The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Waking Fido, Fifi, and maybe even Felix

Practices Christian Living
#1

We’ve had some discussions on what the revelation/presentation of the sons of God will mean to the creation that was subjected to corruption, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope, that the creation also might be set free from the bonds of corruption into the glorious liberty of the sons (and let’s not forget daughters!) of God.

If we really did evolve to our present state in which our minds and bodies can sustain consciousness and through our spirits, can engage in one on one communication with God most high, then what about the other animal species? We won the developmental race (unless you’re a literal creationist, which is fine, but maybe not in line with this particular topic). We got there first. Does that mean all our little brothers and sisters (not just the human ones) are to some degree our responsibility? Is it for us to guide them and ultimately bring them to Father? I feel like it’s my job (or one of them) to do all I can to help wake my doggies up – to help them become more conscious if I can. What do you think?

On another facet, does our relationship with our beloved pets mirror in any way our Father’s relationship with us? I think John Wesley had some things to say on this, and I know CS Lewis did. Will Rogers, cowboy entertainer, said, “If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went.”

To start this off with a chuckle (and I still think it’s cute even if I did see it long ago), here’s a debate between the Catholics and Presbyterians concerning the eternal destiny of dogs. (Okay, it’s a hoax, but it’s still great!)









Love: is it REALLY Volitional? ie a “free choice”?
#2

I love it Cindy! :laughing:

I think CS Lewis got his thoughts on immortality of animals from the wonderful George MacDonald who said much about this and railed against experimentation on and maltreatment of animals for medical purposes in his novel, Paul Faber, Surgeon as well as other works (as well as arguing for an afterlife with us humans for,at least, the animals humans have known and loved).

(More later after some thought) :wink:

#3

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

#4

Why is it so hard to believe that the creator of all things - dogs, kangaroos, trees, and molecules - loves them enough to keep them alive in his presence forever? God certainly has the power to, so why would he not?

#5

If God will be all in all, He must be including animals. Paul failed to exclude them in his list of all the things in Colossians 1, so it must be for them to or it isn’t Universalism.
I do believe that God gave us dominion over animals and plants (which are just as alive and vital as animals but a lot slower) which i think does entail zome responsibility for bringing them into better knowledge and behaviour where possible.
In the best circumstances we can see evidence of that…wild dogs bear little resemblance to dogs that are loved and trained well. That could be a great picture of how we grow when we are in God’s love. I have even seen this with snakes who have no evolutionary reason to not fear humans…they get over that with patient and gentle handling.
But i think this shall one day extend to every creature from trilobyte to tyranosaur to dog to snake to elephant.

Oh and if i have to be catholic to see my pets in heaven, i will convert today :laughing: :laughing:

#6

I think this is right, James. We humans are created “in the image of God” meaning at least in one sense, we are to rule like God and help bring creation into harmony with God’s plans. Now I’m not sure every type of animal is going to respond like dogs do and I’m not sure every animal is going to be domesticated, but our relationship with animals like dogs, horses, snakes :smiley: , (and maybe even cats) is at least a start in the process… I like Cindy’s idea of us “waking up” these animals and making them “more conscious”. Are there other ways we might help bring creation into harmony with God?

#7

You must know the joke -

#8

Definitely very much in favor of the idea of waking up animals spiritually by love and so making them more conscious. (Not that we ourselves are giving them spirits of course.)

Worth noting that one of the places Lewis talked about dogs, was also the place where Calvinists like to cite him since he’s talking about divine perseverance in salvation over against the rebellious will of the dog: basically if God intends for us to be saved we had better expect Him to keep at it until He gets it done! (This is in The Problem of Pain.)

Then a few chapters later he has to turn around and contradict this perseverance to explain final perdition. :unamused: (I expect Calvs like to point at that, too, for somewhat similar reasons. :wink: )

#9

I love the idea that animals will be resurrected. I would dearly love to see my my much loved moggie, Cheeky, again. And I have no theological problem with this.

