What scriptures say animals won't go to heaven?

[Salvatore123]

ti8er,

You said:

“btw, can you please give supporting biblical evidence for your points:
2. Only humans have an immortal soul.
3. When all non-human life dies, their souls die with them.”

The Bible does not, per se, speak about what happens to the souls of non-humans.

But when one reads the entire NT in context, we soon realize that Christ came down from heaven to redeem MANKIND. THAT IS stated in the Bible - in more than one place.

Before Christ’s redemptive death, heaven was closed. Period. That is “Catholic Theology 101”.

After Christ’s death, heaven was re-opened, but to enter, man had to participate in his salvation and work at it “with fear and trembling”.

EVERYTHING discussed in the NT regarding redemption/salvation is obviously aimed at mankind. How do we know that? Because non-humans cannot read or understand language (excluding the primitive sign language taught to a few primates).

From a “common sense” view, do you really think that God would have sent his Son to suffer such a horrible death to save plants and animals?

Consider what you said/alluded to in your post: plants and animals don’t need “saving” because they don’t have the power to think like humans, and thus are unable to sin and be subject to the price for sinning.

Well, carry your thought a bit further: if plants and animals don’t need saving, why are people so insistent that they enter heaven?

And to go even FURTHER, what is the point of Christ establishing the Catholic Church and creating, through his vicars on Earth, the Deposit of Faith, for those things in creation that gain absolutely no benefit from the Church’s existence?

Has the Catholic Church ever taught definitively that animals and plants do not enter heaven? No. Has it ever taught that they did? No.

When man’s goal is to see God in the face (the beatific vision), what difference should it make to a man’s soul if his pet cockatoo is in heaven with him? Don’t you see that worry over the fate of a pet actually denigrates our ultimate reward?

I, personally, find it abhorrent that people think that heaven would somehow be “less” if their pets are not reunited with them.

And just how far are we going to go? Most speak of cats and dogs because they are, by far, the most “cuddly” of pets that man becomes attached to. But what about other pets people have? Do people REALLY want to fret over whether the following “pets” will be reunited with them in heaven: pot-bellied pigs, tarantulas, salamanders, guppies, boaconstrictors, etc.???

Heaven isn’t a farm - it is a place where men’s souls finally meet God. I just don’t see Heaven as a place where there are distractions from that gift/reward.

 

[ti8er]

ti8er,

You said:

“btw, can you please give supporting biblical evidence for your points:
2. Only humans have an immortal soul.
3. When all non-human life dies, their souls die with them.”

The Bible does not, per se, speak about what happens to the souls of non-humans.

But when one reads the entire NT in context, we soon realize that Christ came down from heaven to redeem MANKIND. THAT IS stated in the Bible - in more than one place.

Before Christ’s redemptive death, heaven was closed. Period. That is “Catholic Theology 101”.

After Christ’s death, heaven was re-opened, but to enter, man had to participate in his salvation and work at it “with fear and trembling”.

EVERYTHING discussed in the NT regarding redemption/salvation is obviously aimed at mankind. How do we know that? Because non-humans cannot read or understand language (excluding the primitive sign language taught to a few primates).

From a “common sense” view, do you really think that God would have sent his Son to suffer such a horrible death to save plants and animals?

Consider what you said/alluded to in your post: plants and animals don’t need “saving” because they don’t have the power to think like humans, and thus are unable to sin and be subject to the price for sinning.

Well, carry your thought a bit further: if plants and animals don’t need saving, why are people so insistent that they enter heaven?

And to go even FURTHER, what is the point of Christ establishing the Catholic Church and creating, through his vicars on Earth, the Deposit of Faith, for those things in creation that gain absolutely no benefit from the Church’s existence?

Has the Catholic Church ever taught definitively that animals and plants do not enter heaven? No. Has it ever taught that they did? No.

When man’s goal is to see God in the face (the beatific vision), what difference should it make to a man’s soul if his pet cockatoo is in heaven with him? Don’t you see that worry over the fate of a pet actually denigrates our ultimate reward?

I, personally, find it abhorrent that people think that heaven would somehow be “less” if their pets are not reunited with them.

And just how far are we going to go? Most speak of cats and dogs because they are, by far, the most “cuddly” of pets that man becomes attached to. But what about other pets people have? Do people REALLY want to fret over whether the following “pets” will be reunited with them in heaven: pot-bellied pigs, tarantulas, salamanders, guppies, boaconstrictors, etc.???

Heaven isn’t a farm - it is a place where men’s souls finally meet God. I just don’t see Heaven as a place where there are distractions from that gift/reward.

---

“But when one reads the entire NT in context, we soon realize that Christ came down from heaven to redeem MANKIND. THAT IS stated in the Bible - in more than one place.”

---

Exactly. christ was for mankind and mankind only…however, that was because mankind NEEDED to be redeemed and saved due to sin. Animals dont…since they never sinned…so we dont really know what happens to the souls of animals…and God didnt reveal this to man either…

---

"From a “common sense” view, do you really think that God would have sent his Son to suffer such a horrible death to save plants and animals?***

No christ’s death was for humans not animals. animals dont need saving. they dont have sin. sin is to be separate to god…and since animals dont sin, that leads to the conclusion that they must have some kind of connection with God, a connection that man is not aware of nor has it been revealed to man…one of God’s undisclosed secrets imo

**
*Consider what you said/alluded to in your post: plants and animals don’t need “saving” because they don’t have the power to think like humans, and thus are unable to sin and be subject to the price for sinning.

