 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsCat AnecdotesHealth and BehaviorRescue CatKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Cat Forum / Cat Anecdotes / October 2005Do animals go to heaven?
Over here in rec.pets.cats.anecdotes, we like to console each other with comforting stories about a Rainbow Bridge that our pets cross over after death, where they wait for us to die so they can join us in heaven. Is it true, or are we just kidding ourselves? Charlie > Over here in rec.pets.cats.anecdotes, we like to console each other > with comforting stories about a Rainbow Bridge that our pets cross [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Charlie For the purposes of rec.pets.cats.anecdote, what does it matter? As long as it makes you feel better, do it, think it, believe it. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- If it turns out that there is a God, I don't think that he's evil. But the worst that you can say about him is that basically he's an underachiever. Woody Allen >Over here in rec.pets.cats.anecdotes, we like to console each other >with comforting stories about a Rainbow Bridge that our pets cross [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Charlie I was watching world renouned tel-evangelist John Hagee one day and he said that he firmly believed that there will be a place in heaven for pets and I believe him. http://members.aol.com/larrystark/ http://members.aol.com/larrystark/strays.htm I have read a number of accounts of "near death experiences" and all of them mention the presence of pets on the other side. Why would God create such extraordinary creatures if He didn't want us to reunite with them. >I have read a number of accounts of "near death experiences" and all of >them mention the presence of pets on the other side. Why would God create >such extraordinary creatures if He didn't want us to reunite with them. I don't know. Why did God create dracunculiasis? http://asylumeclectica.com/malady/archives/dracun.htm Charlie > Over here in rec.pets.cats.anecdotes, we like to console each other > with comforting stories about a Rainbow Bridge that our pets cross > over after death, where they wait for us to die so they can join us in > heaven. > > Is it true, or are we just kidding ourselves? Hmmmm.... Why don't you try to cross it, and let us know from the other side? > Over here in rec.pets.cats.anecdotes, we like to console each other > with comforting stories about a Rainbow Bridge that our pets cross [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Charlie LOL thanks Charlie, I needed this laugh today, say hi to Tweakers and Holly for me, I still love his stripes If you die and you are reunited with your beloved pets it would be heaven. If they weren't there then I'd say you didn't go to heaven!! >Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> >Re: Do animals go to heaven? >Over here in rec.pets.cats.anecdotes, we like to console each other >with comforting stories about a Rainbow Bridge that our pets cross [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Charlie Charlie, Looks like it is kidding time. The Bible shows us that unreasoning animals were made to die, not live forever. 2 Pe 2:12, "But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish." (NIV) Also notice Ps 49:20, "A man who has riches without understanding is like the beasts that perish." (NIV) But did you know that the Bible tells us that not all good people will go to Heaven? For example, how could Jesus' statement be true here, if ALL the good ones went to Heaven? Mt 5:5, "Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth." (NIV) More on what the Bible has to say on this subject if you are interested. Sincerely, James > >Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > > >Charlie Maybe someday mankind will outgrow the need to invent gods and religions and realize that all we have is the earth and each other. If that day ever comes, we can love and respect all species equally. We might even learn to love the Human species instead of constantly striving to make ourselves extinct. I am afraid I will have to disagree with you here James...in your approach more so than what you have said. I am apractising Christian, and prefer to err on the side of grace rather than judgement. Mainly from the point of view that we 'interpret' the scriptures too much to support our own opinions. Our point of view isn't necessarily the right one; I am not saying the scripture you quoted were incorrect; but as centuries of mis-interpreting scripture to make christianity a male dominated religion has driven many women away, i would be hesitant to 'pass judgement' on a subject that is mentioned in so many different ways in the bible. for example; everyone know of the scripture that speaks of heaven "...the lion will lie down with the lamb, etc etc". And to Charlie; a scripture I read was Ecclesiastes chapter 3 verses18-21 if you can find a bible, I suggest you read the whole thin, it may shed a bit of light: but the main one that got to me was verse 20 and 21 from that section: " All go to the same place; all come from the dust and to dust all return. Who knows if the spirit of man rises upwards and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?" These seems to me to be saying 'who are we to know or decide...it's just as likely either way...' ie. it's known to God, ask him. And as for where you will go after death, I am not going to push any more onto you unless you ask, and will not annoy this group any further with my beliefs. My apology for offending anyone, or off topic posting, however I felt obliged to present another christian point of view from james'...no offense to james, however not everyone sees God the same way. > I am afraid I will have to disagree with you here James...in your approach > more so than what you have said. I am apractising Christian, and prefer to [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > present another christian point of view from james'...no offense to james, > however not everyone sees God the same way. The problem with this thought is that you're creating the notion that animals have a spirit/soul which they do not and Scripture never says they do. This goes back to Creation, God creates all the plants and animals by His Word. He created mankind specially and different from the animals in that we have a soul. Thus, without a soul to speak of, animals are no more eternal, no more capable of heaven or hell, than plants and rocks and the like. Hope that clarifies. ["Followup-To:" header set to rec.pets.cats.anecdotes.] On 2005-10-13, Markwise penned: > The problem with this thought is that you're creating the notion > that animals have a spirit/soul which they do not and Scripture [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Hope that clarifies. As a non-Christian, practicing or otherwise, I have to wonder why I am being subject to this cross-posting mess. I think it started with a troll. Regardless, I don't see how it matters, unless you are using an animal's supposed lack of soul as an excuse for inflicting pain on an animal.  