficent, clean and righteous creature, which must be fed and taken care of.[21] The dog is praised for the useful work it performs in the household,[22] but it is also seen as having special spiritual virtues. A dog's gaze is considered to be purifying and to drive off daevas (demons). It is also believed to have a special connection with the afterlife: the Chinwad Bridge to Heaven is said to be guarded by dogs in Zoroastrian scripture,[22] and dogs are traditionally fed in commemoration of the dead.[23] Ihtiram-i sag, "respect for the dog", is a common injunction among Iranian Zoroastrian villagers.[21]

Detailed prescriptions for the appropriate treatment of dogs are found in the Vendidad (a subdivision of the Zoroastrian holy scripture Avesta), especially in chapters 13, 14 and 15, where harsh punishments are imposed for harm inflicted upon a dog and the faithful are required to assist dogs, both domestic and stray, in various ways; often, help or harm to a dog is equated with help and harm to a human.[24] The killing of a dog ("a shepherd's dog, or a house-dog, or a Vohunazga [i.e. stray] dog, or a trained dog") is considered to lead to damnation in the afterlife."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogs_in_religion#Zoroastrianism

The Messiah Zoroastrianism predicted would be of virgin birth and be able to speak to god as 30 years of age. The 3 wise men saw the signs associated with the prophecy and went to see Jesus.

>>795465

You are depressing because my dog is old and will die in the future.

>>795494

Did not Christ assume creation? If assumed soul+mind then he assumed soul in general apart from mind and mind apart from soul.

>>814092

Christ assumed nature of humans. Stop your blasphemy.

>>795406

Probably not. Animals are animals, they belong solely to the material world. However, it's worth remembering that the human presence in Heaven is temporary. Someday God will remake our material bodies and send our souls to live in them immortally. Human immortality will be made possible by the total eradication of sin, which also means the eradication of sin's consequences. The death of animals is every bit as much a consequence of sin as is the material death of humans, and God does not create to destroy, so it's entirely possible that you'll see your dog again right here on Earth after the Second Coming.

Reread David & Bathsheba. The prophet compared killing a beloved family pet to what David did to Uriah the hittite.

>>814456

>Funny Bazinga Show

Can I flag this as an assault against God?

Alongside Judaism could Zoroastrianism count as one of God's Old Covenants with people before the Messiah we know as Jesus came?

Thus what can the rule or law in the books of this old covenant regarding the treatment of dogs count as if it was infact one God made with man besides Judaism?

They are selfless animals and offer only unconditional love to owners or those they serve. Although they can be traumatized no matter how cruel some owners have treated them they never gave in to hate and still selflessly love?

>>814520

>Alongside Judaism could Zoroastrianism count as one of God's Old Covenants with people before the Messiah we know as Jesus came?

If you're Nestorian…

>>814520

>could Zoroastrianism count as one of God's Old Covenants with people before the Messiah we know as Jesus came?

No. There were lots of pagan religions that had something like a "Christ-prophecy" in them. In Norse paganism, for example, Ragnarok ends with a being greater than all the gods rising up out of the destroyed world. That doesn't make Norse paganism a valid form of proto-Christianity, it just means that its mythos was partially inspired by God, as are all stories with any amount of good in them at all.

>>814534

>>814530

>>814520

They're all corruptions of divine revelations from a singular source which is the Vedas. The Indo Aryans migrated across Eurasia which is why you see reoccurring themes within paganism. Aside from that, corrupted right hand traditions could not grant salvation and are most certainly defunct in modern day since Christ established his new covenant.

>>815317

The Zoroastrians predicted the Messiah's coming allegedly before the Jews unless I'm wrong also?

The Savior or possibly redeemer in Zoroastrianism would be of virgin or immaculate conception as well as talking to Ahura Mazda/God at 30 or something.

He was known as the Saoshyant and apparently they also already believed in a Holy Spirit (Spencer Mainyu)?

Anybody expand on this and got any thoughts?

>>795406

From what I've been taught, animals don't go anywhere, they just cease to exist since they don't have souls, this is coming from an orthodox christian perspective

>>816060

It doesn't explicitly say other living beings don't have souls though. Man's only distinction is being made in God's image.

>>816060

The Bible explicitly says that they have souls multiple times, and it doesn't distinguish between material and immortal afaik. There is no reason why they wouldn't exactly, considering that God intends to renew to earth and raise all flesh again, and that animals didn't die before the fall. Presumably they also had a longer life span as man did when the fall first happened and God's spirit was near to the earth still (in a specific sense).

>>816111

They don’t have immortal souls. But assuming they did, they would all be in hell for eternity since they wouldn’t have Jesus.

>>816137

They wouldn't be in hell because they are born without sin or free will. Mankind fell, animals didn't. The only one you might be able to claim otherwise is the serpent, and even then that was Satan's direct interference.

>>816158

Literally none of that is stated in scripture outside of saying man was made in God's image. Something which has been brought up dozens of times already. Men, beasts, and all living beings on earth must bow to the same God. Men have authority above animals, but this doesn't mean animals are inherently worldly.

Also, to say that not being made in the image of god makes you worldly is to suggest that angelic bodies are worldly, given that they were also not made in the lord's image.

>implying we retain this consciousness in heaven

>>795692

>don't have souls so it's not possible anyways.

They do, they're just not the same as ours.

>>816149

>Mankind fell, animals didn't.

Nope, Adam's sin caused the entire world to fall. This is Christian theology 101 m8. If animals weren't affected by sin they wouldn't be affected by death either.

Well animal frens are basically like biological machines from a Catholic perspective, so I think it might be possible to create them in Heaven! I'm not sure if we can create things but I bet we can. So it might be possible. We share in the Divine nature with God in heaven and God is a creator so I think we might be able to make new dog frens and such. Not sure though!

I am holding out for hope that it can happen, I know many very intelligent saints have said no and I respect their logic for why they arrived at that conclusion but the only way anyone can know for sure is if you go there and see for yourself. It's not infallibly decalred dogma that animals don't go to heaven.

>>795585

>Used to evangelize slugs that crept into the house when I was a kid

>Brought them into the garden outside and asked them to spread the gospel to the other slugs

Meanwhile I can't even talk to humans about the faith without a mouthful of spaghetti….

>>796000

If animals being property and signs of wealth in the OT means they have no soul and can't be resurrected then the servants/slaves in Ecclesiastes 2:7 for example couldn't either.

>Getting attached to animals like they are little furry babies is disgusting and sinful. Sorry.

Not what anyone is taking about. Of course idolizing anything is a sin. Loving animals is good; lusting over them is not. Abuse doesn't negate proper use.

>>816060

In Ecclesiastes it is said that the spirits of beasts descend to the earth.

>>795585

Well there was the time Saint Anthony of Padua preached the Gospel to a school of fish because the townspeople were ignoring him.

>>795406

Probably not, tbh

>>795585

Saint Francis of Assis literally did that, and he was a stigmatic as well.

>>819852

Proof furries can go to Heaven.

>>795690

and why not? if you mean love in general, then sure. as in, being generally positive and mature as opposed to a misanthropist.

but i have no deep social contacts, i would love a pet more just by virtue of it actually being around me voluntarily.