Well, carry your thought a bit further: if plants and animals don’t need saving, why are people so insistent that they enter heaven?"***

im not insistent that they enter heaven…i said their souls must go somewhere but no one knows where cause God didnt say specifically…

---

““Before Christ’s redemptive death, heaven was closed. Period. That is “Catholic Theology 101”.””***

but where in the bible does it say that “heaven was closed”???

since u mention “catholic theology”, i like to add that catholicism acknowledges animals way more than the other denominations. the catholics even have animal liturgies, check out St. Francis of Assisi…

*** what difference should it make to a man’s soul if his pet cockatoo is in heaven with him? Don’t you see that worry over the fate of a pet actually denigrates our ultimate reward?* **

no one’s worrying…i never said i was “worried”…i simply find the topic of animals and theology interesting…

at the end of the day, animals are still God’s creation and man must respect that…animals have come from the mind of God, and to say that the presence of animals in heaven is a “denigration” is somewhat insulting to God dont u think?
have u ever wondered maybe God likes animals?? and even enjoys their existence? have u thought of that?..but it’s not ur decision…its Gods decision at the end of the day…

maybe that “pet cockatoo” wasnt made for man but for God. maybe that “pet cockatoo” is somehow still valued and loved by God in ways that man is not aware of?? maybe the owner of this “pet” isnt truly the real owner…maybe the real “owner” of the pet is God? the bible says everything belongs to God…so that includes animals? they have a soul that belongs to God. and its my guess that it returns back to God…

---

Heaven isn’t a farm - it is a place where men’s souls finally meet God. I just don’t see Heaven as a place where there are distractions from that gift/reward.***

but we dont know what heaven will be like…the bible says the human mind cannot conceive how great heaven will be…how do u know that the presence of animals in heaven will make it like “a farm”? it might be really interesting with animals…

 

[Della]

The closest the NT comes to telling us about the fate of plants and animals, i. e. the natural world is this from Romans and 2 Peter:

Rom.8[19] For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God; [20] for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope; [21] because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God. [22] We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now; [23] and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.

2Pt. 3 3.[10] But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and the works that are upon it will be burned up. [13] But according to his promise we wait for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

God has a plan for the natural universe that apparently includes plant and animal life in a new order of creation brought about by Christ’s redemption. So, God does care about all his creation. In Genesis, after each phase of creation, God declared that it was “good”. Nothing good is ever destroyed. Physics tells us that enegry is never lost, merely transferred/transformed into different things–it seems to be God’s way of recycling.

Certainly the love we gave our pets and the comfort and companionship they gave us will not be lost. We simply cannot know what God has in mind for them because Christ did not reveal that specifically to us. But we can be assured that God understands our attachments–those that are healthy and for our good. He put the creatures on earth for us to care for, learn from, support us. He made them living creatures not inanimate without feelings. Many have the ability to communicate in rudimentary ways (at least rudimentary to us). I have to believe he has some good in mind for all he made and that nothing will go to waste in the new kingdom.

 

[Salvatore123]

Della,

From an “english language” view, the quote from Romans is directed toward people.

“Rom.8[19] For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God; [20] for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope; [21] because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God. [22] We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now; [23] and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.”

1. Plants, animals, and insects do not “long” nor do they have “hope” - those are human emotions.
2. Plants, animals, and insects do not “groan in travail” - people do.
3. Finally, the whole purpose of those bible verses speaks to Christ’s redemptive death - Christ did not redeem plants, animals, and insects.

Again, I am not saying that such things are NOT in heaven - I still, however, maintain that (A) no one knows for sure, (B) the Catholic Church has never definitively taught on the subject, and (C) Catholic theology, especially that of St. Thomas Aquinas, teaches that only humans have immortal souls.

“Immortal”, by definition, means “surviving bodily/material death” while the soul lives on.

 

[Della]

Della,

From an “english language” view, the quote from Romans is directed toward people.

“Rom.8[19] For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God; [20] for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope; [21] because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God. [22] We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now; [23] and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.”

1. Plants, animals, and insects do not “long” nor do they have “hope” - those are human emotions.
2. Plants, animals, and insects do not “groan in travail” - people do.
3. Finally, the whole purpose of those bible verses speaks to Christ’s redemptive death - Christ did not redeem plants, animals, and insects.

Again, I am not saying that such things are NOT in heaven - I still, however, maintain that (A) no one knows for sure, (B) the Catholic Church has never definitively taught on the subject, and (C) Catholic theology, especially that of St. Thomas Aquinas, teaches that only humans have immortal souls.

“Immortal”, by definition, means “surviving bodily/material death” while the soul lives on.

I agree. I’m only saying what you have said that since we cannot know just what God has in mind for the new creation, we cannot say anything about the fate of animals. They are innocents, morally speaking, since they are not made in the image of God and so have no ability to decide to obey or disobey him, as we do. The Scriptures are concerned about the eternal fate of humuns and humanity not plants and animals.

