Do pets go to heaven?

[Chuck_G]

My family has a pit bull named Chester. Chester is one of those dogs' that have what some call a "human like" personality. I am away from home for many months at a time and when I come home he just goes crazy. Runs through the house like, well like a "maddog", then sits at my feet. If I get angry with him he knows it and stays away but yet if I get angry at something I am working on for instance, he will come and lick me as if he wants me to calm down.

Chester is getting old and I suspect he only has a few more years left in him. I have no doubt that he loves my family and we certainly love him.

So, will God spare his "soul" and allow him through the pearly gates?

Or will he just be dead and return to nature?

Does he even have a "soul"?

[dianaiad]

Any Christian who believes this does so purely out of a desire for it to be true. There is nothing in the Bible to suggest animals go to heaven and so much that suggests otherwise.

1. Man was made in God's image. As most modern Christians interpret this, it means we have a soul. There is no mention of animals having been made in God's image, so I guess it means they have no soul. Either that or "God's image" means God literally looks like a human being.

OK. Actually, I believe that we look like Him, not the other way around, but...OK. I don't personally have a problem with that idea, myself.

Of course, humans do not possess souls. We ARE souls. That is; the combination of spirit and body = soul. Look it up. My own belief system teaches that all things have spirits, including animals.

2. As OnceConvinced pointed out, if animals had souls, they would need to accept Jesus as their saviour in order to go to heaven.

Why? If the belief system teaches that (as does mine) a child who isn't capable of understanding, fully, the difference between right and wrong is automatically headed for heaven, then how could God condemn animals who, quite frankly, have no clue about morality, right, wrong, or any of that sort of thing? True, some animals are quite intelligent, and I have had pets who understand when they screw up...but even then they understand only that they have done something to displease ME, not 'sinned' against some philosophical or moral code. I believe/have been taught that they, having 'fulfilled the measure of their creation' will indeed have an afterlife. What exactly that consists of, I haven't a clue, but...

3. There is an obvious preference for humans throughout the Bible. The very fact that man herds, farms and eats animals would be really strange if they were somehow the same spiritual entity as outselves.

False dichotomy there.

4. At one point, Jesus casts a legion of demons out of a man and sends them to a sounder of pigs. It would seem strange to do so if the pigs had souls as well. Why exorcise one man just to have severl soul-bearing pigs be possessed instead?

Non sequitur. How does this affect the argument?

Think of it this way; how could Jesus have sent those demons into a 'sounder of pigs' if those pigs weren't capable of hosting them? How could they be capable, if they weren't hosting spirits of their own?

Your argument, as you can see, doesn't really help.

5. If animals have souls, is this true for all animals? Do fish have souls? What about insects or bacteria? Is heaven going to be full of mosquitos as well?

Yep.

..................and I'm a little miffed about the mosquitoes.

There is not a single verse within the Bible that suggests animals go to heaven. This is nothing but wishful thinking. This seems to be a popular justification for belief within theism however.

As far as I am aware, there is only one Christian system that actually teaches that animals have spirits and thus an afterlife, and that's mine. I could very well be wrong about that, and would be glad to know who else, if anybody else, shares this doctrine. I know that there is a lot of UN official beliefs in this, unsupported by their core dogma/doctrine, however.

Mine though? It's official. Animals have spirits. That's what we believe, and thus we don't have any problem at all with the idea that our pets may well be in heaven with us.

As I mentioned before, however...that might cause a problem or two for the crazy cat lady.

[Justin108]

Any Christian who believes this does so purely out of a desire for it to be true. There is nothing in the Bible to suggest animals go to heaven and so much that suggests otherwise.

1. Man was made in God's image. As most modern Christians interpret this, it means we have a soul. There is no mention of animals having been made in God's image, so I guess it means they have no soul. Either that or "God's image" means God literally looks like a human being.

OK. Actually, I believe that we look like Him, not the other way around, but...OK. I don't personally have a problem with that idea, myself.