Signaturemonique Question (before I eliminate the cross-posts): Are there any "religious" newsgroups for intelligent, educated adults with the ability to actually THINK? I heard those same asinine platitudes in my Methodist Sunday School (more years ago than most of you can count). I thought they were a load of unproven crap then, and a lifetime of practical experience has only confirmed my initial impression (ad nauseum and ad infinitum). >>I am afraid I will have to disagree with you here James...in your approach >>more so than what you have said. I am apractising Christian, and prefer to [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Hope that clarifies. -- > Question (before I eliminate the cross-posts): Are there > any "religious" newsgroups for intelligent, educated adults [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > experience has only confirmed my initial impression (ad > nauseum and ad infinitum). unfortunately i don't think so...in fact your sunday school teachers (or their clones) are probably inhabiting one somewhere...a good idea not to go there. The minute you put 'religion' in the subject header you get invaded by rabid fundamentalist self professed christians > > I am afraid I will have to disagree with you here James...in your approach > > more so than what you have said. I am apractising Christian, and prefer to [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Hope that clarifies. I will have to agree to disagree with you. I am holding these 'self evident truths' to be unsure until i feel that i believe them for myself, as i feel it is foolish for someone to believe something because you have been instructed to believe it all your life. I believe in other religions or cults we refer to it as 'brainwashing'...until then, i do not want to pass judgement on these things, or othe'r pov as i'm sure god knows and understands where they're coming from and will sort it out with them in his own time...as he does. I merely pointed out that there are other less commonly quoted verses that might present a different ideology to the one first expressed. There is another verse which i don't know the reference tooo, i stumbled upon it in an obscure chapter, and have been unable to find it. But it refers to how the hebrew people would be held accountable (faulty memory) or something for the sacrifice of innocent animals required for their cleansing. So I am loth to pass judgement, as god seems to care about the welfare of animals too. > > Markwise wrote: > > The problem with this thought is that you're creating the notion that [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > their cleansing. So I am loth to pass judgement, as god seems to care about > the welfare of animals too. Well on a personal level you are certainly entitled and encouraged to doubt these truths until you believe them on your own. Faith or belief is a personal thing. However, personal belief or not, that does not change for instance what the absolute truth is and always has been. I can't express more clearly to you the clear witness of Scripture that animals do not have souls. That is the clear distinction here. Animals have no soul, hence animals have no eternity. All other things aside these are absolute truths. Now, we can from that point speak about proper treatment of animals and speak of whether or not God does care about the welfare of animals. But it is very important to note the difference between humanity and animals. Humans are God's special creatures. Animals are a simple part of creation, nothing more. I'm all for the free expression of opinions here. But where Scripture speaks clearly and definitively it there stands as truth. Any opinions contrary to that are just simply wrong, no ways about it. >> > Markwise wrote: >> > The problem with this thought is that you're creating the notion that [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > speaks clearly and definitively it there stands as truth. Any opinions > contrary to that are just simply wrong, no ways about it. (After carefully stripping away all crossposting): Ah, I love quotations! There always seems to be at least one for every utterance and every occasion: "The best argument for Christianity is Christians: their joy, their certainty, their completeness. But the strongest argument against Christianity is also Christians--when they are somber and joyless, when they are self-righteous and smug in complacent consecration, when they are narrow and repressive, then Christianity dies a thousand deaths." - Joe Aldrich, author of "Secrets of Wisdom from Mother's Heart", "Lifestyle Evangelism - Learning to Open Your Life to Those Around You" etc. > >> > Markwise wrote: > >> > The problem with this thought is that you're creating the notion that [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > - Joe Aldrich, author of "Secrets of Wisdom from Mother's Heart", "Lifestyle > Evangelism - Learning to Open Your Life to Those Around You" etc. unfortunately and sadly this is true. and having been both the reciever and giver of such smug self righteousness, i am loth to tie myself to the name of 'christian' but that has nothing to do with the teachings, and life of ch rist. > > > Markwise wrote: > > > The problem with this thought is that you're creating the notion that [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > speaks clearly and definitively it there stands as truth. Any opinions > contrary to that are just simply wrong, no ways about it. Look, you've already said this. and although you say i am entitled to my opinion, it sounds too much like you are trying to talk me and everyone who believes differently from you around to your point of view. I am not doubting the truthfulness of the scriptures. i agree with you on that point. What I am, and probably will continue to question my whole life (and i feel that is a positive thing) is man's interpretation of the scriptures. After all, if it IS written by an infinite God, who are we to pin down a difficult-to-comprehend passage and say 'this is what it says and I am right" The fact is, there are contadictory passages in scripture, and I feel that there are things we are NOT meant to understand at certain times. With questions such as this, maybe it's none of our business and we are not meant to know yet. I don't feel there is strong enough evidence either way; and I don't think you are offering enough evidence to convince either me or anyone else (except for those that already hold your beliefs) that your POV is right. You have offered us out of context scriptures, and told us what you have been taught they mean. Then you have told us that what you believ as truth is truth. To outline my view, I believe the scriptures to be true, and where they state clearly in context what they mean, that is obviously truth. but sometimes we interpret things from our own point of view. The Bible was written for the salvation of humans. As for the animals, I'm not sure. But it does say, 'the lion will lie down with the lamb, and the little child will lead them' which seems to me to say that there will be animals in the afterlife; whether they are the same ones we are priveledged to know here on earth, it doesn't say either way. So for me, this discussion is open only to the One who knows what he's talking about. > Look, you've already said this. and although you say i am entitled to my > opinion, it sounds too much like you are trying to talk me and everyone who [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > difficult-to-comprehend passage and say 'this is what it says and I am > right" Show me the difficult-to-comprehend passages about animals possibly having souls and we'll go from there. > The fact is, there are contadictory passages in scripture, There are no contradictions in Scripture. > and I feel > that there are things we are NOT meant to understand at certain times. I would agree with you in principle on this. > With > questions such as this, maybe it's none of our business and we are not meant [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > have been taught they mean. Then you have told us that what you believ as > truth is truth. Show me where in Scripture it says animals have souls. Show me even where it may even imply or hint at that. I can quote for you Genesis 1 & 2 where the animals are created by the Word just as the plants, the stars, the sun & the moon. Mankind is created by God's hand and with the breath of God. Very plain differences in creation. That's only the very beginning of Scripture's witness to the fact that humans are special in God's eyes whereas animals are not. And nothing against animals, I love the pets I have at home. But fact of the matter is, they don't have souls. So when one of my pets dies I give a prayer of thanks to God for the gift of such a wonderful companion during this life and that's that. > To outline my view, I believe the scriptures to be true, and > where they state clearly in context what they mean, that is obviously truth. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > earth, it doesn't say either way. So for me, this discussion is open only to > the One who knows what he's talking about. The problem with assuming the possibility that the lion or the lamb in heaven is the same as the one we knew here on earth is that we are adding to Scripture what isn't there. look, i've said i don't want to discuss this with you any more. If i do discuss it with anyone, it will be with someone i know and trust, not an anonymous self-confident person on usenet who can't take a hint. goodbye. I'm going to cheat and respond to someone who isn't here to defend themselves. At first I meant to post this to all the groups, but then I decided I shouldn't drag this conversation back. So hopefully I stopped it in time, and this will only go to rpca. But I still felt the need to say it. > Show me where in Scripture it says animals have souls. Show me even > where it may even imply or hint at that. I can quote for you > Genesis 1 & 2 where the animals are created by the Word just as the > plants, the stars, the sun & the moon. Mankind is created by God's > hand and with the breath of God. Very plain differences in > creation. Show me where it says animals don't have souls. You're saying that because there's a difference in the method of creation, one creation method must involve a soul for all beings, and teh other creation method must not. Silly you. You're suggesting that God is not omnipotent. Otherwise he could do whatever the hell he wanted, including giving animals souls with a word. As we say in gaming lingo, Pwnt. > The problem with assuming the possibility that the lion or the lamb > in heaven is the same as the one we knew here on earth is that we > are adding to Scripture what isn't there. Right. And where the word "spoon" is used, what he really means is the concept of nuclear fusion. Stretch much? Signaturemonique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca > I'm going to cheat and respond to someone who isn't here to defend > themselves. ??? Monique, why bother if you are not reaching the person who posted it? When the hell did you get so damned easy to repress? Ugh. At first I meant to post this to all the groups, but then > I decided I shouldn't drag this conversation back. So hopefully I > stopped it in time, and this will only go to rpca. But I still felt [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Stretch much? >> I'm going to cheat and respond to someone who isn't here to defend >> themselves. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Ugh. Obviously because I thought I was being moderately witty, but also didn't think that Markwise guy would appreciate it. Maybe some of the folks here would. Signaturemonique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca >>> I'm going to cheat and respond to someone who isn't here to defend >>> themselves. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > didn't think that Markwise guy would appreciate it. Maybe some of the > folks here would. *shrug* Maybe. Don't worry Monique, i read it...and funnily enough, markwise and his cronies refused to answer one of my posts...i don't know if you've read this bit, but there's a bit in the bible where God makes a donkey talk...and it seems to me that it was the donkey talking, god just gave it 'human speech' for a while....funnily enough they ignored that one....maybe that part of the bible isn't in their religion or something....selective hearing i think....just don't take people like that seriously, feel sorry for them instead for not being able to think for themselves. SignatureThere are many intelligent species in the Universe. They are all owned by cats. Anonymous One cat just leads to another. -Ernest Hemingway > I'm going to cheat and respond to someone who isn't here to defend > themselves. At first I meant to post this to all the groups, but then [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Stretch much? > Don't worry Monique, i read it...and funnily enough, markwise and > his cronies refused to answer one of my posts...i don't know if [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > take people like that seriously, feel sorry for them instead for not > being able to think for themselves. I did read your post =) Honestly, I know next to nothing about the bible, and I'm not Christian, so whether or not a Christian believes that animals have souls doesn't matter to me. But if someone's going to spout off like those guys did, they should at least try to keep their arguments internally consistent! The truly frightening part is that they surely believe that their arguments are completely logical and valid. Signaturemonique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca > > Don't worry Monique, i read it...and funnily enough, markwise and > > his cronies refused to answer one of my posts...i don't know if [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > The truly frightening part is that they surely believe that their > arguments are completely logical and valid. The sad thing is, and the thing that speaks most about their lack of self-awareness is that in all their blather they missed the whole point of jesus christ...which had nothing to do with stuffing quoted out of context bible verses down the throats of people who really couldn't give a stuff and wish they'd crawl back under the rock they came from. I do read the bible, and thankfully this group is more gracious than those from my side of the fence, or I'd have been kicked off for just belonging to the same (or distantly related) belief system as they do. They've missed the point somehow... > The problem with this thought is that you're creating the notion that > animals have a spirit/soul which they do not and Scripture never says [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Hope that clarifies. I don't believe in your God or your Book. The Judeo-Christian God is a jealous thug. LT >> The problem with this thought is that you're creating the notion that >> animals have a spirit/soul which they do not and Scripture never says [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> >> Hope that clarifies. > I don't believe in your God or your Book. > The Judeo-Christian God is a jealous thug. > LT Have you noticed that the smuggest, most vehement and sometimes most hostile posts in this thread haven't come from the newsgroup with the words "pets" and "cats" in its title, but crossposted from ones with the words "religion", Christian" and "Bible"? IMO there's something sad about that. >>> The