It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pope Francis - "All Animals Go To Heaven"

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 06:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: backcase
a reply to: FlyersFan

why do you think it's against church teaching? Do you have any excerpts that say so?

Personally I do not think that animals have souls, or at least the kind that humans have.

I would like to some day see my pet bunny again though.



Why do you think you have one, assuming you do believe that?
edit on 13-12-2014 by Tangerine because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 06:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Emerald53

BS

You don't know If there even is a heaven let alone If animals can go there.
No one does.


Stop thinking! I command you! If you don't stop thinking, I won't let you put your money in my collection plate!



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 06:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: backcase
a reply to: FlyersFan

why do you think it's against church teaching? Do you have any excerpts that say so?

Personally I do not think that animals have souls, or at least the kind that humans have.

I would like to some day see my pet bunny again though.



Humans ARE animals. We're mammals.



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 07:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: [post=18753774]

originally posted by: SaturnFX

As far as going to heaven, well, all things were heavenbound..mankind however screwed up (ate from the tree of knowledge) and now is required to do all sorts of works and accept Christ and all that to be allowed back in heaven at death. other animals and stuff have not done this, therefore none of that stuff is required.


Then why the animals were also expelled from heaven, and have to die here alongside with man?
And why aren't snakes supposed to also accept christ, in order to get into heaven. aren't they also guilty?
And why did god bothered with the tree of knowledge, since he already knew mankind would screw up?
Why did he created them in such way, that they would screw up?
Ok, sorry I'll stop....

Hmm
Well, does it say snakes, or "serpent". keep in mind, Leviathan is also called serpent, and that was a sea monster. Also, kingdoms were called serpent, and people (king of Babylon was a serpent according to bible).

As far as expelled from heaven, nobody or nothing was. Eden was a place created for man, but earth was a place for all animals, man got kicked out of eden (the actual property..bit like being kicked out of town) and exiled into the wilds...it was mankinds knowledge that recognized the difference though.
Animals don't have knowledge of how crappy life is basically, so, they are in some respects, still in eden...even fluffy the cat..totally high queen catness of Eden in her mind.

Also, there is a poor translation going on about being ejected from eden..it isn't so much man was cursed for what they did, rather, they had to suffer the consequences for what they did.
Once you know, you know. The thought goes, knowledge came to us, and we therefore advanced as a species...we seen and contemplated our mortality, etc..and with that knowledge, we...knew what was to come..the terror of death that will definitely hit us, disease, greed, etc..all the cool stuff to be a high intelligence..it isn't really a curse, unless you sending your kid to school is also a curse as they will learn about the glory and horror of life that way..but it is a consequence..

You can of course just read the badly translated madlibs version called the bible and get the ridiculous story mind you that would make anyone with a iq higher than a potato laugh at its insanity..or do a bit of study on it and see it actually isn't as poorly put together as the average religonut would have you believe.

btw, I am agnostic-atheist....I am simply mildly interested in Christianity in regards to corruption, root story, and totally aliens!

I quite enjoy reading the researchers trying to accurate translate the original scrolls in context of how the language worked then verses the absurdity that it is today.



posted on Dec, 14 2014 @ 09:23 AM
link   
Jesus did not have brothers. The parents of James are mentioned in scripture, and they aren't Joseph or Mary. The old Jewish language did not have a separate word for blood brother, so when a "brother of Jesus" is mentioned in the Bible, it could be a cousin or other relative. Maybe Joseph had kids from a previous marriage? Either way, that child never would have been born to Mary, Jesus' mother, because Mary was a perpetual virgin. These things were believed from the 4th Century, even up to Calvin and Luther. It's only the last few hundred years that Mary has been belittled.

a reply to: Seede



posted on Dec, 14 2014 @ 10:05 AM
link   
It is best to look past theology and church doctrine, to see what God's Word has to say. Solomon posed this question in the book of Ecclesiastes:

"...the sons of Adam...they are, by themselves, mere animals. For one event is for the sons of Adam, and one event for the animals; - and the one event that to them is; - as these die, so those die; and the same breath is to all; - and man dies the same as the cattle! Is not the whole vanity? The whole go down to one place; the whole come from dust; and the whole return to the dust. Who knows that the breath of the sons of Adam when it goes, ascends? and that the breath of the cattle, when it goes down, departs to the earth?" [chapter 3, verses 18 - 21, Ferrar Fenton Version]

I conclude that all air-breathers have the breath of life from God in them, and that investment of Himself will not result in the creature being tossed to endless death.