Why on earth would God look like us? What use would he have for any of our appendages? Does God need hands to lift things with? Does God use his feet to take a stroll around the universe? Does God have a penis? Does he urinate? Does God have ears in order to hear? Do his ears work the same as ours, functioning through detecting vibrations? If so, how does God hear us all the way down here? Does God have eyes that function by detecting light? How can God see us then? The idea of a god that looks like a human makes no sense.

Of course, humans do not possess souls. We ARE souls. That is; the combination of spirit and body = soul. Look it up. My own belief system teaches that all things have spirits, including animals.

Is this found in the book of Mormon perhaps?

2. As OnceConvinced pointed out, if animals had souls, they would need to accept Jesus as their saviour in order to go to heaven.

Why? If the belief system teaches that (as does mine) a child who isn't capable of understanding, fully, the difference between right and wrong is automatically headed for heaven, then how could God condemn animals who, quite frankly, have no clue about morality, right, wrong, or any of that sort of thing? True, some animals are quite intelligent, and I have had pets who understand when they screw up...but even then they understand only that they have done something to displease ME, not 'sinned' against some philosophical or moral code. I believe/have been taught that they, having 'fulfilled the measure of their creation' will indeed have an afterlife. What exactly that consists of, I haven't a clue, but...

Wait, weren't Adam and Eve condemned for having sinned prior to eating the fruit of knowledge of good and evil? Weren't they also clueless about the concept of right and wrong at the time of their sin? Why were they condemned for it then?

3. There is an obvious preference for humans throughout the Bible. The very fact that man herds, farms and eats animals would be really strange if they were somehow the same spiritual entity as outselves.

False dichotomy there.

Care to elaborate?

4. At one point, Jesus casts a legion of demons out of a man and sends them to a sounder of pigs. It would seem strange to do so if the pigs had souls as well. Why exorcise one man just to have severl soul-bearing pigs be possessed instead?

Non sequitur. How does this affect the argument?

Think of it this way; how could Jesus have sent those demons into a 'sounder of pigs' if those pigs weren't capable of hosting them? How could they be capable, if they weren't hosting spirits of their own?

Your argument, as you can see, doesn't really help.

You're assuming you know the nature of demons. Who said a demon can only possess spirits? Maybe they only need a host body? Maybe they only need something animate?

My argument rests on the assumption that those with souls matter. If Jesus sent the demons to a soul-carrying pig, it stands to reason Jesus didn't care much for the pigs.

There is not a single verse within the Bible that suggests animals go to heaven. This is nothing but wishful thinking. This seems to be a popular justification for belief within theism however.

As far as I am aware, there is only one Christian system that actually teaches that animals have spirits and thus an afterlife, and that's mine. I could very well be wrong about that, and would be glad to know who else, if anybody else, shares this doctrine. I know that there is a lot of UN official beliefs in this, unsupported by their core dogma/doctrine, however.

Mine though? It's official. Animals have spirits. That's what we believe, and thus we don't have any problem at all with the idea that our pets may well be in heaven with us.

You keep saying it's part of your official belief system. Who is "we"? Mormons? Is this in the Book of Mormon? If not then why do you believe this? Did God personally tell one of your church fathers that animals go to heaven? Making it a collective belief does not make it any less baseless. Unless you can give me a reason, scripture, anything, then it will be doomed to being a baseless assumption from wishful thinking.

[dianaiad]

Any Christian who believes this does so purely out of a desire for it to be true. There is nothing in the Bible to suggest animals go to heaven and so much that suggests otherwise.

1. Man was made in God's image. As most modern Christians interpret this, it means we have a soul. There is no mention of animals having been made in God's image, so I guess it means they have no soul. Either that or "God's image" means God literally looks like a human being.

OK. Actually, I believe that we look like Him, not the other way around, but...OK. I don't personally have a problem with that idea, myself.

Why on earth would God look like us?