problem with this thought is that you're creating the notion that >>> animals have a spirit/soul which they do not and Scripture never says [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > words "religion", Christian" and "Bible"? IMO there's something sad about > that. Linda, I didn't mean you'd crossposted from one of those "religion/Christian/Bible groups. I know you're an ailurophile who frequents this one, rec.pets.cats.anecdotes (as well as other cat NGs), and probably posted to here. I dropped my little comment into the mix right after yours, but I didn't mean to imply it referred directly to you. It didn't, and sorry if I gave that impression. > > Have you noticed that the smuggest, most vehement and sometimes most > > hostile posts in this thread haven't come from the newsgroup with the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > but I didn't mean to imply it referred directly to you. It didn't, and sorry > if I gave that impression. I kinda thought that. thanx LT > Have you noticed that the smuggest, most vehement and sometimes most hostile > posts in this thread haven't come from the newsgroup with the words "pets" > and "cats" in its title, but crossposted from ones with the words > "religion", Christian" and "Bible"? IMO there's something sad about that. Very sad! Perhaps we should introduce a few cats into their lives? > > Have you noticed that the smuggest, most vehement and sometimes most hostile > > posts in this thread haven't come from the newsgroup with the words "pets" [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Very sad! Perhaps we should introduce a few cats into their > lives? they probably have cats but don't appreciate them...poor cats. > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > The Judeo-Christian God is a jealous thug. Only in some of the more narrow-minded denominations! Who was it who said "God created Man in his own image, so man returned the compliment"? (Mark Twain, probably - he had a way with words.) >>>The problem with this thought is that you're creating the notion that >>>animals have a spirit/soul which they do not and Scripture never says [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > "God created Man in his own image, so man returned the compliment"? (Mark > Twain, probably - he had a way with words.) At least one source says you're correct - it was Mark Twain. Apparently his exact words were "God created man in his own image, and man, being a gentleman, returned the compliment." But others credit the 18th century German scientist and satirist Georg Christoph Lichtenberg, who put it slightly differently: "God created Man in His image, says the Bible; philosophers reverse the process: they create God in theirs." > >>The problem with this thought is that you're creating the notion that > >>animals have a spirit/soul which they do not and Scripture never says [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > returned the compliment"? (Mark Twain, probably - he had a > way with words.) bless mark twain! I've met cats, and christians, and the cats are more christian than the human version. i believe in god because of animals, not people (except maybe my kids) > >Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > interested. > Sincerely, James This is not intended to offend people who follow the Christian faith - I was baptized into it as a young adult but since then have also drawn from other faiths to form my own beliefs. As for the Bible, I don't view it as a direct pipeline to the word of God. The Bible has been written - and rewritten - by humans, each one of them influenced by personal biases and prevailing attitudes of the day. It's been translated into countless versions, over and over, down the years, each time at the mercy of the skill - or its lack - of the scholars and translators. Finally, the Bible is taken up by modern-day Christians in its present form and quoted as, well, gospel. Every word. Every concept. Paraded out to make points, or win arguments. Who truly knows if animals are "unreasoning"? Or if there is a heaven - or indeed a rainbow bridge? Some matters are completely beyond our temporal comprehension, and will always be so. Shakespeare's Hamlet nailed it: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." > > >Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> > > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > will always be so. Shakespeare's Hamlet nailed it: "There are more things in > heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." I'd have to agree with you on that :) As a christian, i do believe the bible to be the true word of god etc etc....however i also believe like you, that it is often misinterpreted and 'edited' to suit our own world view. I believe that God speaks to everyone, and we shoudln't judge other's beliefs or opinions just because 'this verse in the bible says (or we think it does) it's wrong' After all, if the bible was the word of god, who are we to 'interpret' what it says? wouldn't it be beyond our own judgement, and shouldn't it be used more for our own improvement, instead of 'Improving' others? (as I am sure you, as well as myself and many others have been at the recieving end of many times) > > >Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> > > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > will always be so. Shakespeare's Hamlet nailed it: "There are more things in > heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Your view of the Bible coincides with mine, and I'm a regular churchgoer. If you want to quote the Bible, what about the part that says the lion shall lie down with the lamb? If there are lions and lambs, there have to be dogs and cats. Besides, if there are no animals in heaven, I ain't going! ;-) Joy > > > >Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> > > > [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > > Joy ditto!! and if i'm not much mistaken, god would probably clear out too; there's also mention of trees etc, so i'm looking forward to having a good garden!! Look at st francis of assisi! Now there's a guy i would have liked! >> > >Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> >> > [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > and cats. Besides, if there are no animals in heaven, I ain't going! ;-) > Joy Amen to that! And we're not alone in our opinion, according to these quotations. "Heaven will not ever Heaven be unless my cats are there to welcome me." -- Epitaph in pet cemetery "If I have any beliefs about immortality it is that dogs I know will go to heaven, and very very few people." - James Thurber "Many years ago when an adored dog died, a great friend, a bishop, said to me, 'You must always remember that, as far as the Bible is concerned, God only threw the humans out of Paradise.'" - Unknown "Many birds and beasts are ... as fit to go to Heaven as many human beings - people who talk of their seats there with as much confidence as if they had booked them at a box-office." - English essayist, poet and editor Leigh Hunt "There is an Indian legend which says when a human dies there is a bridge they must cross to enter into heaven. At the head of that bridge waits every animal that human encountered during their lifetime. The animals, based upon what they know of this person, decide which humans may cross the bridge.... and which are turned away." - Unknown - The Rainbow Bridge, perhaps? And finally, Mark Twain. He calls our cats and other creatures - not mankind - "the higher