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

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
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.
 

Gary K

New member
Banned
Hello all of you fine folks,

I most definitely believe that God exists. And when I think about all the things that He has created it leaves me awestruck. The Bible says our creator is a God of love, and I believe it. However, there are some things about God that I just flat do not understand, and I am genuinely hoping that someone here on this forum can help me find the answers.

As for me, I am extremely fond of dogs. I presently have two of them. I literally LOVE them both, and I am moved to love God all the more because they are such a wonderful gift.

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?


I can't help but believe that all animals want to live, not die. So, this raises the following questions:
2) Did God originally intend for animals to live forever?
3) And if not, then why not?


A couple of additional questions that I have are as follows:
4) Can dogs display LOVE?
5) Do dogs possess a conscience?


I sincerely appreciate anyone who can help me with the above questions.
In response to #1 Because there wasn't any plant life to speak of when Noah and his family left the ark. It was eat some of the animals or die of starvation. That's why God brought the clean animals by sevens int the ark and the unclean animals by twos.

#2. The Bible tells us death entered the world because of sin, so the animals would have lived forever if Adam had not sinned.

#3. Yes. Dogs have often shown a willingness to die for their owners. If that isn't love then I don't know what is.

#4. Dogs are not sentient like humans are which means they don't have a conscience.
 

Sevenz

New member
Gary K said:
#2. The Bible tells us death entered the world because of sin, so the animals would have lived forever if Adam had not sinned.
Thank you for saying that! It is certainly one way to reason, and I genuinely hope that it is the correct way. Assuming that such reasoning is sound--that God originally intended for animals to live forever--then would it not also be just as reasonable to believe that God will restore them to life in the Resurrection, including each and every one of those that have been killed and eaten?
 

Nick M

Black Rifles Matter
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Paul thoroughly refuted "Catholicism" by clearly demonstrating that he was under no man's authority but Christ.
It was the church called "Assembly of God" that got me away from the RCC by just reading and preaching the red letters.

Call no man Father. No one comes to the Father but by me.

In quotes without verses as I'm paraphrasing. It was that easy to defeat all RCC doctrine.
 
Hello all of you fine folks,

I most definitely believe that God exists. And when I think about all the things that He has created it leaves me awestruck. The Bible says our creator is a God of love, and I believe it. However, there are some things about God that I just flat do not understand, and I am genuinely hoping that someone here on this forum can help me find the answers.

As for me, I am extremely fond of dogs. I presently have two of them. I literally LOVE them both, and I am moved to love God all the more because they are such a wonderful gift.

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?


I can't help but believe that all animals want to live, not die. So, this raises the following questions:
2) Did God originally intend for animals to live forever?
3) And if not, then why not?


A couple of additional questions that I have are as follows:
4) Can dogs display LOVE?
5) Do dogs possess a conscience?


I sincerely appreciate anyone who can help me with the above questions.

The only answers that can be given are individual assumptions and in case of animals studies that have been done.

My belief is God gave mankind permission to eat meat because they were already doing it. An example maybe marriage, Jesus said God intended one man one woman but then men were marrying as many women as they could attend to.

From my observation and most studies animals does not have a sense of what death is - that is what separates man from animal and places man in the image of God.

My belief is no animals were not created to live forever - only the spirits that are within man. These earthly bodies that Man (our spirits) dwell in were not created to live forever.

Procreation, I believe is the reason why flesh bodies were not created to live forever because if they were there would be no room on this planet to sustain the numbers in enough space or food.

Most animals display love, parental love friendly love, one to another and when raised by humans love for human.

I personally believe no animal has a conscience - meaning the ability to know right from wrong. Man is the only one that has that ability also places him in the image of God. As written God said man has become as one of us to no good from evil Genesis 3:22 then put them out of the garden so that they couldn't partake of the fruit of the tree of life and live forever. And post angels around it so that they couldn't get back to the tree and I'm quite sure God removed it....... One can train certain animals to understand and obey certain commands - yes, no, don't, okay etc. But they are reacting to what they are being taught or have been taught. They react to the reactions of their humans, they can tell whether a human is displeased or happy or being forceful, or humorous and they react. In my opinion they animals do not know the difference between right and wrong / Good and evil..... There is a new study that says animals (some in particular) does but when you actually read their reasoning, animals are reacting to how they have been trained and react to the behavior of their trainer or owner - they know what the trainer owner expects - from my point of view.

Do animals have character / personality - indeed they do, do they have feelings / emotions, indeed they do.
All the sins that are listed in the Bible - man made laws that mankind should follow how well do animals fare?
 

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
The only answers that can be given are individual assumptions and in case of animals studies that have been done.

My belief is God gave mankind permission to eat meat because they were already doing it. An example maybe marriage, Jesus said God intended one man one woman but then men were marrying as many women as they could attend to.

