Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Jay

Where do dogs go when they die?

Recommended Posts

Dogs have something evidently. Whether or not they will be in heaven isn't clear. When God creates the new heaven and new earth, dogs will almost certainly be there, because God created them as good. Good things won't come to an end in the new earth. :)

"Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down into the earth?" -Ecclesiastes 3:21, ESV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that's too bad because the Jewish faith was never a faith based on Scripture. It was originally a faith based on tradition. Oral tradition in fact. If you remember correct the law was never even written down until Moses was about to die, and they only read the law once every 7 years. The Jewish people never adhered to scripture the way Protestants do in Christianity. They didn't believe that the fullness of revelation was written down on books of page, so Jewish tradition means a lot to the religion at the time. A lot more than you seem to realize.

I agree. CTF is too laggy for me to go all in depth about this, but JAG YOU ARE WRONG.

I was raised Protestant and taught to hate Catholics, and yet what Zabby is saying is the exact stuff I was taught (excluding references specifically to Catholic tradition). If it's not really in the Bible, I'm still fairly certain it's believed Satan was God's best piece of handywork, but he had become jealous and caused the downfall of man and all that nice stuff.

Rational:

1) Animals don't talk.

2) Animals don't have a concept of sin, for all we currently know anyways.

Biblical:

3) Jesus declared Satan was the father of lies - that he was a liar form the beginning. The serpent gives the first lie found in the bible while speaking to Eve.

4) John, in Revelation, calls Satan the "ancient serpent."

1. That doesn't even make sense. Animals *do* talk, you just don't understand them. That being the case, the problem is more with you and humans in general because we haven't figured out all the languages animals use.

2. How do you know? Without getting into an existential philosophical debate, you and I are humans right now, thus being part of the animal kingdom, and we have a concept of sin. So all the information you have holds absolute proof of pointing towards animals having a concept of sin simply because the only things you know for sure are those from yourself.

3. Okay. That has absolutely nothing to do with if dogs go to Heaven or if they have souls.

4. So, if he's a snake, and animals have no souls because you think so, then that means Satan doesn't have a soul. And if he doesn't have a soul, that means he has no concept of sin. So Satan is just ignorant of the wrong he commits. Amirite?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are completely missing my point. We are apparently talking past each other. Let me take a step back and ask, "What is your definition of soul?"

I don't really have a dictionary definition for it. It's basically who we are as people. We are souls who have a body. I think that is what constitutes being 'made in the image of God'. Not any physical appearance.

Nope, you don't need a soul to be present on the New Earth. There will be rocks and dirt and water and air and all sorts of things that we have now that do not have souls on new earth, so that's a completely pointless thing to bring up.

That wasn't supposed to be an argument. I was saying that it was possible for them to be there without a soul...

Wait... you don't think that dogs will be on new earth? The whole point of new earth is that it's this earth only perfect, so of course all of creation will be there in it's most perfected form.

I think you are missing the OP's question. It is about dogs that are living in this world. Those dogs that die on this Earth, will they go to the new Earth? I think not. Can different dogs be on the new earth? Who knows, it's possible.

Well, that's too bad because the Jewish faith was never a faith based on Scripture. It was originally a faith based on tradition. Oral tradition in fact. If you remember correct the law was never even written down until Moses was about to die, and they only read the law once every 7 years. The Jewish people never adhered to scripture the way Protestants do in Christianity. They didn't believe that the fullness of revelation was written down on books of page, so Jewish tradition means a lot to the religion at the time. A lot more than you seem to realize.

I agree, we shouldn't turn this into a protestant/catholic debate. I think we both know that your comparing apples to oranges. If you, or anyone else, would like to discuss this topic then just message me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JAG

Guys, am I the only one who went "What the..." after reading Jay's response? If not, I'll bother to explain. I'm just dumbfounded right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
God, please don't let this become a Protestant vs. Catholic debate.

God answered your prayers haha.

I'll be watching this one.

---------- Post added at 10:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:45 PM ----------

Guys, am I the only one who went "What the..." after reading Jay's response? If not, I'll bother to explain. I'm just dumbfounded right now.

I went "What the..." as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok then, what physical attributes could God possibly have?

To create material, the creator must be material-less.

I suppose my POV would be more related to sensory attributes rather than direct physical features. I would be more confident to say our bodies are physical representations of God's ability and operation in the spiritual rhelm.

If I wanted to, I'd cite a few reasonings:

Rational:

1) Animals don't talk.

2) Animals don't have a concept of sin, for all we currently know anyways.

Biblical:

3) Jesus declared Satan was the father of lies - that he was a liar form the beginning. The serpent gives the first lie found in the bible while speaking to Eve.

4) John, in Revelation, calls Satan the "ancient serpent."

