Cruelty to animals and Church leadership

[bigfootbob]

If Heaven is our eternal reward, perfection forever, how could an animal who can neither do good nor evil, be a consideraton for that reward? Do plants go there too?

And either way, why would anyone care, if they even grasped a fraction of what “paradise” meant?

In the face of God, why would you care if a cat was with you? I have three cats and a lab, but I want to spend eternity with God.

I am sure you would want your family to be in heaven and if so, your argument does not hold water.

His argument is valid. If indeed we love other humans in a deeper and more spiritual sense (as we should), than it is only logical for us to want them in heaven more than animals. It is perfectly okay to want animals there too though in my opinion. I just don’t think it’s likely. Read the text in red; it is an excellent argument. Heaven is our reward, and an animal that lacks the power to sin or do what is right (in a moral sense) logically either can’t be rewarded or can’t be rewarded as much.

 

[Jesusissacred]

I am a baptised Catholic, my good friend.

However, I am wary to take every single thing that the magisterium says for truth.

Perhaps in reality I am not Catholic simply because I hold the belief that every single man on earth(Yes, the Pope is a man!) can’t determine what is true and false when it comes to things to do with the divine. So even if the Church says that they don’t(even though this is not the case) I will take the position that I would like (for my animal to be in heaven) but I can accept that this may very well not be true.

They can hold an opinion ,yes, (which may very well be true) but this certainly can’t be held for complete truth.

 

[He_Man]

I am sure you would want your family to be in heaven and if so, your argument does not hold water.

What are you talking about? Your logic holds only so far as you equate your wife and dog. Just because you want one thing for one doesn’t mean you want it for the other.

1. Of course I do want my family in heaven, but the love I have for any pets I have had is not even in the same conversation as the love I have for my wife and daughter. To compare feelings you have for your pets with that of your child is borderline offensive.
2. I want them to be in Heaven because that is why they were put on Earth; to reach Heaven, and the alternatve is eternal damnation. Since I don’t believe animals go to @#!*% either, I am not worried about their souls like I am my famly’s.

3)Lastly, the desire I have for them to be in heaven is one I have here on Earth. I don’t presume to know what I’ll want when I am woshipping God for eternity. I don’t believe I’ll look around and be disappointed. To believe so to me disavows the infinite majesity and perfection of God’s presence.

At the end of the day, I am simply telling you how I view it. As long as myself and my family make it to Heaven, I am not worrying who else will be there.

 

[severus68]

His argument is valid. If indeed we love other humans in a deeper and more spiritual sense (as we should), than it is only logical for us to want them in heaven more than animals. It is perfectly okay to want animals there too though in my opinion. I just don’t think it’s likely. Read the text in red; it is an excellent argument. Heaven is our reward, and an animal that lacks the power to sin or do what is right (in a moral sense) logically either can’t be rewarded or can’t be rewarded as much.

Sorry, I do not accept his statement (in red). While animals cannot sin as they do not have free will, they do good, some even for humans.

 

[severus68]

What are you talking about? Your logic holds only so far as you equate your wife and dog. Just because you want one thing for one doesn’t mean you want it for the other.

1. Of course I do want my family in heaven, but the love I have for any pets I have had is not even in the same conversation as the love I have for my wife and daughter. To compare feelings you have for your pets with that of your child is borderline offensive.
2. I want them to be in Heaven because that is why they were put on Earth; to reach Heaven, and the alternatve is eternal damnation. Since I don’t believe animals go to @#!*% either, I am not worried about their souls like I am my famly’s.

3)Lastly, the desire I have for them to be in heaven is one I have here on Earth. I don’t presume to know what I’ll want when I am woshipping God for eternity. I don’t believe I’ll look around and be disappointed. To believe so to me disavows the infinite majesity and perfection of God’s presence.

At the end of the day, I am simply telling you how I view it. As long as myself and my family make it to Heaven, I am not worrying who else will be there.

I am not telling you how to feel or think so please give me the same courtesy. Why should you be offended by my views? They do not affect you.

 

[FaithBuild18]

Typical liberal logic to assume that if a person disapproves of or disagrees with an idea, he or she must be afraid of that idea.

 

[severus68]

Typical liberal logic to assume that if a person disapproves of or disagrees with an idea, he or she must be afraid of that idea.