Why wouldn't He? I mean, really...why not? Again, I say that I believe that we look like Him, not the other way around.

What use would he have for any of our appendages? Does God need hands to lift things with? Does God use his feet to take a stroll around the universe? Does God have a penis? Does he urinate? Does God have ears in order to hear? Do his ears work the same as ours, functioning through detecting vibrations? If so, how does God hear us all the way down here? Does God have eyes that function by detecting light? How can God see us then? The idea of a god that looks like a human makes no sense.

Us looking like Him is not the same thing as Him looking like us. As for the rest of your questions...why wouldn't He have any of those appendages? Is there something somehow inferior about having fingers, opposable thumbs, eyes, ears or a penis?

Well, strike that last. I don't have one and I've always had a slightly maternal and a bit of a bemused outlook towards the rather simple and ultra focused nature of those who do. However, I do love y'all, and you do have your uses, so....

anyway, I don't get why God must not have any physical attributes. There's no logical or scriptural reason to insist upon that.

Of course, humans do not possess souls. We ARE souls. That is; the combination of spirit and body = soul. Look it up. My own belief system teaches that all things have spirits, including animals.

Is this found in the book of Mormon perhaps?

Why, no. The first reference to this would be in Genesis, actually. You know, the two creation stories? I don't think that the Book of Mormon refers to this idea at all, actually.

2. As OnceConvinced pointed out, if animals had souls, they would need to accept Jesus as their saviour in order to go to heaven.

Why? If the belief system teaches that (as does mine) a child who isn't capable of understanding, fully, the difference between right and wrong is automatically headed for heaven, then how could God condemn animals who, quite frankly, have no clue about morality, right, wrong, or any of that sort of thing? True, some animals are quite intelligent, and I have had pets who understand when they screw up...but even then they understand only that they have done something to displease ME, not 'sinned' against some philosophical or moral code. I believe/have been taught that they, having 'fulfilled the measure of their creation' will indeed have an afterlife. What exactly that consists of, I haven't a clue, but...

Wait, weren't Adam and Eve condemned for having sinned prior to eating the fruit of knowledge of good and evil? Weren't they also clueless about the concept of right and wrong at the time of their sin? Why were they condemned for it then?

Who said that they were clueless and unaware of the difference between right and wrong? I never did.

3. There is an obvious preference for humans throughout the Bible. The very fact that man herds, farms and eats animals would be really strange if they were somehow the same spiritual entity as outselves.

False dichotomy there.

Care to elaborate?

Simply because animals are not humans does not mean that they cannot, then, possess spirits. It's not an either/or situation here.

4. At one point, Jesus casts a legion of demons out of a man and sends them to a sounder of pigs. It would seem strange to do so if the pigs had souls as well. Why exorcise one man just to have severl soul-bearing pigs be possessed instead?

Non sequitur. How does this affect the argument?

Think of it this way; how could Jesus have sent those demons into a 'sounder of pigs' if those pigs weren't capable of hosting them? How could they be capable, if they weren't hosting spirits of their own?

Your argument, as you can see, doesn't really help.

You're assuming you know the nature of demons. Who said a demon can only possess spirits? Maybe they only need a host body? Maybe they only need something animate?

Lots of supposing there, and you have to do as much supposing to support your point as I do to support mine. Silly either way.

My argument rests on the assumption that those with souls matter. If Jesus sent the demons to a soul-carrying pig, it stands to reason Jesus didn't care much for the pigs.

...or He cared more for the poor human who had them originally, and didn't worry so much about the spirits of the swine, which would be just fine.

There is not a single verse within the Bible that suggests animals go to heaven. This is nothing but wishful thinking. This seems to be a popular justification for belief within theism however.

As far as I am aware, there is only one Christian system that actually teaches that animals have spirits and thus an afterlife, and that's mine. I could very well be wrong about that, and would be glad to know who else, if anybody else, shares this doctrine. I know that there is a lot of UN official beliefs in this, unsupported by their core dogma/doctrine, however.