It does seem, though that if God is going to create a new heavens and a new earth that it will be populated (if that’s the right word) with creatures. What kind they will be we cannot know, but the Bible speaks of fruit trees and rivers and animals being present in God’s kingdom to come, as seen by St. John and others. It’s natural to assume they weren’t seeing mere symbols but real creatures/plants, etc.

As I wrote, nothing in God’s creation is wasted. He created everything in love for Christ and us who are in Christ. I’m sure he knows what will give us happiness in the new kingdom and what our place will be in it. We are physical creatures who will be raised with physical bodies, so there must be some delights for that part of our being as well as our souls and spirits, and animals are one of the delights God has given us here, and may be one he will give us then, as well. We’ll see.

 

[Salvatore123]

Della,

I suppose that was “drives” me to the “no animals in heaven” position is that being able to see God in the face would be both so humbling and magnificent, I cannot even imagine having ANY desire to want to do ANYTHING that takes one away from that gaze.

It is really that simple for me

Based purely on my “heated” debate last year in another thread, and in reading the posts in this thread, I find that humans tend to anthropomorphize EVERYTHING, including their surroundings in the afterlife, as though we need to be catered to in order to feed our human wants and needs. I have always viewed the state of my soul in heaven (if I make it) as not having any wants or needs - that is one of the “ideals” of heaven: the absence of want/need and the overwhelming feeling of love in its purest sense.

For me, I would NEVER want to be “distracted” from such a thing.

P.S. - And THIS is what I mean by “distraction”: if we are worried if we will be reunited with our departed pets, won’t we be worried about such things as: what about our favorite uncle - did he make it and why not if he didn’t? what about the person I was really mean to who I did not have a chance to say I was sorry - do we “search” for that person to try to make amends?

You see? Once we start “concerning” ourselves about the composition of heaven, that, to me, opens a virtual Pandora’s box of “things” we might want to seek/do/rectify - all of which would turn us away from God.

 

[Della]

Della,

I suppose that was “drives” me to the “no animals in heaven” position is that being able to see God in the face would be both so humbling and magnificent, I cannot even imagine having ANY desire to want to do ANYTHING that takes one away from that gaze.

It is really that simple for me

Based purely on my “heated” debate last year in another thread, and in reading the posts in this thread, I find that humans tend to anthropomorphize EVERYTHING, including their surroundings in the afterlife, as though we need to be catered to in order to feed our human wants and needs. I have always viewed the state of my soul in heaven (if I make it) as not having any wants or needs - that is one of the “ideals” of heaven: the absence of want/need and the overwhelming feeling of love in its purest sense.

For me, I would NEVER want to be “distracted” from such a thing.

P.S. - And THIS is what I mean by “distraction”: if we are worried if we will be reunited with our departed pets, won’t we be worried about such things as: what about our favorite uncle - did he make it and why not if he didn’t? what about the person I was really mean to who I did not have a chance to say I was sorry - do we “search” for that person to try to make amends?

You see? Once we start “concerning” ourselves about the composition of heaven, that, to me, opens a virtual Pandora’s box of “things” we might want to seek/do/rectify - all of which would turn us away from God.

I understand what you are saying here. I rather think that in heaven nothing would be able to distract us, so worrying about dead pets would be a moot point.

It’s just that people attach affections to their pets as they do to other people, like a favorite uncle, and can’t imagine that God would be so cruel as to not include them in eternal bliss.

Total detachment is a heroic virtue that most of us will not attain in this life. It’s one reason most of us will experience purgatory, to rid ourselves of all attachments that take our focus from God.

I’d think that plants and animals in a new kingdom would be enhancements to our worship of God, if they’ll be there, because we will have attained to perfect detachment so that nothing could detract us from the worship of God. It just seems to me that God loves beauty and I can’t imagine a sterile heaven anymore than a sterile earth.

As an example, I abhor modern brick and beam churches bare of all statues, pictures, stained glass windows that were built with the odd idea that such things distract from worshiping God when they do just the opposite. People’s claims to feeling closer to God in the woods or on a mountain are a cliche precisely because such places are beautiful. Man does not live by bread alone, although the beauty of Christ, when we are with him in our risen state, will be all the beauty we will need.

 

[504Katrin]

Thank you all for the postings! It was great to get your feedbacks.

Yes, it is true, i am almost Catholic, but my creationist view is accepted within the Catholic tradition. Some recent Catholic converts are creationists and their powerful stories are found here: kolbecenter.org/

I like www.answersingenesis.org even though it is protestant. Both the Kolbe center and AIG have MD and Doctors who do extensive scientific research in creationism.

St. Kolbe (a scientist), amongst many church fathers and leaders throughout the centuries hold to a creationist view. I am sure there are slight variations in the creationist views. But, i am not ashamed of, nor will i ever be, of my creationist views. I believe that God has revealed these truths to me, just as he gives faith, by grace, to all who choose Him.

I am not a sola scriptura person, not sure that i was ever, but was confused for many years. I love the Catholic moral teachings and most everything that the Catholic church stands for, but still have some questions…

I don’t think it can be understood through reason that plants have souls, especially since scriptures never says so. Soul means to be living as is described to humans (Genesis 2:7) and animals (Genesis 1:20–25).

WHERE in the scriptures does it say that plants have souls?