Although all of this may be plausible, there are many other theological implications to be considered. Such as why God would allow Satan's power to exist in what is to be perfection? And why would God support something to tempt mankind to fall? Which THEN comes down to Calvinism vs Arminianism...

I agree. CTF is too laggy for me to go all in depth about this, but JAG YOU ARE WRONG.

I was raised Protestant and taught to hate Catholics, and yet what Zabby is saying is the exact stuff I was taught (excluding references specifically to Catholic tradition). If it's not really in the Bible, I'm still fairly certain it's believed Satan was God's best piece of handywork, but he had become jealous and caused the downfall of man and all that nice stuff.

1. That doesn't even make sense. Animals *do* talk, you just don't understand them. That being the case, the problem is more with you and humans in general because we haven't figured out all the languages animals use.

2. How do you know? Without getting into an existential philosophical debate, you and I are humans right now, thus being part of the animal kingdom, and we have a concept of sin. So all the information you have holds absolute proof of pointing towards animals having a concept of sin simply because the only things you know for sure are those from yourself.

3. Okay. That has absolutely nothing to do with if dogs go to Heaven or if they have souls.

4. So, if he's a snake, and animals have no souls because you think so, then that means Satan doesn't have a soul. And if he doesn't have a soul, that means he has no concept of sin. So Satan is just ignorant of the wrong he commits. Amirite?

What?

1. Animals have only primitive communication abilities. Normally they're able to communicate things like danger and fear, but nothing more complex.

2. Animals have ability of compassion and fear. I would even be gutsy enough to say guilt. Not sin. Sin is mankinds fallen mistake.

3. Talking about the serpent.

4. Dude, read your sentence again. Angels/Lucifer/fallen angels and mankind are not the same beings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JAG
Although all of this may be plausible, there are many other theological implications to be considered. Such as why God would allow Satan's power to exist in what is to be perfection? And why would God support something to tempt mankind to fall? Which THEN comes down to Calvinism vs Arminianism...

Define perfection. Likewise, we know God uses evil for good, and indeed He allowed Satan to ruin Job's life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have to be honest - I didn't take this thread seriously until I read Ecclesiastes 3:18-21 which says, "18 I also said to myself, “As for humans, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. 19 Surely the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; humans have no advantage over animals. Everything is meaningless. 20 All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. 21 Who knows if the human spirit rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?”

Now I'm completely stumped. Any thoughts on this passage?

I don't think I had read this before, good find! I think this passage has more to do with the idea that both animals and humans will die. The author (most likely King Solomon) is making the point that all of our actions in this life are pointless because we are going to die and leave it behind. The same is true for animals, so why should we consider ourselves better? The presence of those animals in the new earth is a different discussion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think I had read this before, good find! I think this passage has more to do with the idea that both animals and humans will die. The author (most likely King Solomon) is making the point that all of our actions in this life are pointless because we are going to die and leave it behind. The same is true for animals, so why should we consider ourselves better? The presence of those animals in the new earth is a different discussion

This.

Also I think when it talks of things being meaningless. it even goes on to the afterlife. Going down into the earth (ie, staying dead) is meaningless and effortless. No one knows who will end up that way and if animals will either. But either way, it's all meaningless and I guess there's no reason to care either which way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JAG
I have to be honest - I didn't take this thread seriously until I read Ecclesiastes 3:18-21 which says, "18 I also said to myself, “As for humans, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. 19 Surely the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; humans have no advantage over animals. Everything is meaningless. 20 All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. 21 Who knows if the human spirit rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?”

Now I'm completely stumped. Any thoughts on this passage?

Our hope is in the resurrection of Christ. He was the first human to ever be resurrected from death. The Jewish perspective of the afterlife was bleak. It was called Sheol, and king David dreaded the thought of going there - because he wouldn't be able to worship God in his death. Yet, all Christians hope for resurrection in following after Christ. The afterlife was a hazy subject for ancient jews. Even Mary/Martha didn't think that Jesus would raise Lazarus from the dead - the Saduccees didn't believe in a resurrection at judgment day at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Our hope is in the resurrection of Christ. He was the first human to ever be resurrected from death. The Jewish perspective of the afterlife was bleak. It was called Sheol, and king David dreaded the thought of going there - because he wouldn't be able to worship God in his death. Yet, all Christians hope for resurrection in following after Christ. The afterlife was a hazy subject for ancient jews. Even Mary/Martha didn't think that Jesus would raise Lazarus from the dead - the Saduccees didn't believe in a resurrection at judgment day at all.

King Davids Psalms tell us something different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JAG
King Davids Psalms tell us something different.

lol...friend, I'm reading the psalms right now. Here is one from a few weeks ago I read:

Turn, LORD! Rescue me;

save me because of Your faithful love.

For there is no remembrance of You in death;

who can thank You in Sheol?