If you are referring to me, please say so. I don’t bite.

 

[bigfootbob]

Sorry, I do not accept his statement (in red). While animals cannot sin as they do not have free will, they do good, some even for humans.

I feel like I’m beating a dead horse here (on a thread about animal abuse of all places)

If you will not accept what I consider plain and simple logic and theology, it is a waste of time for me to continue arguing. Also, it is very difficult for me to argue in the first place because you respond so vaguely to specific arguments. I don’t mean to offend you, but I sincerely try to respond to other people’s specific arguments, not avoid the hard questions, and admit when I am mistaken. I expect others to do the same.

Please don’t take this the wrong way, but I hope you will read this and think about it. I’m not just writing it because I’m mad at you (I’m not) or because I disagree with you. I enjoy arguing with people when they make a sincere attempt at being fair. I realize there are a lot of posts here to deal with and it can be hard to do.

 

[He_Man]

I am not telling you how to feel or think so please give me the same courtesy. Why should you be offended by my views? They do not affect you.

I don’t care what you believe per se, however I don’t care for the notion that you implied one must love their family the same way they love their pets. I simply do not. By the simple fact that if I had to choose to save one life in an emergency, my daughter and wife would always come first, which defies the notion that the love is equal. I find this odd, espeially since God didn’t take Adam’s rib and use it to create a dachsund.

Regardless, you are welcome to your beliefs either way.

 

[severus68]

I don’t care what you believe per se, however I don’t care for the notion that you implied one must love their family the same way they love their pets. I simply do not. By the simple fact that if I had to choose to save one life in an emergency, my daughter and wife would always come first, which defies the notion that the love is equal. I find this odd, espeially since God didn’t take Adam’s rib and use it to create a dachsund.

Regardless, you are welcome to your beliefs either way.

I have always stated that these are my views/beliefs. I have never tried to push those on anyone. So why would I have referred to your family? I was referring to your argument. I only care about my family and was not being personal.

Please do not put words into my mouth. That reference to a dachsund is silly and just proves the point about how angry some are that people can love their animals and want them in heaven.

Thank you but of course I am entitled to my beliefs.

 

[severus68]

I feel like I’m beating a dead horse here (on a thread about animal abuse of all places)

If you will not accept what I consider plain and simple logic and theology, it is a waste of time for me to continue arguing. Also, it is very difficult for me to argue in the first place because you respond so vaguely to specific arguments. I don’t mean to offend you, but I sincerely try to respond to other people’s specific arguments, not avoid the hard questions, and admit when I am mistaken. I expect others to do the same.

Please don’t take this the wrong way, but I hope you will read this and think about it. I’m not just writing it because I’m mad at you (I’m not) or because I disagree with you. I enjoy arguing with people when they make a sincere attempt at being fair. I realize there are a lot of posts here to deal with and it can be hard to do.

You have not been rude in your responses to me. However, I would say that you have expected or wanted me to agree with you. I am sure you are sincere and I too do not want to offend. I do not think I have been vague or avoided the “hard” questions. I just do not think I am entitled to insist that people agree with me. I am not arrogant enough to insist people accept what I say and expect them to admit to being mistaken.

This issue has been left open by the Church. So while you are entitled to your views, so am I. I believe I will see my pets in heaven. Let’s leave it at that. Thank you.

 

[JaneGrey]

I agree, but not the same kind of love as humans. Love is a choice of our free will. In my opinion, the love that animals show is instinctive. If you treat an animal well, it will love you, and that’s the awesome thing about them. Yes, you hear stories about animals doing great things to save humans or what have you, but I don’t think it is the same kind of deep spiritual love that we experience as humans.

You can love money too much. Of course animals merit more love than an inanimate object, but they do NOT merit the love that we show other humans, **and when I see people that love their pet in the same manner they would a human person, I consider it sinful.
**

Agreed. I accidentally wrote that God needs us without thinking… whoops

Bolding mine. I ll tackle this since I think it still is kind of on topic with the OP. I think that people who truly treat their pets in a disordered manner, with the appearance of 'loving them too much" in fact do not really love, or know how to love their pets at all. Similar to a parent who spoils their child too much (yes, i did just compare pets to children). A further, more relevant example - someone who ‘cant bear’ to every say no to their dog, so they let them disbehave around all kinds of people, and eat all kinds of food, which dogs are unable to eat. I call this weakness, not love.