How does one reason the animal soul is “immaterial”? Do we deduce this just because animals do not have memory, intellect, and a will as man? Just because they aren’t saved, doesn’t mean God won’t put them in heaven. I need more study on this!

I guess we’ll see in heaven if animals are there and trust that the Catholic Church doesn’t comment for reason that She doesn’t know for sure AS SOMEONE SUGGESTED IN THE OTHER THREAD. I would like to see the “The wolf will live with the lamb…”(Isaiah 11:6-9) … perhaps, we can play with the DINOSAURS in Heaven : )

I would like to see that, too

 

[steve53]

Just an observation:

If animals go to heaven, then shouldn’t we all be vegetarians?
I mean, imagine being in heaven next to a cow that you ate. Would it look at you funny? Would there be an uncomfortable silence?

 

[Rhuarc]

If heaven is total bliss then would it not make it even more bliss for us to dwell with our previous pets as well? I have grown attached to numerous dogs over my years I would be heart broken if it turns out they just fade out of existence. I look in their eyes and I can tell they have genuine love for me and everyone they come across.

 

[Evan]

If heaven is total bliss then would it not make it even more bliss for us to dwell with our previous pets as well? I have grown attached to numerous dogs over my years I would be heart broken if it turns out they just fade out of existence. I look in their eyes and I can tell they have genuine love for me and everyone they come across.

They won’t add one iota of bliss to that you would experience via the Beatific Vision. You will be totally happy. Totally leaves no room for more. God is infinite, we are finite. He can give us all we can accept, no more.

 

[Salvatore123]

Della mentioned something when referring to my “favorite uncle” example that I had not thought of:

If we look in heaven for things on earth that gave us great pleasure, what would our souls experience if it turned out that our “favorite uncle” did not make it to heaven because he had mortally sinned, completely unbeknownst to us?

And it does not have to be limited to the “favorite uncle”. What about a father or mother that we were never really close to, but who we wished we would reconcile with one day before it was too late on earth - what if that person did not make it - would we then feel sadness?

Although none of these examples proves “animals do/do not go to heaven”, I think it IS telling in one respect: as Evan pointed out (he beat me to it ), if one is TOTALLY happy, then by definition, one cannot add more happiness - to have room for more means that it is not yet “total” or “complete”.

I don’t mean to be graphic or go astray from the topic too much, but consider sex. The feelings that we experience when we “love” someone to whom we are married is one of the best feelings in the world and something I have ALWAYS considered a gift from God. Now, I seriously doubt that people will be having sex in heaven. How does one reconcile one of the best feelings one can experience while a human - a definite gift from God - being absent in heaven and yet feeling sad if our pets are absent as well?

Just a thought . . .

 

[ti8er]

Della mentioned something when referring to my “favorite uncle” example that I had not thought of:

If we look in heaven for things on earth that gave us great pleasure, what would our souls experience if it turned out that our “favorite uncle” did not make it to heaven because he had mortally sinned, completely unbeknownst to us?

And it does not have to be limited to the “favorite uncle”. What about a father or mother that we were never really close to, but who we wished we would reconcile with one day before it was too late on earth - what if that person did not make it - would we then feel sadness?

Although none of these examples proves “animals do/do not go to heaven”, I think it IS telling in one respect: as Evan pointed out (he beat me to it ), if one is TOTALLY happy, then by definition, one cannot add more happiness - to have room for more means that it is not yet “total” or “complete”.

I don’t mean to be graphic or go astray from the topic too much, but consider sex. The feelings that we experience when we “love” someone to whom we are married is one of the best feelings in the world and something I have ALWAYS considered a gift from God. Now, I seriously doubt that people will be having sex in heaven. How does one reconcile one of the best feelings one can experience while a human - a definite gift from God - being absent in heaven and yet feeling sad if our pets are absent as well?

Just a thought . . .

i think ur missing the point…the reason why some ppl choose to be believe animals are in heaven has nothing to do with humans…has nothing to do with “pets” giving joy to humans or because a human will feel more “happier” in heaven if pets were there…it has NOTHING to do with humans…

u say that ppl “humans tend to anthropomorphize” everything, however, do u realize that the theological basis for your argument is also very human centered?

maybe animals are in heaven because GOD WANTS THEM? nothing to do with humans there…

obviously a wild animal that has never seen a human being like for e.g. a blue whale may have NO VALUE emotionally to a human…but God may still care for that living being and that living being may go back to God after death, since the bible is silent on whether or not animals have an afterlife.

in my honest opinion, based on the character of God in the bible, i DOUBT that God would design life, give it a “living soul” and then it just ends upon death…life is the opposite of death. life is eternal…it doesnt just “end” unless one CHOOSES to be separate to God through sin, which animals are not capable of doing

 

[Salvatore123]

ti8er,

I never said or implied that even God might not WANT them in heaven.

I have always addressed heaven as a “man-centered proposition” because that is why God made man: to share his love with man. Remember: WE are made in God’s image - having a supernatural soul.

Plants and animals don’t have that. When we start “assigning” “wants” or “needs” to God, we bring God down to man’s level, and that is not only wrong, but dangerous.