From my observation and most studies animals does not have a sense of what death is - that is what separates man from animal and places man in the image of God.
Haven't you seen animals that grieve and mourn because of those who have died?
My belief is no animals were not created to live forever - only the spirits that are within man. These earthly bodies that Man (our spirits) dwell in were not created to live forever.

Procreation, I believe is the reason why flesh bodies were not created to live forever because if they were there would be no room on this planet to sustain the numbers in enough space or food.
Heaven is celibate.
Most animals display love, parental love friendly love, one to another and when raised by humans love for human.

I personally believe no animal has a conscience - meaning the ability to know right from wrong. Man is the only one that has that ability also places him in the image of God. As written God said man has become as one of us to no good from evil Genesis 3:22 then put them out of the garden so that they couldn't partake of the fruit of the tree of life and live forever. And post angels around it so that they couldn't get back to the tree and I'm quite sure God removed it.......
Do you think the knowledge of good and evil Adam and Eve acquired is the same knowledge we have written in our hearts today? Or was the knowledge of good and evil from the tree, different from the knowledge of good and evil which is written in our hearts? And if it is different, in what way is it different?
One can train certain animals to understand and obey certain commands - yes, no, don't, okay etc. But they are reacting to what they are being taught or have been taught. They react to the reactions of their humans, they can tell whether a human is displeased or happy or being forceful, or humorous and they react. In my opinion they animals do not know the difference between right and wrong / Good and evil.....
So retaliation counts as knowing good and evil. If an animal retaliates, then that's considered knowing good from evil, meaning that when an animal retaliates, it's saying to the animal it's attacking, This animal did evil.

Is it right? It certainly acts like it thinks it's right, but is it? Isn't it in their DNA? How can we train an animal differently from its encoded moral DNA? And what if we find an animal that doesn't retaliate when all its other relatives do?

An animal that doesn't retaliate when all of its brothers and cousins does retaliate, is suspicious. So we can't base anything on what suspicious animals do when we're describing their species. There's something wrong with the suspicious ones. We just mentally set them aside.

And animals retaliate to certain things. They are acting on their conscience. When there's an intruder a dog will retaliate by barking. "There's something wrong here." It's the suspicious dog who does nothing while its owner is robbed blind. We don't say about all dogs that they're all suspicious, just because some dogs are suspicious. Mostly, mainly, generally, dogs are not suspicious.

What about man? How does he do when it comes to morals? Is he suspicious, like the silent dog? Or does he bark when morals are broken, like the good, useful guard dog?
There is a new study that says animals (some in particular) does but when you actually read their reasoning, animals are reacting to how they have been trained and react to the behavior of their trainer or owner - they know what the trainer owner expects - from my point of view.
Retaliating is a moral activity.
Do animals have character / personality - indeed they do, do they have feelings / emotions, indeed they do.
But do they have thought? Arguably, crows do. They plan. They also retaliate, so crows aren't suspicious either.
All the sins that are listed in the Bible - man made laws that mankind should follow how well do animals fare?
God's morality is not man-made.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
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?
This may sound trite but the basic answer is because its the best way to do it given the conditions that God knew would be in place after the flood. It is best for man and for the animals.
If you want to die of a hemorrhagic stroke, one of the best ways to make that happen is to live your life as a vegetarian and the healthiest populations of pray animals are those populations which are predated upon. If you want to see a whole bunch of miserable deer that are deceased and starving to death, outlaw the hunting of deer. You'll get the side benefit of seeing a bunch of them get struck by cars that injure, not only the deer, but very often the occupants of the cars as well.

I can't help but believe that all animals want to live, not die. So, this raises the following questions:
Why can't you help that?

Animals run mostly on instinct and the avoidance of pain. Most of them (if not all) are not aware of the fact that they are alive in the sense you mean it here. They do not have ambitions and they do not plan for the future. When a squirrel buries an acorn, he isn't saving up for winter. He has no concept of winter. He is acting by instinct. He has a compulsion to hoard nuts and so he does so and then when, he gets hungry and all the easy pickings are gone, he goes and finds some of the nuts he buried.

2) Did God originally intend for animals to live forever?
3) And if not, then why not?
I very much doubt it because they were designed to reproduce and the world would fill up pretty fast with rabbits and rats if they never died.

A couple of additional questions that I have are as follows:
4) Can dogs display LOVE?
Guaranteed - No!

They can show affection but they do not have any concept of love in the biblical, Godly, moral sense of the word. Animals, including dogs act, primarily, on instinct and based on both positive and negative stimulus response. They must be trained in order to ever act in any other manner and then all you've done is replaced one instinct with another.

Animals do have a soul and so can form relationships that they thrive off of and enjoy but they have no spirit and so do not understand issues of morality such as love. The closest they come to that is loyalty but even that is based in their innate pack oriented instincts not a deep affection that could rightly be called love in the moral sense of that term.

5) Do dogs possess a conscience?

I sincerely appreciate anyone who can help me with the above questions.
No. Not in the way you mean it here. They can be aware that they've done something that is going to result in a consequence that they don't like but they have no concept of morality.
 
Top