do animals go to heaven i mean they dont get baptized they kill one another and they fornicate what what ever they want when ever they want sounds like a bunch of abominations to me?....... are there any anmails that are found to be sacred to the christian faith?

Sadly Animals Do not go to heaven because they have no faith or soul...

It is not in my power to lie to anyone...

The Bible answers everything,

Thank you for reading...

That's quite an interesting question.....
With domestic pets, I would imagine they would go to heaven
With wild animals I think they MIGHT go to heaven.

BTW Nobody kill me but Im just a tiny bit christian not a full christian 

LukinaX : animals dont have soles so its ok to do what ever you want to them like abuse and neglect them well heres a fact pal i love animals and if some sicko like u is gonna tell me me that anmials dont matter just because they dont have a "soul" it people like you just because u dont like anmails you wont accept them in to your religon you make me sick i mean how do we know we have souls is it faith? well what if i dont have faith does that mean i dont have a soul?

a-sassy-black-lady : Relax. All LukinaX said is that animals don't have souls. He didn't say anything about people can abuse and neglect animals, nor did he say that he dislike animals. Religion is not a club or a group that accepts people or things in, part of religion is to seek what is true. 

As for me, I don't believe that animals have souls. We know from scripture that Man is created in God's Image, so Man has a uniqueness compare to other of God's creations. To add to that, Man was given the responsibility to have dominion over all of earth's other creations, animals were used as food and to sacrifices to God, they have no context of brother/sisterhood in animals or concepts of morals.

Does this mean that animals are not important? No. If you look at some of the descriptions of the new Kingdom in Revelation, there are descriptions of animals there. They will be in the New Kingdom alone those who are saved. However, I do not believe they are animals from earth.

a-sassy-black-lady : I couldn't agree more with what play4fun said. In fact, I agree with every sentence he wrote, and I"m not sure I can state it better. I WILL add, however, that God does command us to actually care for the animals of the earth, as well. They don't have souls, but just because they don't, does not give anyone a license to abuse them. LukinaX hit the nail right on the head. He never said animals didn't matter and even expressed remorse that they won't go to heaven.

However, there will be animals in heaven, like play said, so I'm quite excited to see them there.

We as humans are different from animals because we have the capacity to understand and accept a faith in Christ. This is part of what saves us so that we may one day be in heaven with God. Animals do not have this capacity of thought and the ability to have 'faith' in Christ.

Also, it's not very mature to ask for people's opinions on something, then bash the opinions that contradict your own. You didn't even let a conversation develop, or ask him why he believed this way, before you assumed the worst and lashed out with hatred.  Next time, you might want to think a bit about your response, and try to understand someone a little better, before you make any conclusions.    Just some friendly advice.

I didn't mean that animal cruelty is evil to ANY thing,

to dogs, cats, Kangaroos, and others!

Well, it depends, on what you feel like the meaning was but that wasn't my intention.


I'm sorry if you took it the wrong way ):


EDIT:  Thanks for explaining it Singlli Thats what i mean't,


I need to work on explaining things, in a non-blunt or short way!

LukinaX : i am terribly sorry my friend i just got out of work that was the first thing i noticed and something about i made me really i shouldnt have taken it out on you like that it wasnt fair of me once again im sorry for what i said