God does not need to look at a whale or a sunset or an ocean or a waterfall to appreciate beauty because everything derives from God to begin with. Obviously, God KNOWS creation is beautiful - he imagined (for lack of a better word) it before he created it.

People say that “There is no way that God could keep my pet from me in heaven because that would be cruel”.

Is God cruel because he allows animals and trees to die in forest fires that are NOT set by man, but are caused by nature itself (such as a lightning strike)? THAT is a perfect example of nature “running its course” where plants and animals “suffer” because of NOTHING having been contributed to the situation by man.

I cannot add anything more than what I said regarding the question from a theological standpoint: theologians have ALWAYS taught that:

1. Man was separate from all other life in that he was made in the image of God (meaning, he had a supernatural soul).
2. When man died, his soul lived on.
3. Plants and animals also have souls, but those souls die when their bodies die, because they have mortal souls.

I do NOT “limit” God by saying that animals do not go to heaven. On the contrary, I have always said that God may choose to do whatever he pleases - but when one opens the “box” of “all animals go to heaven”, you notice right away that people start “wanting” the cute, beautiful, and cuddly creates to be in heaven - not those that might repulse.

Black widow spiders? Saipan snakes? Great white sharks? Large centipedes? Pigs (which God’s own chosen people consider to be unclean)?

At the risk of “sounding like God” (which I would NEVER presume to do), doesn’t anyone else find it odd that God - based on the feeling of love that everyone seems to be using as a reason for animals and plants being in heaven - would permit the things he loves to be destroyed by man, often by horrendous means, and yet not consider it is a sin in doing so?

What about St. Joseph who chopped down a tree to build furniture - did he sin by destroying one of God’s beautiful trees and what happens to that tree he destroyed? What about the mammoths who lived long ago - a very majestic creature - that ancient man had to kill in a most horrible way - numerous spears puncturing the animal until he bled to death - so that man could eat? Did those ancient people sin by the savagery of their kill? When I kill a roach crawling in my cabinet, do I sin by killing it instead of catchng and release it into the wild? The Buddhists think so, as they try to assiduously avoid killing anything that appears to be alive, including insects. Should Catholics act like Buddhists?

I have ALWAYS been taught by the Catholic Church that God created man so that God could love man and we could love God.

I NEVER heard that “love” applied to anything else.

I will end my participation by saying that God can obviously do whatever He wants to do. But theologically, learned Catholics MUCH smarter than me have taken positions that only men have supernatural souls.

P.S. - people ALWAYS resort to the “everything God created is good, so there is no way that God would permit what is good to be destroyed” argument.

Well, ALL humans were good when born, but that does not prevent them from choosing to turn away from God and enter Hell. What say those who claim that God “saves” all things that are good, when once-good people become bad and lose salvation?

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Salvatore 123: Does anything exist in the New Jerusalem other than man and God?

 

[Salvatore123]

I have no idea, nor do I care.

If I am able to one day to see God in the face, I could care less about anything else . . .

Call me selfish, but in that regard, I think being selfish is a good virtue.

 

[ti8er]

ti8er,

I never said or implied that even God might not WANT them in heaven.

I have always addressed heaven as a “man-centered proposition” because that is why God made man: to share his love with man. Remember: WE are made in God’s image - having a supernatural soul.

Plants and animals don’t have that. When we start “assigning” “wants” or “needs” to God, we bring God down to man’s level, and that is not only wrong, but dangerous.

God does not need to look at a whale or a sunset or an ocean or a waterfall to appreciate beauty because everything derives from God to begin with. Obviously, God KNOWS creation is beautiful - he imagined (for lack of a better word) it before he created it.

People say that “There is no way that God could keep my pet from me in heaven because that would be cruel”.

Is God cruel because he allows animals and trees to die in forest fires that are NOT set by man, but are caused by nature itself (such as a lightning strike)? THAT is a perfect example of nature “running its course” where plants and animals “suffer” because of NOTHING having been contributed to the situation by man.

I cannot add anything more than what I said regarding the question from a theological standpoint: theologians have ALWAYS taught that:

1. Man was separate from all other life in that he was made in the image of God (meaning, he had a supernatural soul).
2. When man died, his soul lived on.
3. Plants and animals also have souls, but those souls die when their bodies die, because they have mortal souls.

I do NOT “limit” God by saying that animals do not go to heaven. On the contrary, I have always said that God may choose to do whatever he pleases - but when one opens the “box” of “all animals go to heaven”, you notice right away that people start “wanting” the cute, beautiful, and cuddly creates to be in heaven - not those that might repulse.

Black widow spiders? Saipan snakes? Great white sharks? Large centipedes? Pigs (which God’s own chosen people consider to be unclean)?

At the risk of “sounding like God” (which I would NEVER presume to do), doesn’t anyone else find it odd that God - based on the feeling of love that everyone seems to be using as a reason for animals and plants being in heaven - would permit the things he loves to be destroyed by man, often by horrendous means, and yet not consider it is a sin in doing so?

What about St. Joseph who chopped down a tree to build furniture - did he sin by destroying one of God’s beautiful trees and what happens to that tree he destroyed? What about the mammoths who lived long ago - a very majestic creature - that ancient man had to kill in a most horrible way - numerous spears puncturing the animal until he bled to death - so that man could eat? Did those ancient people sin by the savagery of their kill? When I kill a roach crawling in my cabinet, do I sin by killing it instead of catchng and release it into the wild? The Buddhists think so, as they try to assiduously avoid killing anything that appears to be alive, including insects. Should Catholics act like Buddhists?

