The "Rainbow Bridge" for deceased pets

  • Thread starter Thread starter JanR
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
adamhovey1988 said:
Christ died for man, not for dog. (And yes, I am aware this is an unpopular opinion). I was really sad when my dog died, but this was not something I believed before and I still don’t.The Fidoist Heresy
Click to expand...
The conclusion to that article is what sums it up for me after the theology is said and done.

After the Resurrection we will have bodies and will be fully human. Heaven will be a place perfectly suited to full human happiness, according to both body and soul. Now, we begin with the incontrovertible principle that God’s presence alone is eternally sufficient to satisfy every human longing, but there’s no reason to think that God could not also populate heaven with supererogatory delights—including physical things like food, music, and animals—that in some mysterious way will not compete with the Beatific Vision (they would lose) but join in it.

The Communion of Saints suggests that heaven will be a social place, that God’s face-to-face presence will not automatically make us tune out all else. If the heavenly host can commune with one another, perhaps they may also rub Fido’s belly or scratch Mittens behind the ears.
 
Last edited:
I’m afraid I find parts of your statements self-contradictory.

You first say: To me it seems that if God creates something He means to create it for good and has no intention of destroying His creation.

You follow with: I find it hard to believe that God created all these magnificently unique and special creatures that interact with each other in such beautiful ways just to say it was all for this temporary period.

But then you contradict that by saying: I think its possible that animals/nature will exist in the next life, its just that your specific dog/cat named “scruffy” might not exist in the next life if that makes sense …

I’m afraid it doesn’t make sense, in view of your previous statements.
 
I’m presenting the point of view that says it won’t exist…notice i said I find it hard to believe before that statement…meaning i think like i said previously that animals will be in heaven

i edited it…hopefully it makes sense…i wasn’t contradicting myself lol im not insane
 
Last edited:
I don’t know where Haydock gets his definition of the word, “preserve”. To preserve means to save. Furthermore, that Psalm verse reads “Men and beasts thou wilt preserve”. It doesn’t say that only men will be preserved, it says men AND beasts.

Different folks may interpret it in different ways, but that language is pretty clear, to me.
 
Sorry – still confusing and contradictory.

First you seem to be affirming that animals will be in heaven, then you seem to be making an exception by saying “its just that your specific dog/cat named ‘Scruffy’ might not exist in the next life …”

Evidently, you believe that not all animals will be in heaven?

I’m just trying to get you to see that your wording conveys two completely opposite thoughts that contradict each other.
 
No if you are assuming that your pet “scruffy” will be in heaven, what I am saying is this:

Overall, I do not believe God creates beings temporarily. Similar to humanity which will continue to exist eternally, animals in general will continue to exist eternally in my opinion.

HOWEVER, Humans have rational souls that have to be preserved (because every human is unique). Animals have souls, it’s just that they aren’t rational souls. I make this clarification because our choice of free will enables us to partake in the divine life later on if we choose good. God raises our bodies at the end of time. But animals are not given this privilege because they do not choose good and evil and do not in my opinion warrant an “raising of the dead for animals event.” (I don’t see the need to preserve the specific pet you had on earth)

So in short I think God will have animals in Heaven, its just that there doesn’t seem to be a reason for raising a specific pet named “scruffy”. But I could be wrong, it is perfectly within God’s power to have scruffy there, or not at all, that’s up to Him.
 
JanR said:
I don’t know where Haydock gets his definition of the word, “preserve”. To preserve means to save. Furthermore, that Psalm verse reads “Men and beasts thou wilt preserve”. It doesn’t say that only men will be preserved, it says men AND beasts.

Different folks may interpret it in different ways, but that language is pretty clear, to me.
Click to expand...
Latin salvabis as given. It is second-person singular future active indicative of salvo: make safe or healthy.
 
Okay, I think you’re saying that animals won’t have their bodies reunited with their souls at the final resurrection, but that their spirits will continue to exist eternally because God doesn’t create beings temporarily.

So, is it your belief that animals, since they can’t partake of the divine life as we can, might still enjoy complete natural happiness in the hereafter? And that we might still be able to enjoy them, because in the end, the natural and supernatural will be united as one seamless realm, but only humans shall have glorified physical bodies?

I think that’s what you’re trying to communicate. Do I understand you correctly?
 
I’m saying there will be dogs, cats, giraffes, whatever God created those kinds of animals in my opinion will still be around. But as much as it hurts to say I don’t believe my dog “Lula” will be around in Heaven. There may be dogs like her, but I don’t think that specific dog will be there if that makes sense.
 
Inbonum said:
It seems like you cannot accept different opinion than yours.
Click to expand...
I’m trying to understand what she’s really saying. The way she has expressed it isn’t entirely clear. it’s confusing and contradictory.

I can accept other people’s opinions, but first I need to understand them.
 
God knows our hearts … and He knows our love of our animals … He wants us to be happy in Heaven … I’m sure He knows that for many of us that means we need to be reunited with our animals … God will provide for our happiness.
 
Yes, that is so. And also, whatever God’s will is for our pets, for wildlife, for any animal, it can only be for the good. I could accept that, whatever it is.

I just get frustrated with circular talk.
 
Personally, I think there is something deeply eternal about animals and their souls. I’d point to Isaiah 11:6 - 11:9. I’m a cat fan personally. My thoughts can be summed up with the following quote.
“Until one has loved an animal, a part of one’s soul remains unawakened.” —Anatole France.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top