Do animals go to heaven?

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 5:41 am

Rom 8:17-25

That's a good passage of scripture regarding the Creator's creatures.

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 5:46 am

It's a good passage of scripture in the KJV - NIV translates creature as creation... that would change the entire viewpoint of the text. *Shrug* Too many translations - that's one area I appreciate the Jehovah Witnesses in even though the NWTranslation is quite man-made. So are our english translations I guess though. *Another shrug*

Kurieuo · Post by **Kurieuo** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 6:04 am

That's why Christians should learn to read the original texts. But you're comment about JW's says nothing about the accuracy of its translation, and remember it is also "another" translation itself. You could just designate one translation your own if you wanted to and then you'd be able to appreciate your own accepted translation

Really... I'm just writing to bring your attention to an article on the website which covers a portion of the passage you quoted. Just thought you might find it interesting - http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/romans8.html.

Kurieuo.

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 6:10 am

Man Kurieuo - I don't have enough time to learn hebrew and greek or aramaic in order to just be able to read the original scripture. And aren't there varrying texts from different manuscripts (Dead Sea, Textus Receptus, Alexandrian...) That's why some translations don't have a few verses in them while others do. What would be a better compromise that wouldn't take away as much time from witnessing. Apologetics may win arguments but it's not guranteed that they'll win souls. Thanks for the article posting though, I'm def. going to check it out.

Kurieuo · Post by **Kurieuo** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 6:13 am

The

was for the whole paragraph.

Kurieuo.

Jac3510 · Post by **Jac3510** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 10:09 am

PremoMD wrote:Man Kurieuo - I don't have enough time to learn hebrew and greek or aramaic in order to just be able to read the original scripture. And aren't there varrying texts from different manuscripts (Dead Sea, Textus Receptus, Alexandrian...) That's why some translations don't have a few verses in them while others do. What would be a better compromise that wouldn't take away as much time from witnessing. Apologetics may win arguments but it's not guranteed that they'll win souls. Thanks for the article posting though, I'm def. going to check it out.

Actually, PremoMD, I know that learning the original languages sounds like a huge task (and, in a sense, it is), but it is actually something you might want to consider. I'm taking a class on Greek right now. Surprisingly, it's not all that difficult. Besides that, there is a huge selection of books to teach you the grammar and such, and once you learn the technical terms, any decent lectionary would give you all you needed to study the original texts.

As far as other variations go, yes, others do exist. But, we can pretty much tell which ones are closer to the original . . . I haven't gotten into textual criticism as a class yet, but I know you can buy Greek New Testaments that do all the spade work for you. It all depends on how deep you want to go.

Anyway, my point is just that if you were to spend a year or two studying, let's say Greek, in your spare time, you'd have enough of a working knowledge to get through a Greek manuscript. And let me tell you from what little experience I have . . . it's very rewarding to read the actual wording. As someone said, "Reading a translation of the Bible is like kissing your wife through a veil." (or something like that)

I can't speak for Hebrew . . . just an encouragement to consider getting into it

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 1:21 am

Um do you guys not look at this very site..It states that animals such as whales dolphins dogs..etc have a soul and that what separates humans is their ability to love God. Also it seems wrong to assume God will allow his non-human creatures, who he created himself, to suffer. Jesus himself states that little children own Heaven and everyone else must obtain permission to get in. Little kids probably would be more associated with a dolphin then an adult human because of their innocence and intelligence. Also didn't Christ only eat fish and bread, that would suggest that some animals have a greater purpose in life like humans then to be our tools.

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 1:27 am

Ok im aware Jesus basically didn't eat ok..but he gave his followers fish and bread. Only fish and bread as far as i can tell from what i've read. The bread really doesn't matter but the point is i didn't see Jesus allowing people to eat a pig.

Jac3510 · Post by **Jac3510** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 6:53 am

Woha there, hold up

vvart wrote:Um do you guys not look at this very site..It states that animals such as whales dolphins dogs..etc have a soul and that what separates humans is their ability to love God.

I'm not saying you are wrong on this, but I've not seen it, so a reference would be nice.

vvart wrote:Also it seems wrong to assume God will allow his non-human creatures, who he created himself, to suffe.