I have ALWAYS been taught by the Catholic Church that God created man so that God could love man and we could love God.

I NEVER heard that “love” applied to anything else.

I will end my participation by saying that God can obviously do whatever He wants to do. But theologically, learned Catholics MUCH smarter than me have taken positions that only men have supernatural souls.

P.S. - people ALWAYS resort to the “everything God created is good, so there is no way that God would permit what is good to be destroyed” argument.

Well, ALL humans were good when born, but that does not prevent them from choosing to turn away from God and enter Hell. What say those who claim that God “saves” all things that are good, when once-good people become bad and lose salvation?

**I have always addressed heaven as a “man-centered proposition” because that is why God made man: to share his love with man. **

without man God can still exist but without God man doesnt exist…an understanding of God shouldnt always be a “man-centered proposition” or else u will always have a very insular inward human-centered perspective of god which will ALWAYS be limited, narrow and ultimately wrong imo.

**
“1. Man was separate from all other life in that he was made in the image of God (meaning, he had a supernatural soul).”**

when the bible said that man was made in the image of God, it was never described as being because man had a “supernatural soul”…the image of God, is man’s intellect and
his dominion over creation (dominion doesnt mean exploitation it means care/and the maintenance of order over creation).

when god breathes into man’s nostrils, he gives man “nephesh chayyah” i.e. the hebrew word for a “living soul”. However, God also gives the land dwelling animals “nephesh chayyah” too…there is no distinction. if animals were given some other kind of “mortal” soul which dies upon death, how come the same word is used?

2. When man died, his soul lived on.

true but as per point 1 animals were also given a “soul” too…therefore what evidence is there to suggest that animal’s souls dont live on but humans’ do? especially when the same word was used to describe this “soul” which was given…

3. Plants and animals also have souls, but those souls die when their bodies die, because they have mortal souls."

the bible doesnt say that plants were given “nephesh chayyah” so they dont live on…whereas animals do. they were given a soul. something with a soul cant just disappear upon death…

imo animals have an immortal soul which goes back to God, however, we dont know in what form their souls would be…maybe their souls just gets swallowed up by God? i.e. they dont have an independent soul apart from God when they die?

" doesn’t anyone else find it odd that God - based on the feeling of love that everyone seems to be using as a reason for animals and plants being in heaven - would permit the things he loves to be destroyed by man, often by horrendous means, and yet not consider it is a sin in doing so?"

i’m not using “feelings of love” as being the reason why animals may have an afterlife…as you can see from the points above

however, to address your point…it is not God’s ideal that man would be killing animals “horrendously”. i dont know about plants because before sin, humans still ate plants and plants dont have a soul…ppl do horrendous things to other people even…doesnt mean God doesnt think theyre wrong or less than ideal.

proverbs 12:10:
"A righteous man cares for the needs of his animal, but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel.”

so the bible does say that it is right to care for animals and not treat them “horrendously”

**"I have always said that God may choose to do whatever he pleases - but when one opens the “box” of “all animals go to heaven”, you notice right away that people start “wanting” the cute, beautiful, and cuddly creates to be in heaven - not those that might repulse.

Black widow spiders? Saipan snakes? Great white sharks? Large centipedes? Pigs (which God’s own chosen people consider to be unclean)?"**

but what’s wrong with Spiders and snakes? theyre still God’s creation…do you think that maybe you might be abit narrow minded? how do you know they will still be “repulsive”?
as per Isaiah 11:6 “And the wolf will dwell with the lamb, and the leopard will lie down with the young goat”
all predatory animals have become that way due to man’s sin…how do you know what they will be like in the afterlife? obviously the bible’s telling us that there wont be any dangerous predatory behaviors in animals…but other than that, we dont know for sure

 

[Salvatore123]

ti8er,

I was hoping someone would “fall” and make the argument . . . I just did not think it would be you.

Before discussing what I mean by my first sentence in this post, I want to point out that you took my “man centered” wording completely out of context. What I meant, and I thought this was obvious, is that “heaven” serves no purpose other than to “reward” human souls who live by God’s rules and love him. Without humans, I don’t think heaven would exist - unless, of course, one describes heaven as that place where God “resides” (I know it is not a place - I refer to it as such for ease of discussion) as heaven.

Now, on to what you said through your last post: You, and almost every other “animal in heaven” subscriber, don’t - it seems - realize that YOU who are anthromophizing heaven. NOT me!

Consider everything you say about what happens to animals, how we are supposed to conserve, how we ate just plants before the fall. When you (and others) claim that “plants do not have a soul”, you are - whether you realize it or not - going against more than 1000 years of Catholic theology.

This was taught to me as a child - ALL living things have souls, but only man has an immortal soul, and that is why it is so important that man live according to God’s rules so that might be with God in the afterlife.

I truly am not making this up - ask any theologian or look it up: ALL LIVING THINGS HAVE SOULS.

Back to my point: the way you describe what happens to “things” on earth when they die is, if you think about it, making heaven out to be another earth!!! Man has become SO attached to earthly things that he clings desperately to those earthly things and wants them in heaven with him.