Mine though? It's official. Animals have spirits. That's what we believe, and thus we don't have any problem at all with the idea that our pets may well be in heaven with us.

You keep saying it's part of your official belief system. Who is "we"? Mormons?

Yep.

Is this in the Book of Mormon?

Nope.

If not then why do you believe this? Did God personally tell one of your church fathers that animals go to heaven?

Pretty much, yes. That's what believing in continuing revelation does for one, after all; one can actually SAY that sort of thing.

However, the support for this particular doctrine (that animals have spirits) comes from the OT, the NT, the Book of Moses and the Doctrine and Covenants, pretty much covering all the bases...except of course for the Book of Mormon, which (I repeat) doesn't address the matter.

Making it a collective belief does not make it any less baseless. Unless you can give me a reason, scripture, anything, then it will be doomed to being a baseless assumption from wishful thinking.

Uhmn....Justin?

Using the bible or any other book considered to be scripture in this specific forum as proof that a specific belief is true is against the rules. I'm not making that claim, either, if you will notice.

I am simply making the claim that there is at least one Christian belief system that does indeed have, within its official doctrine, the idea that animals have spirits and an afterlife, and thus just might find themselves in heaven. That belief system is mine; Mormonism.

I can tell you that we get this belief from Gen. 2:5, where God created 'every plant of the field before it was in the earth,' from Moses 3:5, where God created all things spiritually before they were created naturally, and D&C 39:32, where, again, it is noted that God created everything spiritually before He created things physically. These verses, among others, are where we get our doctrines.

Whether or not those doctrines are TRUE is beyond the scope of this conversation, and you are reversing the burden of proof here, anyway. YOU are the one claiming that animals absolutely do not have spirits. I have simply challenged that claim and called your logic into question.

It seems to me that your stand is a bit didactic, not to mention down right dictatorial, as to what God MUST be in order for you to accept that He is God. I'm not quite as willing to tell Him what He must not look like, especially when He comes right out (if one accepts what the bible says, anyway) and states that we are made in His image.

[Ancient of Years]

Any Christian who believes this does so purely out of a desire for it to be true. There is nothing in the Bible to suggest animals go to heaven and so much that suggests otherwise.

1. Man was made in God's image. As most modern Christians interpret this, it means we have a soul. There is no mention of animals having been made in God's image, so I guess it means they have no soul. Either that or "God's image" means God literally looks like a human being.

According to theologian Thomas Aquinas, everything that is alive has a soul, even vegetables. Life functions require a soul. The human soul is of the type that facilitates intellect and speech. According to Aquinas, the human body and human soul comprise one substance. Yet he also says the human soul can exist without the body but denies this for other kinds of soul. As the above link points out, this is very problematic. Also his reasoning for why human souls should be immortal but not other souls is also problematic using inconsistent logic.

If Man being made in God’s image is the reason Man has a soul, then what is the reason all living things have souls? God is a spirit. The soul of a man is a spirit but not comparable to God by a long shot. If the human soul is a spirit why should other souls not be spirits? Being made in God’s image may mean having higher intellect but it clearly does not equate to having a soul. In my experience, dogs are quite good at figuring things out and at communicating specific ideas. Where does ‘intellect’ stop? If it means the ability to think abstractly and if that is a necessary mark of having a soul then children do not have souls for a few years after birth. And some humans would never have souls.

What argument # 1 seems to lead to is arbitrarily defining having an immortal soul as being human with no special justification other than a kind of chauvinism.

2. As OnceConvinced pointed out, if animals had souls, they would need to accept Jesus as their saviour in order to go to heaven.

Many Christians would disagree with the ‘accept Jesus as savior’ premise. But assuming it is true we may ask why this is the case. Paul repeatedly stressed Jesus as the new Adam, undoing the sin of the first Adam under which all mankind was doomed to death. There is no record of any original dog (or other animal) committing any primal sin so serious that the Son of God had to be sacrificed to atone for it. (Or God’s Dog for that matter) It would appear that dogs (for example) are not in need of salvation, being inherently innocent.