Why? He created people, and we suffer. The argument is that we suffer because of the Fall, but that the same goes for animals as well (their suffering being due to our fall). So, again, why would it be wrong for God to let non-humans suffer? Are you referring to them going to Hell, because if so, I disagree. I don't think they are eternal creatures . . . they don't go to heaven or hell.

vvart wrote:Jesus himself states that little children own Heaven and everyone else must obtain permission to get in.

Just for clarity's sake . . . the passage you are referring to is Matthew 18:1-5 or one of its parallels in the other gospels. Jesus says that we must become like little children to enter heaven ("get permission" isn't a good way to phrase it . . . it has too many negative undertones). He was referring to the faith of a child, hence that old term, "child-like-faith." Children are totally dependant.

So, be careful about drawing analogies here to the child's innocence. I'll be one of the first to argue for the age of accountability and the like, but I think you are walking a very fine line in saying our innocence should be like that of a child's . . .

(on a side note, let's not forget that the context of this passage: Jesus was using children as an object lesson to answer the question, "Who is the greatest in heaven?" He was showing them that you cannot be proud and be the greatest, just as children, for the most part, are not proud or arrogant. You must become like them . . . yada, yada)

vvart wrote:Little kids probably would be more associated with a dolphin then an adult human because of their innocence and intelligence.

Again, I've dealt with the innocence aspect of this. I just don't believe that's what Jesus was talking about here, given the context of the passage. But, what do you mean their intelligence? Are you implying that we should start thinking as children? Are you saying that because dolphins are more related to children in mental capability than adults that God cares for them in some more special way that a full grown human being???

vvart wrote:Also didn't Christ only eat fish and bread, that would suggest that some animals have a greater purpose in life like humans then to be our tools.

We are never told that Christ only ate fish and bread. He was a typical Jew and ate the typical Jewish diet. Fish was an important part, so of course it is mentioned. And, no, He didn't eat pork because it was considered unclean. This has nothing to do with "animal rights." We can be assured that Jesus ate . . . the Pharisees even accused Jesus of being a glutton and a drunkard! (Luke 7:34) Where do you think they came up with that charge.

So, yes, Jesus ate quite often. He ate animals quite often.

Kurieuo · Post by **Kurieuo** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:53 am

Jac wrote:
Um do you guys not look at this very site..It states that animals such as whales dolphins dogs..etc have a soul and that what separates humans is their ability to love God.

I'm not saying you are wrong on this, but I've not seen it, so a reference would be nice.

I think he was referring to the article at http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/imageofgod.html. Rich makes a distinction between body, soul and spirit however. I tend to agree with these distinctions myself, although I don't agree with his limiting soulish characteristics to birds and mammels (as I know of a big fish that recognised and developed a relationship with a diver!)

Anyway, I'm kind of like Bav—nice to tell the kids (when I have some)... and myself

. But then I do really believe animals have a soul of sort (though not like humans) as they exhibit behaviour I think can only be associated with a soul. Perhaps God will allow us to resurrect our pets if we desire to do so?

As we are saved through a relationship with Christ, I see it as reasonable to think animals could have a type of salvation by their relationship with us (that God would grant their resurrection to us if we so desired). I think I first heard this idea, or at least something similar, reading C.S. Lewis.

Kurieuo.

Kurieuo · Post by **Kurieuo** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:03 am

Just read thiswhat I was talking about with CS Lewis:

Jac wrote:seems unlikely to me, but C. S. Lewis things differently. He thinks it is plausible that our pets and such will be raised "in us" as we are raised "in Christ." Maybe, though it is certainly abstract.

It seemed unlikely to me too at first, but it grew on me...

Kurieuo.

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:45 pm

Um true Jesus did eat a lot on occasion, but I'm not sure if its in John or Mark..there is a passage where his disciples constantly urge him to eat food and he rejects that notion. Jesus also does a lot of fasting and rarely worries about food like his disciples, but that has nothing to do with this really. As for the suffering notion..humans are relieved of their pain after they look toward Jesus the Christ as their savior and follow him correct? thats essentially what i meant occurs with animals that possess a soul, and i compared a dolphin to a child because children are not aware of Jesus our Lord unless we tell them..so if children automatically obtain salvation..why should a dolphin be deprived of it. That does not seem to make sense and is just an excuse to put humans in a higher position then animals. Yes i know God values humans more then any other creature mainly because we were created, in his imagine(probably meaning we have the ability to love) so we could love God. God also loves humans so why would he allow us to obtain a creature of God who we come to love and then remove it from us. Therefore I believe that animals will come to Heaven whether we want them to or not..because not choosing to save your companion on earth is a sin.