I noticed, however, that you, and others, avoided the more difficult questions:

1. You say (or at the very least, strongly imply) that many people have a relationship with many of their pets that it would be cruel to exclude them from heaven or not allow them to meet in the afterlife. What if those animals are NOT in heaven - does that, in your eyes, diminish heaven for you?
2. Remember my question about the favorite uncle - what if he died in a state of mortal sin, unbeknownst to anyone else, and went to hell. Would YOU, as a nephew, be “down” or “sad” to discover that the uncle is not in heaven with you, assuming you made it and he did not?
3. You refer to a few METAPHORS used in the bible about the wolf/lamb and leopard/goat and take them literally to suggest that means all animals - even those we are afraid of - will suddenly have their natures changed when they enter heaven. The point made with those metaphors is that strife and “tough living” ends in heaven - we are all at peace. We no longer require sustenance - those do not mean that the natures of all creatures suddenly change. Answer me this: before the fall, what did big fish eat? I am pretty sure it was smaller fish. What did black widow spiders eat? I am pretty sure everything they might catch in their webs. What did eagles eat? I am pretty sure that it was rabbits and other rodents they swooped down to catch in their talons. NO WHERE is it suggested that man’s fall somehow changed the NATURE of animals. Simply because what God created was “good” does NOT mean that he did not give animals their true “natures” so that the hierarchy of the food change was non-existent. Why would God “punish” animals for man’s fall? That does not make any sense.

If you REALLY think about what I have been saying, I have quoted NOTHING but Catholic theologians and theology that has existed for over a 1000 years. I have NEVER said that God will never allow animals and plants into heaven. I quite readily acknowledged that God could do whatever he pleases - He is God.

It is YOU who are insistent that his/her pets go to heaven - not me insisting they do not.

I simply state what is TAUGHT by the Catholic Church’s fathers: only men have supernatural souls.

If YOU want to argue that animals have supernatural souls and that they enter heaven, then I respectfully submit that the burden is on you to prove so.

But you cannot. The Bible does not say either way. The Catholic Church does not say either way.

But the Church DOES teach that all living things have souls, and that only man was blessed with a supernatural soul.

I don’t mean this as a “dig” at you personally, but when it comes to theology, I will defer to St. Thomas Aquinas and Frank Sheed before anyone else when it comes to theology.

 

[Evan]

My understanding of Heaven would allow plants and animals. Not the ones we ate here on earth or had as pets or enjoyed in their natural beauty, but plants and animals that we could enjoy in heaven. After all, it was the glorified body of Christ that ate with the apostles in the 40 days after the resurrection.

Food would not be needed but it could be available; pets could be there; as could visual experiences. But all would be in a glorified existence. Super yummy, super friendly, and super beautiful. Heaven is a super place :extrahappy:

 

[ti8er]

ti8er,

I noticed, however, that you, and others, avoided the more difficult questions:

1. You say (or at the very least, strongly imply) that many people have a relationship with many of their pets that it would be cruel to exclude them from heaven or not allow them to meet in the afterlife. What if those animals are NOT in heaven - does that, in your eyes, diminish heaven for you?
2. Remember my question about the favorite uncle - what if he died in a state of mortal sin, unbeknownst to anyone else, and went to hell. Would YOU, as a nephew, be “down” or “sad” to discover that the uncle is not in heaven with you, assuming you made it and he did not?
3. You refer to a few METAPHORS used in the bible about the wolf/lamb and leopard/goat and take them literally to suggest that means all animals - even those we are afraid of - will suddenly have their natures changed when they enter heaven. The point made with those metaphors is that strife and “tough living” ends in heaven - we are all at peace. We no longer require sustenance - those do not mean that the natures of all creatures suddenly change. Answer me this: before the fall, what did big fish eat? I am pretty sure it was smaller fish. What did black widow spiders eat? I am pretty sure everything they might catch in their webs. What did eagles eat? I am pretty sure that it was rabbits and other rodents they swooped down to catch in their talons. NO WHERE is it suggested that man’s fall somehow changed the NATURE of animals. Simply because what God created was “good” does NOT mean that he did not give animals their true “natures” so that the hierarchy of the food change was non-existent. Why would God “punish” animals for man’s fall? That does not make any sense.

If you REALLY think about what I have been saying, I have quoted NOTHING but Catholic theologians and theology that has existed for over a 1000 years. I have NEVER said that God will never allow animals and plants into heaven. I quite readily acknowledged that God could do whatever he pleases - He is God.

It is YOU who are insistent that his/her pets go to heaven - not me insisting they do not.

I simply state what is TAUGHT by the Catholic Church’s fathers: only men have supernatural souls.

If YOU want to argue that animals have supernatural souls and that they enter heaven, then I respectfully submit that the burden is on you to prove so.

But you cannot. The Bible does not say either way. The Catholic Church does not say either way.

But the Church DOES teach that all living things have souls, and that only man was blessed with a supernatural soul.

I don’t mean this as a “dig” at you personally, but when it comes to theology, I will defer to St. Thomas Aquinas and Frank Sheed before anyone else when it comes to theology.

What I meant, and I thought this was obvious, is that “heaven” serves no purpose other than to “reward” human souls who live by God’s rules and love him.