Heaven for all! Of course I am not speaking of the harp-on-a-cloud heaven...



edit on 14-12-2014 by Lazarus Short because: document notation



posted on Dec, 14 2014 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Whether or not the Pope actually said this, I have noticed some of the Christians around me start to question whether or not pets/animals have an afterlife.

I suspect they do, but what the actual afterlife is, is still unknown.



posted on Dec, 14 2014 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Ignatian


Jesus did not have brothers. The parents of James are mentioned in scripture, and they aren't Joseph or Mary. The old Jewish language did not have a separate word for blood brother, so when a "brother of Jesus" is mentioned in the Bible, it could be a cousin or other relative. Maybe Joseph had kids from a previous marriage? Either way, that child never would have been born to Mary, Jesus' mother, because Mary was a perpetual virgin. These things were believed from the 4th Century, even up to Calvin and Luther. It's only the last few hundred years that Mary has been belittled.

'As I said, this is a very highly controversial theological belief within the Christian denominations.
Most have confused James the Just with James the son of Alphaeus in Acts 1:13. To keep things straight from the onset, there is also a third James in the NT who was the brother of St. John of Acts 12:2. James the Just is mentioned in distinction from the Apostles in Acts 1:13-14, !st Corinthians 9:5 and 15:7.

James the Just is also listed as the brother of Jesus in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3. After Jesus" resurrection He appeared to his brother James in a separate revelation of !st Corinthians 15:7. James the Just had become the leading figure of the Christian movement by the time of Apostle James (Zebedee's death) in CE 44.

James the Just is considered the first Bishop of the Christian movement as is written by Clement of Alexandria but in this period of infancy there were no pastors or elders or bishops. The leader of the Jerusalem Ecclesia or synagogue was called a nasi or president.This was later known as patriarch and was equivalent to the Jewish high Priest. The entire liturgy was not Greek but was Hebrew and Aramaic. The Greek Jews (Hellenist) were not part of this movement and were allowed as congregation at a much later date.

The organizational structure was James the just, brother of Jesus, as the nasi (president), Apostle Simeon Peter as the sagan (deputy to the nasi), and the Apostle John as the Ab Beth-Din or chief officer of the court.

To continue is not very informative to most people so will end this on that note. Your understanding is that the mother of Jesus kept her virginity throughout her life but it is the belief of many that she did not. Mary was conceived by God but brought her birth about in a normal manner, or as many others believe. Actually virgin birth is not the proper understanding when you consider that inception and birth are two different matters to consider. Mary had a virgin inception but not a virgin birth. That is why I said from the onset that I would not argue this.

You are probably right in that brethren and brother and sisters can be interchangeable meanings by people but in this particular case there is overwhelming literary evidence that Jesus did have a sibling named James the Just.



posted on Dec, 14 2014 @ 02:08 PM
link   
James and Joses were the sons of Mary of Clophas. (Mk 15:40). Judas was the son of James (not either of the apostles). (Lk 6:16). James the Lesser was the son of Alphaeus (Lk 6:15). James the Greater and John were the sons of Zebedee, with a mother other than Our Blessed Mother Mary (Mathew 20:20)

I hope that clears up your confusion. Using our inspired Scripture, I don't see how you could deduce otherwise. Grace and peace to you my brother.



posted on Dec, 14 2014 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Ignatian


James and Joses were the sons of Mary of Clophas. (Mk 15:40). Judas was the son of James (not either of the apostles). (Lk 6:16). James the Lesser was the son of Alphaeus (Lk 6:15). James the Greater and John were the sons of Zebedee, with a mother other than Our Blessed Mother Mary (Mathew 20:20) I hope that clears up your confusion. Using our inspired Scripture, I don't see how you could deduce otherwise. Grace and peace to you my brother.

You may very well be correct. That is why I would not argue the subject. I am quite old now and have lost almost all of my recall in this matter. I did find an article on internet but the article is not clear either. A paragraph from that article does confirm some of what you understand.