3. There is an obvious preference for humans throughout the Bible. The very fact that man herds, farms and eats animals would be really strange if they were somehow the same spiritual entity as ourselves.

God told the Israelites to kill other people, including women and children. All of those people had human souls yet they were slaughtered rather messily with swords. By contrast Kosher Law requires that animals be killed painlessly, being rendered unconscious instantly and dying rapidly thereafter. In addition unnecessary cruelty to animals of any kind is forbidden by Jewish Law. By God’s command, animals are generally treated much better than some people. Did not those people who were slaughtered have the same spiritual entity as those who slaughtered them? Is the lesson that some people do not have souls? That would seem to be the conclusion of your logic. But the real conclusion is that your argument does not bear on whether animals have souls

4. At one point, Jesus casts a legion of demons out of a man and sends them to a sounder of pigs. It would seem strange to do so if the pigs had souls as well. Why exorcise one man just to have several soul-bearing pigs be possessed instead?

One answer it that it is the Roman X Fretensis Legion, who were responsible for so much Jewish suffering and who flaunted their pig emblem in front of the Jews, who are being symbolically expelled from Israel. That would make this episode a foreshadowing of the future fulfillment of biblical prophecies that the oppressors of the Jews would ultimately be defeated by the Messiah.

But if we take it literally instead, we see that the demons asked to be put into the pigs instead of being sent out of the area.

Mark 5

6 When he saw Jesus from a distance, he ran and fell on his knees in front of him. 7 He shouted at the top of his voice, “What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? In God’s name don’t torture me!� 8 For Jesus had said to him, “Come out of this man, you impure spirit!�

9 Then Jesus asked him, “What is your name?�

“My name is Legion,� he replied, “for we are many.� 10 And he begged Jesus again and again not to send them out of the area.

11 A large herd of pigs was feeding on the nearby hillside. 12 The demons begged Jesus, “Send us among the pigs; allow us to go into them.� 13 He gave them permission, and the impure spirits came out and went into the pigs. The herd, about two thousand in number, rushed down the steep bank into the lake and were drowned.

We might also recall various passages where Jesus silences demons who reveal who he is, as these demons did (v 7).

Also, it may be that the large number of pigs in the area were causing ritual purity problems for those Jews living around there. Two thousand pigs? Oy gevalt!

5. If animals have souls, is this true for all animals? Do fish have souls? What about insects or bacteria? Is heaven going to be full of mosquitos as well?

Apparently animals will not be problematic in the new earth.

Isaiah 11
6 The wolf will live with the lamb,
the leopard will lie down with the goat,
the calf and the lion and the yearling together;
and a little child will lead them.
7 The cow will feed with the bear,
their young will lie down together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox.
8 The infant will play near the cobra’s den,
and the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest.
9 They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,
for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord
as the waters cover the sea.

Isaiah 65
25 The wolf and the lamb will feed together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox,
and dust will be the serpent’s food.
They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,�
says the Lord.

There is not a single verse within the Bible that suggests animals go to heaven. This is nothing but wishful thinking. This seems to be a popular justification for belief within theism however.

The above verses from Isaiah seem to suggest that animals can go to heaven. But the problem I see here is the assumption that all knowledge about spiritual matters can be found in the Bible. Paul tells us otherwise.

2 Corinthians 12
2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows. 3 And I know that this man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows— 4 was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell.

We may also consider God’s answer to Job. “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?� (Job 38:4) God continues talking about the many things that he has concern for, most especially animals.

In addition, Revelation describes paradise as a restored Eden. As I recall, Eden was full of animals.

I see no reason to arbitrarily exclude animals from heaven and biblical justification for including them. It is after all supposed to be a place of happiness.





(I LOVE this site!!!)