animals". "Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion--several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbour as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn't straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother's path to happiness and heaven....The higher animals have no religion. And we are told that they are going to be left out in the Hereafter. I wonder why? It seems questionable taste." - from "The Lowest Animal", an essay from "Mark Twain on the Damned Human Race" > >Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> > >>Re: Do animals go to heaven? Of course animals go to heaven, as well as hell. Regardless of what the mainstream believes, animals DO have souls and their souls are eternal as well. Another truth that most Christians are unaware of, is that sometimes animals are the incarnation of HUMAN souls too, depending upon their choices in previous lives. SignatureDore www.dorewilliamson.com > >Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Sincerely, James >>>Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > animals are the incarnation of HUMAN souls too, depending upon their choices > in previous lives. I'm reminded of a delightful Rudyard Kipling story! (Was it "Rikki-Tikki-Tavi"?) > >>>Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> > >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I'm reminded of a delightful Rudyard Kipling story! (Was it > "Rikki-Tikki-Tavi"?) Oh good! I'm not the only crazy person out there who still reads kipling!!! >> >>>Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Oh good! I'm not the only crazy person out there who still reads > Kipling!!! Count me in too. Many people today Kipple. He's unfashionable today, so some are closet Kipplers! > >> >>>Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Count me in too. Many people today Kipple. He's unfashionable today, so some > are closet Kipplers! I've been a closet kippler ever since i first kippled! humbug to disnep for their bastardizations!!what's your fav? out of the one's i've read, it's hard to pick but 'Kim' would have to be a fave... >> >> >>>Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> >> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > their bastardizations!!what's your fav? out of the one's i've read, it's > hard to pick but 'Kim' would have to be a fave... There are so many riches it's difficult to choose, but possibly my favourite is the poem, Recessional, with it's immortal refrain that's echoed every November 11th - "Lest we forget". http://www.web-books.com/Classics/Poetry/Anthology/Kipling/Recessional.htm > >> >> >>>Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> > >> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > http://www.web-books.com/Classics/Poetry/Anthology/Kipling/Recessional.htm I can't remember all of it, i'm looking up your link now to refresh my memory... ahh, very appropriate to current posters!! well said! and i agree, it is lovely...thanks for that link, now i can read all the ones I havn't read! That's made my day! >>>>>Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> >>>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> > Oh good! I'm not the only crazy person out there who still reads kipling!!! Well, with the exception of the "Puck of Pook's Hill" series (which were aimed more at young adults than at children, I think), Kipling WROTE for adults. Also, he was hardly an example of the "Britsh Raj" mentality, despite being given that reputation by people who never READ him! Evelyn, could you please delete the other groups when you respond to a message in this thread? As long as it is cross-posted, it is inviting an invasion like the one we had a while ago. SignatureJoy **Don't believe everything you think** > >>>>>Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> > >>>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > example of the "Britsh Raj" mentality, despite being given > that reputation by people who never READ him! > Evelyn, could you please delete the other groups when you respond to a > message in this thread? As long as it is cross-posted, it is inviting an > invasion like the one we had a while ago. I might, if I were sure where the posts to which I reply were coming from. Given the title of the thread, and the direction in which it has gone, why not just skip it, until it disappears? (FWIW, I doubt whether the unscientific bigots to whom I've replied have the requisite know-how to foment another "techy" invasion.) >> Evelyn, could you please delete the other groups when you respond to a >> message in this thread? As long as it is cross-posted, it is inviting an [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > unscientific bigots to whom I've replied have the requisite know-how to > foment another "techy" invasion.) - Or a bout of cat scratch fever! >>> Evelyn, could you please delete the other groups when you respond to a >>> message in this thread? As long as it is cross-posted, it is inviting [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> the unscientific bigots to whom I've replied have the requisite know-how >> to foment another "techy" invasion.) > - Or a bout of cat scratch fever! Let me add that I wasn't implying you were catty. I was thinking of this newsgroup in general with its ailurophilic contributors and their furry companions! > >>>>>Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> > >>>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > example of the "Britsh Raj" mentality, despite being given > that reputation by people who never READ him! too true (and for that, i still enjoy 'puck' <guilty smile>) Kipling was nothing like a british raj, or no-one would still be reading him...in fact i rather think he wished he was a native!! Or an elephant or something...:^) I'm going to teach my cat to type. I'm sure he could write more interesting stuff than this religious nonsense. No Animals don't go to heaven because they don't have spirit.. The spirit is what makes men and animals differ. Animals rely on their own insticts to survive. An animal thousands of years ago when compared to that animal of the same kind today are still doing the same thing. Eagles still build the same nest, beavers build the same dam. Their sexual activity is also instinct. Since man has spirit, it enables him to think, invent, learn new things, can even control the course of nature. create ways to improve himself, but most of all, they are born to love, emotional ,worship God, pray. In Genesis, it says after God has created the earth and everything on it ( including the animals ), He created man IN HIS OWN IMAGE.( with body and spirit) > >Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Sincerely, James > No Animals don't go to heaven because they don't have spirit.. The spirit is > what makes men and animals differ. I beg to differ! Most of the animals I've known have far finer souls than the likes of YOU! What souls are you talking about. The body is the soul itself, not the spirit. Anyway, not all men go to Heaven. They make their choice to go to Hell. >> No Animals don't go to heaven because they don't have spirit.. The spirit >> is what makes men and animals differ. > > I beg to differ! Most of the animals I've known have far finer souls than > the likes of YOU! > What souls are you talking about. The body is the soul itself, not the > spirit. That may make sense to you, but I seriously doubt it does to anyone else! SFAIK, "spirit" and "soul" are more-or-less synonymous, and neither has any physical connection with "the body"! (Are you so ignorant you confuse "soul" with the physical portion of animal anatomy known as "mind" or "brain"?) > Anyway, not all men go to Heaven. They make their choice to go to Hell. Well, judging by the kind of people you apparently approve, the COMPANY must certainly be better in Hell! You speak of "men" - what about women? (Or are you one of those redneck chauvinists who consider us property, with no identities of our own?) Food for thought (assuming you are capable of it): If there are no animals in "Heaven", perhaps its residents are not where they THINK they are? ("If there ain't no cats in Heaven, I ain't going!") > What souls are you talking about. The body is the soul itself, not the > spirit. Your soul is what gives you life. Gen 2:7 7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. KJV Animals have life, thus they have souls. SignatureDore www.dorewilliamson.com > What souls are you talking about. The body is the soul itself, not the > spirit. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> I beg to differ! Most of the animals I've known have far finer souls >> than the likes of YOU! > > What souls are you talking about. The body is the soul itself, not the > > spirit. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Animals have life, thus they have souls. And when god cause balaam's donkey to speak, it said what a donkey would say at the moment....the scripture says god "opened the donkey's mouth" it doesn't say he "put his own words into the donkey's mouth" or "spoke through the donkey" it seems (my reading, everyone is open to their own) to say that the donkey said in human talk what he was thinking in donkey talk....that makes me think that a) the donkey had something useful to say to the man riding him that god thought the man needed to hear and b) god seemed to think the donkeys opinion was valid and worth taking seriously. > > What souls are you talking about. The body is the soul itself, not the > > spirit. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >> I beg to differ! Most of the animals I've known have far finer souls > >> than the likes of YOU! PLEASE EVERYBODY ON RPCA STOP CROSSPOSTING THIS WILDLY OT AND REALLY STUPID SUBJECT HERE! All you have to do is remove rpca from the list of ng's on the top line of your "reply to group" post. In OE anyway. TIA Gordon & the FF Animals don't go to heaven whether they are good or bad, gentle or wild. Animals prey on one another. The bible says clean animals can be eaten but unclean animals should not. Read the bible about the clean and unclean animals. ...and there's no mention on the bible that animals go to heaven. Herbivores and pets are usually eaten by predators that are carnivorous in nature. A terrier or a doberman eaten by a mountain lion is digested in it's stomach and that's the end of it. No way to go to heaven. >> No Animals don't go to heaven because they don't have spirit.. The spirit >> is what makes men and animals differ. > > I beg to differ! Most of the animals I've known have far finer souls than > the likes of YOU! > Animals don't go to heaven whether they are good or bad, gentle or wild. > Animals prey on one another. The bible says clean animals can be eaten but [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > nature. A terrier or a doberman eaten by a mountain lion is digested in > it's stomach and that's the end of it. No way to go to heaven. What does any of this have to do with the souls and spirits of animals? Obviously, everything you commented on is regarding the animal physical bodies and has NOTHING to do with the subject at hand. SignatureDore www.dorewilliamson.com > Animals don't go to heaven whether they are good or bad, gentle or wild. > Animals prey on one another. The bible says clean animals can be eaten but [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> I beg to differ! Most of the animals I've known have far finer souls >> than the likes of YOU! >> Animals don't go to heaven whether they are good or bad, gentle or wild. >> Animals prey on one another. The bible says clean animals can be eaten [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Obviously, everything you commented on is regarding the animal physical > bodies and has NOTHING to do with the subject at hand. I'm responding to the post's on the upper thread. > Dore > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >>> I beg to differ! Most of the animals I've known have far finer souls >>> than the likes of YOU! > Animals don't go to heaven whether they are good or bad, gentle or wild. > Animals prey on one another. The bible says clean animals can be eaten but [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > terrier or a doberman eaten by a mountain lion is digested in it's stomach > and that's the end of it. No way to go to heaven. ===>So is a saintly missionary who is eaten by cannibals "digested in [their] stomach." Is THAT the end of it? ;-) -- L. >> Animals don't go to heaven whether they are good or bad, gentle or wild. >> Animals prey on one another. The bible says clean animals can be eaten [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > ===>So is a saintly missionary who is eaten by cannibals > "digested in [their] stomach." Is THAT the end of it? ;-) -- L. Man still has a spirit that separates from the body after death, so it's not the end yet. Animals when they die, since they don't have spirit, that's their end. > >> Animals don't go to heaven whether they are good or bad, gentle or wild. > >> Animals prey on one another. The bible says clean animals can be eaten [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > the end yet. > Animals when they die, since they don't have spirit, that's their end. See Ecclesiastes 3:21 Who knows if the spirit of man rises upwards, and the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth? NIV which I think may b more accurate than the KJ as the KJ was written by people sucking up to King James The NIV is a revision fron the KJV, using modern English since there are number of obsolete words used in the older version (KJV). But the message is still the same. >> >> Animals don't go to heaven whether they are good or bad, gentle or > wild. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > accurate than the KJ as the KJ was written by people sucking up to King > James I want to apologise for the recent invasion of the fundamentalists (i could say worse but I won't). although I didn't start the thread, I got involved....some things get me angry, and self-righteousness and bible bashing from church people gets me angry. It's got nothing to do with anything christ preached, in fact I rather think he would have called us in the church pharisees, and hung around you lot. Please accept my apology. > The NIV is a revision fron the KJV, using modern English since there are > number of obsolete words used in the older version (KJV). But the message is > still the same. ===>And in neither is any reference to animals or humans going to heaven. -- L. > >> >> Animals don't go to heaven whether they are good or bad, gentle or > > wild. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > accurate than the KJ as the KJ was written by people sucking up to King > > James > Animals don't go to heaven whether they are good or bad, gentle or wild. > Animals prey on one another. The bible says clean animals can be eaten but > unclean animals > should not. Um, and what about Peter's vision re; clean verses unclean? Or do you only read the OT? And all the times paul went on about 'food for idols not being unclean??' stop backing up theories with out of context scriptures, it alienates people more. Don't you guys get it? bible bashing doesn't work. NO_ONE in this group is going to get 'suddenly convicted' by what you are saying....What was the Greatest commandment according to Jesus?? Cos you people sure aren't demonstrating it here. Read the bible about the clean and unclean animals. > ...and there's no mention on the bible that animals go to heaven. Herbivores > and pets are usually eaten by predators that are carnivorous in nature. A [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I beg to differ! Most of the animals I've known have far finer souls than > > the likes of YOU! > Animals don't go to heaven whether they are good or bad, gentle or wild. Then what human in their right mind would want to go to heaven, either? > Animals prey on one another. And humans DON'T?????? Animals only prey upon one another for food (as your God created them to do). It took that "higher being" called Man to invent torture and slavery and war! (I'd prefer life with "animals" any day!) >> Animals don't go to heaven whether they are good or bad, gentle or wild. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > invent torture and slavery and war! (I'd prefer life with "animals" any > day!) Believe what you believe. But the Bible is an instruction manual for men and women ,how to live life to the fullest, and in becoming close to God in body and spirit. I't s up to them to take it seriously or not. They have their own reward. The main focus of instructions are for men and women, not animals. God did not talk to animals, and so with Jesus. If you want to know more about animals, just go to a nearby bookstore, library or Petshop. You can even borrow or buy video of them particularly in the kiddies section about animal stories like Lion King, Bambi, Balto etc.( These are old versions already and i'm not sure if they got new ones ). >>>Animals don't go to heaven whether they are good or bad, gentle or wild. >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Balto etc.( These are old versions already and i'm not sure if they got new > ones ). When will I learn not to try to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man? ..> > When will I learn not to try to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed > man? Evelyn, If you get the urge, maybe you could remove this group from the crosspostings and leave the debate in the others? Thanks, Annie >>>>Animals don't go to heaven whether they are good or bad, gentle or wild. >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > When will I learn not to try to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed > man? Oh I did nor know you are engaging battle of wits with me. To me, you are just doing some kind of .. sweet romance and I'm just returning the "FLAVORS"....the same thing a man do when a woman spreads out her legs. > No Animals don't go to heaven because they don't have spirit.. The spirit > is what makes men and animals differ. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > create ways to improve himself, but most of all, they are born to love, > emotional ,worship God, pray. The spirit is what gives people their emotions. Animals also have emotions, thus they have spirits as well. They have a soul, because having a soul means that you have life, and obviously animals are alive. Animals do NOT go by instinct, but by choice. That is what makes them trainable. They think, feel, learn, love, fear, etc and the only difference is that they do not have the higher intellect and reasoning that humans do, but in fact, are more in tune with the spiritual aspect than humans. And since God gave humans a greater intellect, they compensated animals with other abilities, for example, dogs can smell even the remotest of odors, eagles can see great distances etc. all better than humans. Animals sense things better than humans, for example, can tell when an earthquake is about to hit, or when someone is in danger. Animals can FEEL your emotions and your thoughts, better than humans can. Their sexual activity is also because of spirit influence, just as it in humans. Animals build nests and dams because that is what they can do with what they have available to them, as their needs be and what they are capable of. You don't give animals enough credit and it is thinking such as yours, is why many animals are neglected, abused and treated badly by humans. SignatureDore www.dorewilliamson.com > No Animals don't go to heaven because they don't have spirit.. The spirit > is what makes men and animals differ. [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] >> >> Sincerely, James >>Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Looks like it is kidding time. The Bible shows us that unreasoning > animals were made to die, not live forever. 2 Pe 2:12, So? SFAIK, ALL living creatures die, "reasoning" or not. (And it's plain to see you've never known any cats intimately, if you consider them "unreasoning" - a lot of them are clever enough to outwit a good many humans!) There are other religions than "fundamentalist" Christianity, and other "holy" books, you know. FYI, even EDUCATED biblical scholars can't agree on the meaning of much of its contents, what makes YOU such an authority? This newsgroup (rec.pets.cats.anecdotes) has quite a few non-Christian members - Jews and Moslems and Budhists and Sikhs and Wiccans (and atheists, of course). One reason we all get along (most of the time) is that we don't try to force our personal religious beliefs on the others here. I suggest you follow that example. Religion is a very PERSONAL thing - no one has the right to impose his/her belief system on anyone else. (Particularly when you weren't invited to do so!) > >>Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> > > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > belief system on anyone else. (Particularly when you > weren't invited to do so!) And I am one of the christian members, who happens to believ that, as god wrote it, not us, who are we to tell anyone what we think god meant by such and such a verse, taken out of context to prove a point? and wouldn't god explain it to you, or do you need a whole committee of self-righteous scholars to tell you what they think it means?? > So? SFAIK, ALL living creatures die, "reasoning" or not. (And it's plain > to see you've never known any cats intimately, if you consider them > "unreasoning" - a lot of them are clever enough to outwit a good many > humans!) A gentle reminder folks, the thread is being crossposted, and we know what that leads to (g) a bit of trolling, methinks. How about ignoring the trolls & avoiding crossposting? :) Cheers, helen s >> So? SFAIK, ALL living creatures die, "reasoning" or not. (And it's plain >> to see you've never known any cats intimately, if you consider them [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Cheers, helen s I was thinking that myself, Helen. That's why I, like you, only sent my initial response to RPCA, and deleted the other newsgroups. That only leads to trouble. >> So? SFAIK, ALL living creatures die, "reasoning" or not. (And it's >> plain to see you've never known any cats intimately, if you consider [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Cheers, helen s Sorry, Helen - I simply see red when these ignorant, uneducated clods start parroting their unreasoned platitudes! > Sorry, Helen - I simply see red when these ignorant, uneducated clods > start parroting their unreasoned platitudes! No apology needed :) I think the idea of such posts