M
Memaw
Guest
Are you comparing babies to animals?? Babies are made in the image and likeness of God, animals are NOT. God Bless, Memaw
- Status
M
Memaw
Guest
All I’m saying is it is NOT up to us. Wishful thinking won’t do it. And God has never told us there are and the Catholic Church does not teach there are!!! If we would only listen to what God does tell us,( and the Church teaches us,) and not try to tell Him what to do, I think we would all be a whole lot better off. God Bless, Memaw
G
GEddie
Guest
Their argument is that animals that were abused must live again to have justice for the damage done to their “dignity.”
I am not opposed to the idea of animals living again, though I agree that Scripture doesn’t teach that; but I don’t follow their argument, inasmuch as “dignity” and “justice” are human ideas only. The natural world knows nothing of them.
(Neither do our own bodies, as **natural human bodies. **That is why there is no “justice” to be pled when we suffer physically, and there is no dignity in human death.)
ICXC NIKA.
T
thinkandmull
Guest
If you believe animals have any dignity in any sense, (not the dignity of a human), then it necessarily follows that a good God would rectify (to the animal) the un-justice done to a tortured animal. It’s that simple
M
Memaw
Guest
The justice would be for God, not the animal. God Bless, Memaw
O
Oneofthewomen
Guest
Of course it is not up to us. I don’t deny that. I also don’t deny that animals may not be in heaven. Why are you so sure that they are not? And what is wrong with “wishful thinking” especially if we don’t know? What is the harm is me hoping that my beloved cats will be in heaven with me?
And how is questioning, pondering and discussing this, not listening to and heeding what God is already saying? This is the Philosophy forum, that’s what it’s here for.
More and more I agree with Catholic Geek1’s post, and I just don’t understand it.
G
GEddie
Guest
Why would an animal who was abused be more worthy to live again than my dog, who was loved and cherished for sixteen years??
You see just how **human **all these concerns are? I never heard a dog bewailing the fact that they had to die. The grief of natural cruelty is entirely human.
ICXC NIKA.
You see just how **human **all these concerns are? I never heard a dog bewailing the fact that they had to die. The grief of natural cruelty is entirely human.
ICXC NIKA.
T
TK421
Guest
God can let animals be in Heaven in the sense that there could be creatures with animal souls that dwell in the presence of people & angels. God cannot - as in it is logically incoherent by definition, including for Him - have animals in the state of the Beatific Vision, because the Beatific Vision is an experience of supernatural love, and by definition of being an animal, they don’t possess supernatural love. If they did, in theological terms, we wouldn’t call them an animal, but a person. So an animal being in the Beatific Vision is as logically nonsensical as saying that blue is allowed to be the color red. It’s an incoherent statement.
Hypothetically, you could have “animals” with the capacity to experience supernatural love or hate (i.e. free will) and they could enter the Beatific Vision, but then by definition they wouldn’t be animals. They might have four legs and a tail or eight legs and a sack, or five tentacles and three purple claws, but either way, they wouldn’t be animals. They would be persons - active moral agents - destined for the Beatific Vision (or alternatively, condemn themselves to hell).
Hypothetically, you could have “animals” with the capacity to experience supernatural love or hate (i.e. free will) and they could enter the Beatific Vision, but then by definition they wouldn’t be animals. They might have four legs and a tail or eight legs and a sack, or five tentacles and three purple claws, but either way, they wouldn’t be animals. They would be persons - active moral agents - destined for the Beatific Vision (or alternatively, condemn themselves to hell).
P
Peebo
Guest
Isaiah 65 clearly states there will be animals in heaven…are you suggesting the word of God is just wishful thinking…it appears you are the one telling God what will and what won’t be…
T
thinkandmull
Guest
Because the loved animal lived as it should, the tortured animal did not live as it should have
J
JB_Brother_4446
Guest
Isaiah 65 is symbolic not literal.
M
Memaw
Guest
Thank you, God Bless, Memaw
M
Memaw
Guest
Maybe the real injustice is in man domesticating them to use for work and taking them out of their natural habitat in the first place. God Bless, Memaw
T
thinkandmull
Guest
The Bible is to be interpreted literally unless there is reason not too
T
thinkandmull
Guest
Ethereal: extremely delicate and light in a way that seems too perfect for this world.
J
johnnyc176
Guest
I think I understand what you mean. What about the animals who are not so nice? lol Also…someone’s pet would be food for someone in another culture. So now it depends on what country an animal is in?
C
Confiteor_Deo
Guest
God punishes the human that abuses the animal and in that way rectifies the sin committed through justice, He doesn’t give the animal anything to make up for its sufferings since it gains no merit by suffering. The suffering that animals undergo is exaggerated by humans since they are much less sensitive to pain than we are.
T
thinkandmull
Guest
“provided that he [the scholar] carefully observes the rule so wisely laid down by St. Augustine – not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires” (Pope Leo XIII, 1893, Providentissimus Deus, no. 15).
C
Confiteor_Deo
Guest
The animals are created by God for our service, so it isn’t unjust to domesticate them nor to make them work for us since this is part of the order of nature.
M
Memaw
Guest
I do agree with you, just said “maybe.” They are also for our food. God Bless, Memaw
- Status