[Justin108]

What use would he have for any of our appendages? Does God need hands to lift things with? Does God use his feet to take a stroll around the universe? Does God have a penis? Does he urinate? Does God have ears in order to hear? Do his ears work the same as ours, functioning through detecting vibrations? If so, how does God hear us all the way down here? Does God have eyes that function by detecting light? How can God see us then? The idea of a god that looks like a human makes no sense.

Us looking like Him is not the same thing as Him looking like us. As for the rest of your questions...why wouldn't He have any of those appendages? Is there something somehow inferior about having fingers, opposable thumbs, eyes, ears or a penis?

Well, strike that last. I don't have one and I've always had a slightly maternal and a bit of a bemused outlook towards the rather simple and ultra focused nature of those who do. However, I do love y'all, and you do have your uses, so....

While not inferior, it would be entirely redundant. It would not make sense for an entity who has no limits in what it can do to have these components. Every part of any living entity has a specific function that aides in their survival, down to the teeth we have to accommodate our diets. For it to be purely aesthetic in God's case would be far too convenient an excuse. God having legs when he could literally be everywhere and anywhere in a flash makes as much sense as a teleportation device having wheels, wings and a safety belt.

I take it you don't believe in evolution so I won't get into why that completely discredits your belief in a bipedal humanoid mammal god, but the idea just seems rediculous. It's a primitive, outdated concept. Even when I was a Christian, even as a child, I believed God to be some sort of force entity. A biological bipedal humanoid mammal as a God is just absurd.

Of course, humans do not possess souls. We ARE souls. That is; the combination of spirit and body = soul. Look it up. My own belief system teaches that all things have spirits, including animals.

Is this found in the book of Mormon perhaps?

Why, no. The first reference to this would be in Genesis, actually. You know, the two creation stories? I don't think that the Book of Mormon refers to this idea at all, actually.

Where in Genesis does it say all living things have spirits?

Wait, weren't Adam and Eve condemned for having sinned prior to eating the fruit of knowledge of good and evil? Weren't they also clueless about the concept of right and wrong at the time of their sin? Why were they condemned for it then?

Who said that they were clueless and unaware of the difference between right and wrong? I never did.

So the fruit of knowledge of good and evil do not give knowledge of good and evil...?

My argument rests on the assumption that those with souls matter. If Jesus sent the demons to a soul-carrying pig, it stands to reason Jesus didn't care much for the pigs.

...or He cared more for the poor human who had them originally, and didn't worry so much about the spirits of the swine, which would be just fine.

Why didn't Jesus just cast the demons out into nothingness? Why did he have to afflict pigs at all? He could have cast the demons directly to hell. The fact that he didn't care to and instead cast them into pigs means pigs don't matter to him at all.

If not then why do you believe this? Did God personally tell one of your church fathers that animals go to heaven?

Pretty much, yes. That's what believing in continuing revelation does for one, after all; one can actually SAY that sort of thing.

I could question on what grounds you would believe the claims of a supposed new prophet, but I suspect that would be a whole new topic.

However, the support for this particular doctrine (that animals have spirits) comes from the OT, the NT, the Book of Moses and the Doctrine and Covenants, pretty much covering all the bases...except of course for the Book of Mormon, which (I repeat) doesn't address the matter.

Verses?

[dianaiad]

What use would he have for any of our appendages? Does God need hands to lift things with? Does God use his feet to take a stroll around the universe? Does God have a penis? Does he urinate? Does God have ears in order to hear? Do his ears work the same as ours, functioning through detecting vibrations? If so, how does God hear us all the way down here? Does God have eyes that function by detecting light? How can God see us then? The idea of a god that looks like a human makes no sense.

Us looking like Him is not the same thing as Him looking like us. As for the rest of your questions...why wouldn't He have any of those appendages? Is there something somehow inferior about having fingers, opposable thumbs, eyes, ears or a penis?