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:59 pm

Jesus is also described as being the Prince of Peace and he talked a lot about loving everything on earth. Love is the key, and righteous humans love animals they bond with on earth and its my belief that when we allow ourselves to love something beyond that it might give us material goods, then Jesus our Lord will bring it to heaven so that it can be with us. Jesus tells a rich man to give up everything he owns and when he does his treasure will be save in heaven, now i'm not sure what this treasure is (obviously not money) but i believe its referring to the things we most love. For when we give up that we love to follow Jesus the Christ, then he will in turn give those things back to us in Heaven. Now if i apply this theory to animals then yes animals that don't bond with humans cannot enter heaven, so i guess they probably don't have an eternal soul, but as long as we love an animal it will be as eternal as ours. Their im gonna stick with this because I've thought this over and animals obtaining salvation through the bond they for with us seems to definitely be the answer.

RGeeB · Post by **RGeeB** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 6:26 am

A very compelling argument vvart!

I'm regretting a bit that my first car was not made in the image of an animal..

Jac3510 · Post by **Jac3510** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:19 pm

vvart wrote:As for the suffering notion..humans are relieved of their pain after they look toward Jesus the Christ as their savior and follow him correct? thats essentially what i meant occurs with animals that possess a soul, and i compared a dolphin to a child because children are not aware of Jesus our Lord unless we tell them..so if children automatically obtain salvation..why should a dolphin be deprived of it. That does not seem to make sense and is just an excuse to put humans in a higher position then animals. Yes i know God values humans more then any other creature mainly because we were created, in his imagine(probably meaning we have the ability to love) so we could love God. God also loves humans so why would he allow us to obtain a creature of God who we come to love and then remove it from us. Therefore I believe that animals will come to Heaven whether we want them to or not..because not choosing to save your companion on earth is a sin.

The thing is that I'm not convinced that animals have a soul . . . they are not eternal creatures as man is. If you assert that they are, you have to assert that they are regardless of salvation. Therefore, if animals can go to heaven, then they can equally go to hell. But, again, this goes back to my argument: one what basis?

As for your question about God giving us something to love . . . do you really think in heaven that you'll need your animals to be happy? Do you think you'd be at all less happy without them, or that they would make you more complete? If so, then you would have to agree that the loss of one soul negates all the happiness of heaven. How, for example, could the saved woman be happy in heaven if her son goes to hell?

Lewis has been mentioned a couple of times in this thread, so I'll refer to him again here. He dealt with this question in The Great Divorce (easy, quick read . . . you can get through the whole thing in one afternoon). In it, there is a scene where a man and a woman are having a conversation. The woman is in heaven, and she is trying to show the man (apparently her husband in life) that she doesn't need him anymore. She has all she needs. In fact, having him there would neither add nor take away from her! But, she loves him with a true love. When the man asks about their love on earth, she replies something to the effect that she loved him in "a poor type of way" and that earthly love is more about our own needs than the needs of others. It is only when she became in Love Himself that she was free to truly love him. But, being truly in Love, she needed nothing else, not even him.

So, to get back on track, I don't see that we would need our animals in heaven. It's a nice thought, but, no offense to anyone here, I don't let "nice thoughts" govern my theology . . . what is heaven if it requires anything other than the very presence of God for its completion?

In summary, then:

1) I don't think animals have a soul
2) I don't think animals "love" at all in any heavenly sense of the word
3) I don't think animals are needed to complete heaven
4) I don't think animals are eternal

As a side note, if there is any possibility of animals in heaven, it would most definitely be through some type of Lewis' theory, with them being resurrected in us as we are in Christ. But, that idea seems to abstract for me to be real. It would seem that which is in the mind, then, would be more real than the reality from which it came, and I don't really like that kind of thinking . . .