is to induce the red rage to illicit responses! Cheers, helen s > There are other religions than "fundamentalist" > Christianity, and other "holy" books, you know. FYI, even [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > belief system on anyone else. (Particularly when you > weren't invited to do so!) I would gather that you have no belief in the reality of absolute truth? I know there are people who do indeed *impose* their beliefs on you or another. *However* confessing what one believes to be the truth in a public forum is not imposing that belief on anyone else. If people don't stick up for what they believe in then what's the point. If people can't look at the Bible, for example, and say that this or that is true then what's the point. Saying something publicly isn't always imposing it upon someone else. If we're going to be that hypersensitive about speech then we're getting dangerously close to throwing the 1st Amendment out the window. Just my humble opinion. > I would gather that you have no belief in the reality of absolute > truth? "Absolute truth" implies provable by repetition (i.e. the same circumstances infallibly produce the same results - also known as the "scientific method"). Since "belief" (by its very nature) is a subjective phenomenon, only the ignorant can confuse their personal "belief" with "absolute truth". I'm told there are still people who believe the world is flat - they claim that photographs from space proving the contrary were somehow "faked". Denying scientific FACT doesn't make it less so. Frail human scientists - like Galileo - can be tortured until they officially recant, but "eppur si muove". > I know there are people who do indeed *impose* their beliefs on you or > another. *However* confessing what one believes to be the truth in a > public forum is not imposing that belief on anyone else. It certainly is if no one ASKED for your opinion! (Or particularly cares, one way or the other.) > If people > don't stick up for what they believe in then what's the point. More and more wars labeled "holy crusades"? Depends upon how far you're prepared to go to "defend" your personal belief system. > If > people can't look at the Bible, for example, and say that this or that > is true then what's the point. "People" DO - ad nauseum! Does that mean every ignorant hick's "interpretation" is TRUE? Hardly! The fact is that "biblical" meaning is frequently ambiguous. Much of your bible (even a goodly portion of the New Testament) was handed down by "word of mouth" for generations before it was written down (with the concommitant possibility of "editing" to suit the teller's viewpoints and opinions). Even in our modern world, with open-minded, educated people seeking scientific proof, many biblical scholars (with the education to read the languages of its earliest written sources) often disagree about the "truth" of alleged facts and the actual time-frames involved - how much more about what it says (and what may have been left out)? > Saying something publicly isn't always > imposing it upon someone else. If you say "I believe that.....", it's not. If you say "the bible says such-and-such, therefore it is true, and no one should ever question it" is definitely imposing your views on others. > If we're going to be that > hypersensitive about speech then we're getting dangerously close to > throwing the 1st Amendment out the window. To argue for scientific proof of unsubstantiated allegations endangers the First Ammendment? The current tendency to return our nation to the dark ages of "that old-time religion" seems far more likely to do that! > Just my humble opinion. Funny, you sound pretty arrogant to me! (And certainly do not belong in rec.pets.cats.anecdotes - why don't you return to your own newsgroup and leave ours alone?) > > I would gather that you have no belief in the reality of absolute > > truth? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > scientists - like Galileo - can be tortured until they > officially recant, but "eppur si muove". No, absolute truth implies precisely what the words say. Truth that is absolute. By your means of reasoning then truth is the servant of science alone. And quite honestly, I'd be surprised if you're ready to admit that there is no truth outside of science. The Bible is the absolute truth. Say what you want, but facts are facts. Science is the servant of God and His Word. > > I know there are people who do indeed *impose* their beliefs on you or > > another. *However* confessing what one believes to be the truth in a > > public forum is not imposing that belief on anyone else. > > It certainly is if no one ASKED for your opinion! (Or > particularly cares, one way or the other.) If you post in a newsgroup, you're asking for everyone's opinion unless you state otherwise. > > If people > > don't stick up for what they believe in then what's the point. > > More and more wars labeled "holy crusades"? Depends upon > how far you're prepared to go to "defend" your personal > belief system. I don't vouch for holy wars or anyone who promotes violence in the name of religion. But that still doesn't answer the question, if people don't stand for what they believe in then what's the point of believing in anything? Our country was founded by people who stood up for what they believed in...freedom. And I'd have to say their sacrifices were worth it. > > If > > people can't look at the Bible, for example, and say that this or that [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > and the actual time-frames involved - how much more about > what it says (and what may have been left out)? The entire New Testament was down in writing before the last apostle died around 90AD. An official canon was not finalized till later but things were already written. So the term generations as you use it would be inaccurate. Furthermore, the whole of the New Testament was written by those who knew Christ in person, a very important fact to the witness of their truth. The primary teachings of Christ especially pertaining to salvation are clear as night and day. That which pertains to our life and death in Scripture is very clear. Thus an argument about the ambiguity of Scripture holds no weight or purpose. > > Saying something publicly isn't always > > imposing it upon someone else. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > should ever question it" is definitely imposing your views > on others. I would kindly disagree. Imposing such a view on you would be to do so by force. Stating a public truth is not imposing it upon you. > > If we're going to be that > > hypersensitive about speech then we're getting dangerously close to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > return our nation to the dark ages of "that old-time > religion" seems far more likely to do that! No, the hypersensitivity and intolerance of someone telling you they are right and you are wrong endangers the First Amendment. > The Bible is the absolute truth. Say what you want, but facts are > facts. Science is the servant of God and His Word. Your last claim may be true. Your first is not. Nobody has ever been able to prove to me that the bible is absolutely true. Many have tried, all have failed. For you to claim that it is, and to insist that others accept it as such based simply upon your statement is ludicrous. > The primary teachings of Christ especially pertaining to salvation are > clear as night and day. That which pertains to our life and death in > Scripture is very |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message