"It is natural to suppose that James the Just (3) and James the Nazarene (6), being both called brothers of Jesus, must be the same person. However, the Hebrew word for "brother" is used more elastically than its English equivalent, often referring (for example) to cousins or even more distant relatives (see Leviticus 10:1-4, where Moses speaks to Mishael and Elphazan about their brothers, meaning the sons of their cousin). If early Christians for whom Aramaic was the primary language, and Greek secondary, retained this usage when they spoke Greek, then there is room for doubt on the point. Perhaps one of them was a cousin of Jesus rather than a brother. Perhaps both were cousins, in which case they could be the same person but need not have been.
The sons of Cleopas would have been nephews of either Joseph or Mary, and therefore may have been the "brothers" mentioned elsewhere. Thus James the son of Cleopas (5) may be identical with James the Just (3) or James the Nazarene (6) or both."
Source -

satucket.com...&James.htm



posted on Dec, 14 2014 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

it is said that MAN is made in the Image of God. Also I do not believe that animal souls are even mentioned in the bible.



posted on Dec, 14 2014 @ 07:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: backcase
it is said that MAN is made in the Image of God. Also I do not believe that animal souls are even mentioned in the bible.


Man being made in God's image could infer many things. I don't see how that would exclude animals having an after life.

What do you think a "soul" is and how would any of us determine what does, and what does not, have one? Many Christians also make a large distinction between the soul and spirit, how do you feel that fits in?

The Bible doesn't mention everything that exists, or how everything exists. Cheezburger Cats, for instance.



posted on Dec, 14 2014 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: backcase
a reply to: Tangerine

it is said that MAN is made in the Image of God. Also I do not believe that animal souls are even mentioned in the bible.

So you have no beliefs other than that which is contained in the Bible? I guess women also do not have souls.



posted on Dec, 14 2014 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

I'm pretty sure the bible does mention women as Adam's counterpart. I think I may have lost you when i wrote 'MAN'. When I say things like that I speak about mankind, or all of man.

do not be so edgy, if we were to have a normal conversation we would not be doing any offensive or defensive arguing, we would only be sharing. The forum is not a war, I must remind you, but a place of (what should be) humble intellectuals conversing.

I appreciate your interest in what I am saying, but remember, by reading a sentence I have written you cannot perceive everything I stand for. If your interested, ask, ask politely and considerately, as an intellectual should.



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 03:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: backcase
a reply to: Tangerine

I'm pretty sure the bible does mention women as Adam's counterpart. I think I may have lost you when i wrote 'MAN'. When I say things like that I speak about mankind, or all of man.

do not be so edgy, if we were to have a normal conversation we would not be doing any offensive or defensive arguing, we would only be sharing. The forum is not a war, I must remind you, but a place of (what should be) humble intellectuals conversing.

I appreciate your interest in what I am saying, but remember, by reading a sentence I have written you cannot perceive everything I stand for. If your interested, ask, ask politely and considerately, as an intellectual should.


I was referring to your comment about "Man".The habit of using man and mankind to refer to all humans was developed by men who didn't consider women to be worthy of equality or consideration except as an afterthought. Your mention of the Bible is timely. To continue such an offensive tradition is ...well offensive. If you want to test whether it is inclusive or exclusive substitute Woman or womenkind.



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 08:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Serdgiam

Man being made in God's image could infer many things. I don't see how that would exclude animals having an after life.

What do you think a "soul" is and how would any of us determine what does, and what does not, have one? Many Christians also make a large distinction between the soul and spirit, how do you feel that fits in?

The Bible doesn't mention everything that exists, or how everything exists. Cheezburger Cats, for instance.


Man was made very different from animals and was also given dominion over animals. Animals do not have the same powers as man and the powers that man has over animals are of his soul.

To put it plainly, everything that is in man that is not in animals is his soul.

Animals also, can do no wrong, they can do only what is their lot by nature. They have no conscience, and that is ony of man's distinctive features.

The spirit of man, I think, is like the man's helper. it is much different than the Holy Spirit. I do not entirely unerstand myself. I would ask that question of a priest.



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

Do not separate man and woman as if they are two totally different beings. They are not separate and they are able to become one.

The term I used is only offensive to those who want to be offended.

Mankind and womankind are the same thing, we did not develop separately.



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 11:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: backcase
Man was made very different from animals and was also given dominion over animals. Animals do not have the same powers as man and the powers that man has over animals are of his soul.


Perhaps their afterlife is simply different? The Bible doesn't really state much about this topic specifically.


Animals also, can do no wrong, they can do only what is their lot by nature. They have no conscience, and that is ony of man's distinctive features.


Experience tells me differently. My dogs do wrong all the time! And intentionally!

There was one incident years ago where one of my canines tossed a baby squirrel up in the air, fatally injuring him. He didn't die immediately though and I sat by him for the transition. This event hit me hard for whatever reason. I did not punish my dog, but she never again hurt another animal despite numerous opportunities to do so. Much more to this story, but the reply will be lengthy.

