Five Serious Questions About the Animals & God

Derf

Well-known member
That's what I was responding to, I'm saying that our deceased pets will or can be (if we want them) with us in Heaven /for all time.

Wow, in the timeline of the Church this topic's about a hair's width old. We believe the keys are active today, so if the bishops take up the issue then we'll see what they do.

I don't know of any Christian leaders who haven't condemned, or wouldn't condemn if asked, indiscriminate cannibalism, am I missing something?

That's never happened. If that were to happen then I'd be as concerned as you are, I'm not irrational.
But why is that irrational based on your interpretation of the keys? Is it because you really do think scripture is more authoritative than popes and councils? But then that restricts "keys" quite a bit.
What about it? The Catholic Church anyway clearly teaches to flee both, plus Catholicism endorses all the other explicit and explicitly current and valid for the Church, divine ethical strictures.
But what if the church changed its mind, as some parts seem to be doing on sodomy? Then it will be ok? Is that really what Jesus meant by the keys of the kingdom? But perhaps I've gone too far afield from what you meant by "keeping pets." you're now saying "keeping pets into eternity", which is closer to what I thought you meant originally.
 

Idolater

Matthew 28:19 Dispensationalist (aka Catholic)
But why is that irrational based on your interpretation of the keys? Is it because you really do think scripture is more authoritative than popes and councils? But then that restricts "keys" quite a bit.
No. The papacy itself promotes Biblical authority, the Bible is on a par with Apostolic authority. My point is that according to my view, that the bishops have not done such as you hypothesize corroborates my view. If this weren't true, then my view would be suspect and even irrational. But the evidence supports my view.
But what if the church changed its mind, as some parts seem to be doing on sodomy?
Not Catholicism. Not even between husband and wife.
Then it will be ok? Is that really what Jesus meant by the keys of the kingdom? But perhaps I've gone too far afield from what you meant by "keeping pets." you're now saying "keeping pets into eternity", which is closer to what I thought you meant originally.
The act I was talking about is keeping pets. That's never been condemned as sin, by anyone of any significance even outside Catholicism, so therefore the act of keeping pets is apparently loosed, and it wouldn't make a lot of sense to me anyway if it meant, OK you can keep pets in Heaven, but not your original pets, you're going to have to get new pets.

I just don't see any problem with providing our original pets in Heaven (if we want them of course ;) ).
 

Nick M

Black Rifles Matter
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Hello all of you fine folks,

Now the primary question that I am seeking an answer to is this:
1) If the creator is a God of LOVE, then why did He give Noah and the rest of mankind permission to kill and eat animals?
We were made in the image of God, cattle are not.
I'm trying to communicate that the practice of keeping pets has not been bound by any Christian authority figure as sin. I haven't been talking about the state of animals re souls or animal sin or whatnot. Therefore, keeping pets is loosed in Heaven as it is on Earth.
There is no authority in the Body of Christ, aside from the Lord Jesus Christ. I told you he is a pervert.
 

Derf

Well-known member
We were made in the image of God, cattle are not.
Yep!
There is no authority in the Body of Christ, aside from the Lord Jesus Christ.
Sure there is authority in the body of Christ:
1 Timothy 3:4-5 KJV — One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Sure there is authority in the body of Christ:
1 Timothy 3:4-5 KJV — One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

Wrong subject.

Obviously, there's authority structure within one's own household. The man holds authority over his wife, the mother over her children, and even the children can kick the cat off the couch.

But we're not talking about that structure here.

We're talking about authority over others in the Body of Christ.

If anything, I would say there is at least an authority structure, but it's all below the authority of the scriptures, which is below Christ. THIS is what Nick is talking about.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
There is no authority in the Body of Christ, aside from the Lord Jesus Christ. I told you he is a pervert.

Could you clarify who you're talking about in your last sentence? I know you're not talking about Christ, but you haven't given any indication of who "he" is referring to.
 

Derf

Well-known member
Wrong subject.

Obviously, there's authority structure within one's own household. The man holds authority over his wife, the mother over her children, and even the children can kick the cat off the couch.
But we're not talking about that structure here.

We're talking about authority over others in the Body of Christ.
And Paul tells us that if a man can't handle that family responsibility, where he is ruling over the household, then He won't be good at handling the BOC responsibilities. What responsibilities are those, if not "ruling" in some way over others. Surely Paul didn't invent the term translated "bishop". Here's what Thayers says"
ἐπίσκοπος, -ου, ὁ, (ἐπισκέπτομαι), an overseer, a man charged with the duty of seeing that things to be done by others are done rightly, any curator, guardian, or superintendent; Sept. for פָּקִיד, Judges 9:28; Nehemiah 11:9, 14, 22; 2 Kings 11:15, etc.; 1 Macc. 1:51. The word has the same comprehensive sense in Greek writings from Homer
If anything, I would say there is at least an authority structure, but it's all below the authority of the scriptures, which is below Christ. THIS is what Nick is talking about.
Absolutely! And the authority of those scriptures derives from authority Jesus gave the apostles (including Paul). The problem comes when we (the church or any part of it) try to elevate someone to Apostleship today, without the clear ordination of Christ on that person (something we don't see today, but might happen at some point, if Christ so chooses).

I agree with @Nick M that the binding and loosing passage doesn't allow the church to do or not do whatever it wants, but we must be submitting ourselves to Christ's leadership at all times--some of which is expressed in the leadership of overseers in local congregations.
 
Top