I honestly think that when someone says that animals don't have souls, that is just getting a message from the Bible that isn't there. Saying that is in the same way 'putting words in the Bible's mouth'. The argument I hear all the time (and I saw it here) is that the Bible said man was created in God's image which makes them unique. Not debating that. But where does it specifically say in the Bible that the way in which we are unique is that we have souls and animals don't? Show me the specific verse in scripture that says animals don't have souls. Using the Bible to say animals don't have souls is not valid, in my opinion. Unless it specifically says that (which it doesn't), it is just the way someone interprets what it means to be created in God's image. I believe that passage explains why we have dominion over other creatures. Not that they don't have souls. That is one thing about scripture. There are so many assumptions made about things that we get to the point to where we get messages that aren't even there. 
There is that argument that animals don't have the ability to accept Christ and they kill each other. Well, when an animal kills, it kills for food or survival. We kill animals for the same reason. That is the way of life and is not a sin. They kill, but they don't murder. If anything, animals have the purest souls on this planet. It was stated here that animals were used for food and sacrifices to God. They were offered as sacrifice because of their purity. No other human other than Christ is worth of being a sacrifice, but animals are because they legitimately live a life without sin. That is worthy of heaven.
My intention is not to sound like I am bashing someone for believing that animals don't have souls. The fact of that matter is that the reason why there are so many branches of Religion from the same book is because it can be interpreted so many ways. The book has been translated from ancient text. Different languages do not translate well. You have to substitute words and phases a lot when translating. Especially for English. If the book were first written in English, there would be a lot less English Religious branches from it. But I am getting off topic. The point of that was that if you interpret dominion over animals or creation in God's image as 'animals don't have souls', you are free to do so. But I don't interpret it that way. And since I do not recall any verse that states that animals don't have souls or animals don't go to heaven, I choose to not make the assumption that they don't. Because they are also living creations of God and were considered acceptable as sacrifice, I believe they do have souls. Again, I am not bashing those who interpret scripture the other way. I realize that nowhere in the Bible does it specifically say animals do have souls, so I am making an assumption that they do just as much as those who say they don't.

Animals do not have immortal souls. Their souls die with their body.

rcarter:

The bible does call herds of animals "souls" (nephesh). However, that isn't really the context it means it in. However, you are correct in that the bible never states that animals do not have souls. Therefore, theologically, you cannot say if animals have a soul or if they do, whether they are resurrected, go to heaven, whatever.

Philosophically, I work it like this: People have rationality, are culpable for sins, can pray, and have all sorts of connections to God. However, animals don't have that capacity. When a cat kills a lizard for fun and toys with it as it dies, the cat isn't sinning. The cat doesn't have any sort of connection to God to make it responsible. In fact, the cat has very little connection to God at all. The cat's connection to God is via life. So, when the cat dies, there is nothing of the cat left except memories. Memories are not souls.

However, I still think that cat has a soul (as with all animals and even all plants). Life is a connection to God. The cat is a unique substance and, while it does not have the immortal connections like men and angels, it does have spiritual connections while alive. Therefore, while alive, the cat has a soul.

I have seen some very good reasoning here, and I have to agree with what rcarter2 said, when he said that the Bible never expressly says that animals have no soul. Actually, I agree with everything he said here.

That said, I must ask: what IS a soul? We all imagine this spirit inside of us, and say it's our soul, and that our souls go to Heaven or Hell, and not our flesh. Can we say this for sure? "Soul" is often interchangeable with "being" or "person". For example, if I said someone was badly injured in an accident, or even lost their house in a storm, Play4Fun might say "Oh that Poor Soul", but he would be talking about the person, not their spiritual being. I would like to point out that the Bible never says that our souls will rise up and meet the Lord or "go to heaven", but rather that "This mortal shall put on immortality" and that we will be clothed with immortality. I therefore suggest that our physical bodies will be raised, transformed, and made incorruptable, just like that verse seems to suggest. "This Mortal" can't be referring to an immortal spiritual being inside of me, nor could it be saying that My immortal spiritual being inside of me will put on Incorruption, since here the word "Corruption" is a reference to decay and deterioration, not evil. That's just my opinion though, and I am subject to being wrong.

As for animals, I'm not sure, but I fail to see how if there is a spiritual being in me that is called a soul, an animal would not have one as well. As for being made in God's image, I would take that as meaning that we were made to look like him, though obviously not in a glorified form. I think that's all that it means, personally. And I agree with Play4Fun that there will be animals in the new kingdom, but I can't say for sure that they will be the same animals we have now. I hope so.

Nope because God didn't create animal to become like human because we rule over animal.

sonicbluewin10 : i dont understand this humans rule animals ive heard each of you say it

a-sassy-black-lady : "God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." (Genesis 1:28)

Eirinn :

God does not have arms or legs or a heart beat or any of that... Don't limit God so much. His "image" is talking about free will, rationality, have a moral code, etc. 