The problem in this thread is that there has been an assumption that the few of us who argued for the likelihood or whatever of animals being in heaven, love animals more than humans, without there being any basis for it.

 

[He_Man]

I have always stated that these are my views/beliefs. I have never tried to push those on anyone. So why would I have referred to your family? I was referring to your argument. I only care about my family and was not being personal.

Please do not put words into my mouth. That reference to a dachsund is silly and just proves the point about how angry some are that people can love their animals and want them in heaven.

Thank you but of course I am entitled to my beliefs.

Please, I’m not angry at all. I’ll type slower for you.

*YOU are the one who brought up wanting my family in heaven as a suggestion as to why I’d want my dog in Heaven.
*
You can want whomever you want to be there with you. I honestly don’t care.

But don’t get pouty over me referencing a dachshund when you are the one who made the leap from my desire for my family to my desire for my dog.

I am glad you believe what you do, honestly. Enjoy that belief. Just don’t get mad if someone else believes differently. It doesn’t impact either one of us one bit.

 

[severus68]

Please, I’m not angry at all. I’ll type slower for you.

*YOU are the one who brought up wanting my family in heaven as a suggestion as to why I’d want my dog in Heaven.
*
You can want whomever you want to be there with you. I honestly don’t care.

But don’t get pouty over me referencing a dachshund when you are the one who made the leap from my desire for my family to my desire for my dog.

I am glad you believe what you do, honestly. Enjoy that belief. Just don’t get mad if someone else believes differently. It doesn’t impact either one of us one bit.

Are you trying to be sarcastic? Lost on me, I am afraid, lol.

Let’s get something clear. You posted to the effect that we should not want anything in heaven but to be with God. I asked about your wanting your family. I was refuting your argument/theory that we will not want/need anything else in heaven. It was not about your family personally, I was not likening your love for your family to your liking for your dogs or anything like that.

It would seem you are the one who is getting mad with those who do not believe as you do. I was giving my views, you were attacking them. So I would think you have got it the other way around.

 

[Lochias]

I find it kinda funny to see the bluster and blow that comes from folks who bust a rib out at the thought that silly, unimportant little animals might actually make it to Heaven.

“Not even a Sparrow falls.”

Sorry folks, but if you think for a second that there’s no way an animal could be brought into Heaven for the enjoyment of its Creator, you’re just deluding yourselves. God saw that they were all Good, which is apparently more than you can see…big surprise. The story of Noah’s Ark further delineates the tenderness that God shows towards ALL of His Creation.

I also think it kinda funny that these same folks, these stern, wise and sage folks, firmly rooted in the comforting roots of cold, hard Reality, embrace for a Fact what has never been declared as Fact at all. We acknowledge that God isn’t bound by the Sacraments that He gave us…how much more ludicrous is it to think that He is bound by the ponderings of men?

All of you who are calling those of us who believe we’ll see our furry friends again because, just because, it might please GOD to do so: Shame, all the shame in the world, heaped upon your head like the burning-est of coals.

Signing off.

 

[severus68]

I find it kinda funny to see the bluster and blow that comes from folks who bust a rib out at the thought that silly, unimportant little animals might actually make it to Heaven.

“Not even a Sparrow falls.”

Sorry folks, but if you think for a second that there’s no way an animal could be brought into Heaven for the enjoyment of its Creator, you’re just deluding yourselves. God saw that they were all Good, which is apparently more than you can see…big surprise. The story of Noah’s Ark further delineates the tenderness that God shows towards ALL of His Creation.

I also think it kinda funny that these same folks, these stern, wise and sage folks, firmly rooted in the comforting roots of cold, hard Reality, embrace for a Fact what has never been declared as Fact at all. We acknowledge that God isn’t bound by the Sacraments that He gave us…how much more ludicrous is it to think that He is bound by the ponderings of men?

All of you who are calling those of us who believe we’ll see our furry friends again because, just because, it might please GOD to do so: Shame, all the shame in the world, heaped upon your head like the burning-est of coals.

Signing off.