But I do worry about the practicalities. What about the giant ichneumon wasp that lays its eggs on another insect’s body so its young can sustain themselves by eating their host alive? What about the female Australian redback spider that eats its mate after copulation? What, indeed, about Cheeky, who despite being a lousy hunter would nevertheless torture and then kill the odd mouse whenever she could get her paws on it? Never mind what about the virus, or the cancer cell …

Like I say, I would love to think that animals will be resurrected. But how, exactly, might this work? Any ideas?

J

#10

Well for the nasties, like the “giant ichneumon wasp”, a parallel universe with lots of zombie insects to lay their eggs in comes to mind. I’ve always thought mosquitos should have their own planet that is just a giant red corpuscle… :laughing: And for Cheeky, well I think she may have some education and some altering of hard-wired instincts to make her fit for “heaven.” GMac kind of hints that there may be spiritual growth in animals, so perhaps there are “stages” in the process where they grow intellectually as well as spiritually and reach the same level as humans (at least selected animals and perhaps selected species.)

#11

Great stuff everyone. :slight_smile: I wonder whether consciousness matters? I’m already committed to Lewis’ stance that animals we love get special treatment because, for one thing, we’ve somewhat civilized them (or ought to have done), and for another, well, we love them. I wonder though about EVERYTHING being preserved (sorry James, and it’s always very possible you could persuade me.) It doesn’t seem practical unless, as Steve mentions, they live in places specially adapted so they can satisfy their needs without causing harm to others.

I think about flies for example. Are they conscious souls or are they merely biological machines, not yet “real” enough for it to even matter whether they’re preserved or not, any more than it would matter whether my alarm clock is preserved? I’m not sure where one would draw the line, not that it’s our call (for which I’m very grateful). I do think there IS a line though. Perhaps all the extant species will be preserved, to continue to grow and develop and become what they’re meant to be. I don’t think it follows that every ancestor of those (or our) species before the species becomes conscious would have to be regenerated. I wonder whether, not being sufficiently advanced to sustain consciousness, they can be said to be truly alive. What do you all think?

#12

Just a quick thought here…If James loves his snakes and spiders and sees qualities in them that you and I might not, how much more would their
Creator who is Love Himself? I suspect everything that is loved will live on, and for all we know, God loves the “giant ichneumon wasp” as well as the “nicer” animals (and I suspect he does.) Now I’m off to google “giant ichneumon wasp.” :smiley:


Here’s the creature we’ve been referring to. Quite beautiful in a way…

#13

Cancer cells are warped. They aren’t a living thing in themselves.

But as to everything else, all in all means all in all, so God knows what He’s doing. I don’t think predators will eat meat one day, as the lion is going to lie down with the lamb.
spiders don’t always eat their mates, and only do so to give protein to their young to ensure their growth in a risky world. remove that risk and remove the need for that particular behaviour.
Evolution happened to ensure a species’ survival in a hostile and uncaring world. Transform that world into a caring one, and evolution can take new directions…i think things will retain the beauty they have reached, such as the wasps, lions, sharks etc…but a lot of behaviour based on fear or just the raw need to survive will be transformed. we see glimpses of it in pets, i believe…but this is just through a glass darkly for now.

edited! mates, not prey!

#14

Animals go to heaven-- end of story.:smiley: Okay, that explanation might be a bit too simple, but I will add that this idea plagued me for years.

I feel like there are biblical verses to support animals in heaven though-- while there are no verses that directly say they will not be resurrected. My favorite is the passage in Romans 8:18-23:

“I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory about to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God; for **the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. **We know that the whole creation has been groaning in labor pains until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies.”

Here, “the creation” obviously doesn’t mean simply us (humans). Paul says, “any not only the creation, but we ourselves,” so his words must be inclusive of all that which “groans in labor pains”-- including Fido, Fifi, and Felix, right? :smiley:

Very true, Steve! (Snakes are fine by me, James, but I just can’t do spiders-- not with all those tiny little legs! :laughing:)

And, Cindy, your photos of the church sign battle are hilarious. :laughing: Sadly, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that animals do not have souls (a fact I found very unsettling in eighth grade religion class.) Luckily, I think most Catholics nonetheless believe that animals go to Heaven-- We even have an annual blessing for pets on the Feast day of St. Francis.