Txgangsta : I completely understand and respect your view, but can we prove Biblically that God doesn't have arms or legs, etc? In all seriousness, if you can cite a scriptural reference, I would appreciate it. I enjoy hearing views and opinions of others.

Eirinn :

Sure. First up is psalm 17:8 (I use ESV)

"Keep me as the apple of your eye;
   hide me in the shadow of your wings"

God has apparently has wings.

Colossians 1:15

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation."

God is also invisible, wings and all.

Other than ridiculous implications if we take descriptions to be about a body, there are passages that tell us that God is instead spirit.

Philippians 2:6-7

"[Jesus, ] who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men."

Jesus took the form of man, but that is not his natural state. Paul makes it clear that physical things like birth are not the form of God, but was a part of Jesus' humble submission to the Father's will for salvation of man.

John 4:24

"God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."

So God is spirit. If coupled with Luke 24:39:

"See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have."

Flesh and bones =/= spirit. Jesus ascended with his body, so technically Jesus still has a body, but the Father is "from ancient days" (Malachi 5:2) and does not have a body nor was he ever born.

Finally, the bigg'un, Romans 1:21-23:

"For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things."

Paul specifically contrasts God and images. God does not have an image. God does not have boundaries (see also 2 Chronicles 2:6, David knows God can't fit in physical space). God is spirit. This last bit is usually what I bring up when I study with Mormon missionaries. I've yet to see an argument presented against this other than "Joseph Smith says he saw the Father and I trust his testimony".

Txgangsta : I can see what you're saying, but I still don't think those verses say anything to suggest that God does not look like us. I am definitely familiar with all of those, but I don't think they suggest anything one way or the other.

I am aware that God is a spirit, and as such, has neither flesh nor bones, but this does not mean that he does not look like us, if He were visible.

I think the wings part is poetic, but I can't say for sure. Even if it is taken literally though, it doesn't mean that he doesn't look like us only with wings. Much like the typical depiction of an angel (though I don't think angels have literal wings either).

"Who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men." Again, what does likeness imply here? We were also made in the "image and likeness of God" (Genesis 1:26 KJV), so if Him taking on our likeness implies that he looked like us, then what's to say us taking on His likeness doesn't mean the same?

"See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." Again, I agree, God has no flesh nor bones, as a spirit. But this does not mean that He doesn't look like us, only a non-physical version.

"For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things." This only means that they worshipped images of men and beasts, which was forbidden by God. Even if He doesn't look like a man, if we could see His image, we would still not be allowed to worship an image (statue) that looked like Him. The contrast was between God and idols, not appearances. Even if He were a gas, He would have some form of an image.

Finally, I would like to point out that God made man in His image before He made made man "a living soul", which seems to imply that it means appearance.


Don't get me wrong, I don't wish to argue, or attack you or your views. I realize I stand to be as wrong as anyone on anything, and these are all ideas, and nothing more. We are discussing matters that the Bible never really nails down as a fact, because in the end, they really don't matter. It's just a fun thing to consider with friends. In fact, I would love to continue this, via PM,to keep from going off topic any longer here.

Eirinn :

We're so off topic... =)

"I am aware that God is a spirit, and as such, has neither flesh nor bones, but this does not mean that he does not look like us, if He were visible. "

How can you be visible without a body? Sure, he can make us see things like a vision in Isaiah 6, but they are visions, not actually eye balls seeing actual body.

Also, if you actually think the pagans of Paul's day worshiped wood and stone, you are very wrong. Those images simply stood for something greater, the actual god they worshiped. Baal was not literally the image of a calf in front of them.

Edit: Baal doesn't actually exist in any form though, so Jeremiah does call them worshipers of wood and stone. However, the pagans in their pagan-ness would obviously disagree and say that Baal is an actual god.

Well, like I said, I'm interested in continuing this via pm, if you'd like. I don't wish to continue here though, since it's becoming somewhat spammy (only because it doesn't pertain to the actual discussion here).