Well, strike that last. I don't have one and I've always had a slightly maternal and a bit of a bemused outlook towards the rather simple and ultra focused nature of those who do. However, I do love y'all, and you do have your uses, so....

While not inferior, it would be entirely redundant. It would not make sense for an entity who has no limits in what it can do to have these components.

Why? I mean, seriously. Why?

Every part of any living entity has a specific function that aides in their survival, down to the teeth we have to accommodate our diets. For it to be purely aesthetic in God's case would be far too convenient an excuse. God having legs when he could literally be everywhere and anywhere in a flash makes as much sense as a teleportation device having wheels, wings and a safety belt.

Well, you and I can fly, and go 100 mph in a car if we want to, or strap wings to our backs and look down upon eagles. Does that make OUR legs redundant?

Now, I'm not claiming that God MUST have a physical form in order to be God. However, I honestly do not see how anybody can dictate to God that He must not have one. (edit to add, because I can do that...) Most Christians, including us, believe that Jesus Christ is also God. We also believe that He has a physical body; He was resurrected into one, actually. There's nothing in the bible that tells us that He lost it again.

So, whether one is a modalist, a trinatarian or...whatever it is we are...then God has a body, according to our beliefs. I figure it's just a case of Him telling us stuff rather than us telling Him.

Odd of me, to be sure.

I take it you don't believe in evolution so I won't get into why that completely discredits your belief in a bipedal humanoid mammal god, but the idea just seems rediculous. It's a primitive, outdated concept. Even when I was a Christian, even as a child, I believed God to be some sort of force entity. A biological bipedal humanoid mammal as a God is just absurd.

I would be careful about making assumptions like this. While there are a few Mormons who are believers in a literal 24 hour day week long creation that happened about 6,000 years ago, I personally don't know any. Me? I believe rather strongly in evolution.

Again, I'm not about to dictate to God HOW He has to do stuff. Indeed, I believe that one of the many reasons we are here is to begin to learn how He does stuff. Identifying processes isn't the same thing as identifying cause.

Of course, humans do not possess souls. We ARE souls. That is; the combination of spirit and body = soul. Look it up. My own belief system teaches that all things have spirits, including animals.

Is this found in the book of Mormon perhaps?

Why, no. The first reference to this would be in Genesis, actually. You know, the two creation stories? I don't think that the Book of Mormon refers to this idea at all, actually.

Where in Genesis does it say all living things have spirits?

We believe that is what the two creation stories are about, and I gave you the reference about how He created all things before He created them physically.

Wait, weren't Adam and Eve condemned for having sinned prior to eating the fruit of knowledge of good and evil? Weren't they also clueless about the concept of right and wrong at the time of their sin? Why were they condemned for it then?

Who said that they were clueless and unaware of the difference between right and wrong? I never did.

So the fruit of knowledge of good and evil do not give knowledge of good and evil...?

The idea, I think, is that this is the metaphorical description of the first act that established the knowledge of good and evil. BTW, we have a rather different view of Adam and Eve than most Christians. We rather admire both of 'em.

My argument rests on the assumption that those with souls matter. If Jesus sent the demons to a soul-carrying pig, it stands to reason Jesus didn't care much for the pigs.

...or He cared more for the poor human who had them originally, and didn't worry so much about the spirits of the swine, which would be just fine.

Why didn't Jesus just cast the demons out into nothingness? Why did he have to afflict pigs at all? He could have cast the demons directly to hell. The fact that he didn't care to and instead cast them into pigs means pigs don't matter to him at all.

Please remember that swine were, to the Jewish culture of the time (as they are now) unclean animals; not to be eaten, not to be used. The idea of casting those demons into swine IS casting them into hell, symbolically. Please don't forget that Jesus was a Jew; He not only was raised in and lived with that culture, He was TEACHING the folks of that culture.

The literary symbol was pretty good there. Remember also that those swine were raised TO be useful more after they died than before; I don't suppose that the demon rider would have been a problem there.