Lol…that’s just so humanly narrow minded… heaven is just a place we get “rewards”…wow…i dont know what to say to that

You, and almost every other “animal in heaven” subscriber, don’t - it seems - realize that YOU who are anthromophizing heaven. NOT me!

that’s exactly the problem…you havent read what I actually wrote and simply made presumptions based on what “other” people have said in the past about this same topic.

This was taught to me as a child - ALL living things have souls, but only man has an immortal soul, and that is why it is so important that man live according to God’s rules so that might be with God in the afterlife.

u do realize that what you’re taught could be wrong…when one becomes an adult, you learn to think/research and critically analyze things for oneself.

**

1. You say (or at the very least, strongly imply) that many people have a relationship with many of their pets that it would be cruel to exclude them from heaven or not allow them to meet in the afterlife. What if those animals are NOT in heaven - does that, in your eyes, diminish heaven for you?**

wow…what? i never said that

seriously i doubt u even read before replying…

when have i ever mentioned the word “cruel”?..can u please re-read my post before u even bother to reply…YOU were the first one to mention that…your putting words into other ppl’s mouths and arguing with yourself! :ehh:

i never talked about “diminishing heaven” for humans…i said that it has nothing to do with Humans…what happens to animals is between God and Animals and what he decides to do with them…has nothing to do with us…i left the question OPEN i said we DONT KNOW what happens to animals souls but also mentioned that it’s interesting the same word nephesh chayyah was used for both animals and humans in hebrew (which in fact was mistranslated due to the secular philosophies of the time)…u are the one who keeps insisting that animals souls simply dissappear into thin air…so I believe the burden of proof is on you…

I have repeatedly stated that the answer is not revealed in the bible and thus it is **interesting **to think about what happens to animal’s souls…it’s an OPEN ENDED statement…

the reason why i argue with you is because you are so adamant on saying that they dont have an afterlife…its NOT open ended for you…
when it SHOULD BE open ended and *especially *because the bible is SILENT on that point…it just indicates narrow mindedness when one closes all possibilities when the bible never gave a strict answer.

**
2. Remember my question about the favorite uncle - what if he died in a state of mortal sin, unbeknownst to anyone else, and went to hell. Would YOU, as a nephew, be “down” or “sad” to discover that the uncle is not in heaven with you, assuming you made it and he did not?**

your point about the “favourite uncle” is a straw man argument…it is irrelevant, it has absolutely nothing to do with what i was saying in my posts…please re-read my posts if you want to respond properly because i think ur getting my posts mixed up with other people’s posts…

BUT just to answer your question…the Uncle is a human… the uncle sinned didnt repent went to hell…period…sad but true… theres nothing u can do about it…animals on the other hand dont have sin, they have a soul, but we dont know what happens to their souls…thus the debate ensues…its interesting intellectually to think of the possibility that they may have eternal lives…
instead of just pointing the finger at how ugly a spider is and thinking they have no purpose in God’s eternal plans and scope i much rather like to think that maybe they do play some eternal role as they were created by an eternal God and given souls

so…now that ive answered ur question, do u now realize how irrelevant your “favourite uncle” question is to me?

NO WHERE is it suggested that man’s fall somehow changed the NATURE of animals. Simply because what God created was “good” does NOT mean that he did not give animals their true “natures” so that the hierarchy of the food change was non-existent.

Romans 8:21-23
the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

there.

creation is in bondage to decay and death…decay is a change in nature, Death is a change in nature…this all because of sin…case closed

** “Why would God “punish” animals for man’s fall? That does not make any sense” **

animals were killed in Old testament times as a sacrifice/atonement due to man’s sin
God was the first one to kill an animal due to man’s sin - when adam and eve were naked due to sin, god had to kill an animal in order to give them skins to cover themselves
God Killed i.e. “punished” a sinless animal due to man’s sin. and required Israel to do the same in old testament times…
God killed all the animals in the flood except for the ones in the Ark…

the animals didnt sin, but had ****** lives and died through disease etc etc due to the fall of man…

so I’ve pretty much answered your question, unless u think getting KILLED on an alter or drowning to death or dying through disease and decay is **not **“punishment”

**
“but when it comes to theology, I will defer to St. Thomas Aquinas and Frank Sheed”**

to be honest i dont think you read ppl’s posts before replying…
lol? :nope: i mentioned St Francis of Assisi and Rev Andrew Linzey which have VERY GOOD theological arguments that point the other way…

"You refer to a few METAPHORS used in the bible about the wolf/lamb and leopard/goat and take them literally to suggest that means all animals - even those we are afraid of - will suddenly have their natures changed when they enter heaven."

youre not the authority on whether certain passages are metaphors. one must look at the context…Isaiah is a book which contains alot of Messianic prophecies which are quite literal…so based on that fact, i think its reasonable to presume that that verse is not “metaphorical” as you say.

finally, If you cant be bothered to read ppl’s posts and comprehend them, please dont respond. as it wastes everyone’s time…
**
its obvious when ppl dont really read and respond properly when they dont use proper quotes…i quote nearly every point you make with a response…whereas u just basically make stuff up as you go…u may as well have a discussion with yourself because that’s what your doing…arguing with yourself and your own thoughts…**