In another event, again with the simple squirrel, I witnessed one squirrel dragging his dead companion back home. It was through difficult territory though, and he had to risk his own life to do it. In the process, he ended up injuring his leg but did not stop pulling his companion into their nest.

What would you make of these things?


The spirit of man, I think, is like the man's helper. it is much different than the Holy Spirit. I do not entirely unerstand myself. I would ask that question of a priest.


The distinction made is that the soul, or psuche, is representative of the physical self. The mind, the senses, emotions, etc. These things are different from the spirit, or pneuma, which is considered the part of us that connects to God. It also has references to ruach.

In this context, the soul does with the body and the spirit is eternal. But neither of these is explicitly stated as the only element that is timeless.

At the very least, an animals after life is its own organics going towards creating new life. Humans are also animals, but in this context I believe it just leads to confusion and futile debate.
edit on 15-12-2014 by Serdgiam because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Isa 65:25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD. -- This verse is in context with the entire subject matter of a new heaven and new earth which is believed to be the kingdom of heaven. So to put this in its contextual understanding It is my understanding that we must read the entire thought process of a subject. The subject starts starts with Isaiah 65:17 to the end of the chapter which is the above verse Isaiah 65:25;

This means (to me) that in the kingdom of heaven and on the new earth, the author of Isaiah is saying that there will be animals. For this to be true I assume that either animals do have afterlife or that they are created in the new earth. As far as all animals are concerned why would the evil animals go to heaven? Why not just the good animals?



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 07:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: SaturnFX
Hmm
Well, does it say snakes, or "serpent". keep in mind, Leviathan is also called serpent, and that was a sea monster. Also, kingdoms were called serpent, and people (king of Babylon was a serpent according to bible).


I am aware of the symbolism used, but in a literal sense, cursing the serpent, affects all it's descendents (snakes)
Just like the original sin affects all humans. Also in the much earlier greek translation it was called Ophis.
In the tradition of many christian societies the snake is viewed as evil or cursed and a symbol of satan. That ofcourse comes from the dispute to the pagan religions that worshiped snake goddesses and respected them as something holy.
There is no coincidence that the Ophis (the snake) was the villain in the story of genesis, considering their aversion towards pagans when the genesis was written.


originally posted by: SaturnFX
As far as expelled from heaven, nobody or nothing was. Eden was a place created for man, but earth was a place for all animals, man got kicked out of eden (the actual property..bit like being kicked out of town) and exiled into the wilds...it was mankinds knowledge that recognized the difference though.
Animals don't have knowledge of how crappy life is basically, so, they are in some respects, still in eden...even fluffy the cat..totally high queen catness of Eden in her mind.


But when in Eden, Adam was asked by god to name all the animals, that indicates that the animals were in Eden too.
Eden as a place and all animals, plants etc where all created for man.
''it was mankinds knowledge that recognized the difference though''
No it wasn't since by being kicked out he and his wife had to suffer through their life's and face death.
Animals recognize suffering and feel pain too, it's naive of us to think otherwise, so no they are not in still in Eden.
I respect your philosophical views, but the biblical Eden was not just a state of mind.



originally posted by: SaturnFX
Also, there is a poor translation going on about being ejected from eden..it isn't so much man was cursed for what they did, rather, they had to suffer the consequences for what they did.
Once you know, you know. The thought goes, knowledge came to us, and we therefore advanced as a species...we seen and contemplated our mortality, etc..and with that knowledge, we...knew what was to come..the terror of death that will definitely hit us, disease, greed, etc..all the cool stuff to be a high intelligence..it isn't really a curse, unless you sending your kid to school is also a curse as they will learn about the glory and horror of life that way..but it is a consequence..

You can of course just read the badly translated madlibs version called the bible and get the ridiculous story mind you that would make anyone with a iq higher than a potato laugh at its insanity..or do a bit of study on it and see it actually isn't as poorly put together as the average religonut would have you believe.

btw, I am agnostic-atheist....I am simply mildly interested in Christianity in regards to corruption, root story, and totally aliens!

I quite enjoy reading the researchers trying to accurate translate the original scrolls in context of how the language worked then verses the absurdity that it is today.


I can find symbolism and hidden meaning in every existing story religious or not. But we have to ask, was that the authors intention? Or is it something attributed by others? It's no secret that many people try to justify the ''issues'' of their religious texts by that method.
I would like to suggest you also study ancient pagan philosophies and compare them with the morals and teachings of the bible.

Best regards.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join