(shrug)

However, as I mentioned before, the spirits of the swine themselves were not harmed. At least, I don't see how they could have been.

If not then why do you believe this? Did God personally tell one of your church fathers that animals go to heaven?

Pretty much, yes. That's what believing in continuing revelation does for one, after all; one can actually SAY that sort of thing.

I could question on what grounds you would believe the claims of a supposed new prophet, but I suspect that would be a whole new topic.

Probably. However, since the claim here (on my side, at least) is simply that there is a group that believes that animals (and everything else, come to think of it) have spirits, then whether or not there are currently prophets is irrelevant. It is sufficient to understand that I believe there are, and THAT is one of the reasons why I believe that animals (and everything else, come to think of it) have spirits.

I mean, really. I'm not insisting that you agree with me, or believe the same thing I do. I'm just telling you what my beliefs ARE. You do with them what you want to do with them.

However, the support for this particular doctrine (that animals have spirits) comes from the OT, the NT, the Book of Moses and the Doctrine and Covenants, pretty much covering all the bases...except of course for the Book of Mormon, which (I repeat) doesn't address the matter.

Verses?

I gave them to you in this post.

[sleepyhead]

I see a problem with the claim that all life forms have a spirit. It would require there to be something in the biological process that would automatically produce this spirit and then for this spirit to keep on living after the physical dies. I don't see how the biological process could possibly produce a spirit that would never die. If you say that God puts these spirits into bodies then you have the problem of evil..

[dianaiad]

I see a problem with the claim that all life forms have a spirit. It would require there to be something in the biological process that would automatically produce this spirit and then for this spirit to keep on living after the physical dies. I don't see how the biological process could possibly produce a spirit that would never die. If you say that God puts these spirits into bodies then you have the problem of evil..

You don't know all the biological or physical processes that can possibly be at work here, sleepyhead. None of us do.

However, I can understand why you would be unable to see how a biological process could do this, especially since you probably separate biology (which is the purely physical science of life as we know it or want to know it) from physics. IS the process of creating...or organizing or whatever happens, a 'biological' process at all?

Possibly not. Or rather, if it is, it's not a process that we can measure through the sort of tools available to us as scientists. Perhaps someday, but right now? I don't think so.

But then, we can't measure dark matter, either. We believe there is such a thing the same way we use a zero; we need something there to make everything else work. Doesn't mean that there's actually a 'there,' there.

Or maybe there is. Someday we'll figure it out. Maybe. We can't measure dark matter directly, though, yet. We can only point to possible effects.

As to the 'problem of evil,' well, no you don't, sleepyhead, not if you allow those spirits to have the ability to make their own choices, whether as spirits or if they are in bodies.

ANY time you allow choice, you have introduced evil, since the less optimal choice is evil by definition.

[sleepyhead]

Hello dianaiad,

me>>>I see a problem with the claim that all life forms have a spirit. <<<

you>>>As to the 'problem of evil,' well, no you don't, sleepyhead, not if you allow those spirits to have the ability to make their own choices, whether as spirits or if they are in bodies. <<<

If spirits have the choice with regards to entering a physical form, as I believe they do, then you can no longer claim positively that all of them are inhabited by spirits.

[dianaiad]

Hello dianaiad,

me>>>I see a problem with the claim that all life forms have a spirit. <<<

you>>>As to the 'problem of evil,' well, no you don't, sleepyhead, not if you allow those spirits to have the ability to make their own choices, whether as spirits or if they are in bodies. <<<

If spirits have the choice with regards to entering a physical form, as I believe they do, then you can no longer claim positively that all of them are inhabited by spirits.

Yes I can.

I can't claim that all spirits have bodies, but I can certainly claim (or rather, say 'I believe") that all living bodies have spirits, since I believe that this is the definition of 'living.' That is, that all living organisms have spirits; a body without a spirit is dead.

It's a 'by definition' sort of thing.