#15

I don’t know if it matters if animals “don’t have souls”. I don’t even know what that’s supposed to mean…i think it’s an idea borrowed from Greek philosophy but not found in the Bible. we have breath as do animals…but that doesn’t have to be the same thing.

You’d be alright with MY spiders! Most of them have long, thick hairy legs! Not tiny at all :laughing:

Steve, exactly…if we can all appreciate different things about different animals, then ultimately so can God. i admit truly parasitic creatures are hard to justify, but some “pests” are actually totally necessary cleaner animals that pick up after us. But i figure parasites must be redeemable if estate agents and lawyers are :wink: and cleaning animals…maybe that function would still be needed in the new kingdom? afterall, there’s nothing sinful about the various stages of digestion…but without an ecosystem to recycle things, it gets messy.
God knows His business, and He knows what the final picture should look like…we’re still just looking at a half done canvass really.

#16

Great thoughts all. And lovely to see you venturing out in cyberspace again, Kate :smiley: .

My thinking is that our pets get their ticket to heaven through us, as Cindy says. If - as it surely is - our perfect eternal happiness is contingent on us having everyone we love and care for around with us (which in itself is a fatal argument to hellism), then it ought also to be the case that having our pets around *increases *our happiness. And surely God wants our eternal happiness to be maximal?

I also agree with you, James and Steve, that God loves his entire creation, and loves it in ways that we can’t even imagine. (Apparently he even loves Piers Morgan :astonished: .) So might not God’s happiness be diminished in some way if, as Cindy suggests, only the higher life forms are resurrected to eternal life?

Having said that, I agree that a lot of lower animals are probably not conscious in any meaningful sense. You’re right, James, a cancer cell isn’t really a living thing in and of itself - there is no ‘I’ in cancer cell (obvioulsy, otherwise it would be a cincer cill, palpable nonsense). In the same way, I very much doubt there is any ‘I’ in insects, or indeed many mammalian species. So in one sense it would not be unjust ore unkind of God to let them perish eternally (so watch out Piers …). Although of course, if that carnivorous Redback spider happened to be one of James’s extended arachnoid family, she might qualify on the grounds of being beloved.

Who knows? Like Cindy, I’m just glad we don’t have to make those calls, and I trust God to make them correctly. Altough I *do *hope I’ll see Cheeky again :smiley: .

Cheers all

Johnny

#17

I don’t subscribe to the notion that just because something has a different or far simpler brain it’s necessarily not conscious or intelligent enough to be more than a machine.
Working with these animals has taught me that such an anthropocentric view is really flawed. God has given breath to all creatures, and one day they will be part of His All in All. That’s it, it’s as simple as that. The details are fun to theorise about, but the notion that anything doesn’t have enough “I” to qualify as a conscious enough living creature to warrant being thought of as its own valuable life form is (sorry Johnny) not correct. Even spiders have different personalities! Who are we to say that a flatworm or a gnat doesn’t have enough of God’s spark in to “qualify” for the new Kingdom? Doesn’t that make us Calvinists if we restrict God’s All in All to some “elect” based on how much consciousness a creature has? I think that’s really dangerous.

#18

I agree James :smiley: . All I was saying is that personally I don’t have a problem with God allowing some animal life forms to die a natural death and then remain dead, if they have no awareness of self, and hence aren’t ‘conscious’ in any meaningful sense. Whether or not any animals actually fall into this category I don’t know, but if they do I suspect insects would be among them. But again, this doesn’t mean their lives are not valuable either to us, or to God - hence he might resurrect them, as I mentioned earlier, either for our pleasure, or his, or both.

Cheers

Johnny

#19

In tackling this question, I always hypothesized that if these sorts of animals (the amoeba and such of the world) don’t have a “soul” (although I personally suspect they do), they will enter a sort of “collective lifesource” when they die. (But maybe that’s just my inner Buddhism kicking in. :wink: )

#20

I confess i’ve wondered that a few times myself!