- Psalm 6:4-6-

The fact Paul had to outline the hope of Christian resurrection so magnanimously in 1 Corinthians 15, goes to show Jews at the time really weren't all that savvy about the afterlife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to preface this with a statement that I do not believe that dogs will be in heaven when that die. I have never argued this point, and I will never argue this point. I only entered into this conversation to explain the difference between a human soul and an animal soul. I seem to be doing a poor job of it.

I don't really have a dictionary definition for it. It's basically who we are as people. We are souls who have a body. I think that is what constitutes being 'made in the image of God'. Not any physical appearance.

I disagree with on the basic definition of what a soul is. You say earlier that a soul is the mind, and that's probably the closest you've gotten to the average theological definition of a soul. The standard definition of a soul is the life-force of a being. The thing that defines a being as living. The thing that gives something animation and movement. Because I can move under my own power, without having to be set in motion by an external physical property, I have a soul. Dogs fall into this category as well, as do all animals. Animals have minds. They have thoughts, but they do not have souls like humans have souls. Humans have been and always will be a higher order of creation than animals. We are distinct from animals, not because we have a soul, but rather because we have spirits. The spirit of a person is that which allows it to interact with the supernatural. We have the ability to pray and be heard. We have the ability to live and move on a non-physical plane, on the supernatural plane where angels and God exist. This is what makes us made in His image. This is what makes us able to live forever. Without a spiritual nature, we would not be able to even enter into heaven because heaven is not a place where flesh exists. That is the whole reason why the new earth will be created so that God can give us a place to be flesh and spirit, joined with him forever, created in the way we were meant to be. This world is incomplete because our spirit is separated from God and not on the level it should be. The next world is incomplete because we will not have our bodies, but New Earth will be paradise.

That wasn't supposed to be an argument. I was saying that it was possible for them to be there without a soul...

I'll admit it is possible, but very unlikely considering the definition of soul I keep insisting on.

I think you are missing the OP's question. It is about dogs that are living in this world. Those dogs that die on this Earth, will they go to the new Earth? I think not. Can different dogs be on the new earth? Who knows, it's possible.

I don't disagree with you. The only reason people ask questions like this is because they're trying to think of heaven too much on earthly terms. The fact of the matter is that we won't have connections on heaven like we have connections now. We will be without bodies, so we will not have the desire for things like eating, drinking, breathing, and we will be completely covered and surround by God's love and grace, so we will not desire things like human company or companionship. On New Earth, that will be completely different and I don't claim to know exactly what will happen because it is not nearly as flushed out, but I know enough to say that animals cease to exist after they die. It is simply the fate of that part of creation.

I agree, we shouldn't turn this into a protestant/catholic debate. I think we both know that your comparing apples to oranges. If you, or anyone else, would like to discuss this topic then just message me.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm not trying to turn this into a Catholic/Protestant debate. I'm questioning why you guys don't accept Jewish tradition that has been past down to us, which God has not contradicted in Scripture or through a different form of revelation. I assume that we are called to accept what our Jewish brothers and sisters have given us up to this point as valid because God persevered them in a way none of the rest of the world was preserved. Isn't that why during the refomation you, as protestants, decided to draw your Old Testament Cannon from Judaism rather than using the cannon that had been accepted in Christianity for centuries?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Define perfection. Likewise, we know God uses evil for good, and indeed He allowed Satan to ruin Job's life.

I guess I meant perfection as in the un fallen state of mankind in the origin of creation.

Job, well, we all know is an exception, but also, it was about God showing His end grace, and God did pull through in the end. I just don't think the example of Job could be used in parallel to fallen mankind. If so, it would seem we could blame origin of our sins on Satan rather than ourselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm going to preface this with a statement that I do not believe that dogs will be in heaven when that die. I have never argued this point, and I will never argue this point. I only entered into this conversation to explain the difference between a human soul and an animal soul. I seem to be doing a poor job of it.

I disagree with on the basic definition of what a soul is. You say earlier that a soul is the mind, and that's probably the closest you've gotten to the average theological definition of a soul. The standard definition of a soul is the life-force of a being. The thing that defines a being as living. The thing that gives something animation and movement. Because I can move under my own power, without having to be set in motion by an external physical property, I have a soul. Dogs fall into this category as well, as do all animals. Animals have minds. They have thoughts, but they do not have souls like humans have souls. Humans have been and always will be a higher order of creation than animals. We are distinct from animals, not because we have a soul, but rather because we have spirits. The spirit of a person is that which allows it to interact with the supernatural. We have the ability to pray and be heard. We have the ability to live and move on a non-physical plane, on the supernatural plane where angels and God exist. This is what makes us made in His image. This is what makes us able to live forever. Without a spiritual nature, we would not be able to even enter into heaven because heaven is not a place where flesh exists. That is the whole reason why the new earth will be created so that God can give us a place to be flesh and spirit, joined with him forever, created in the way we were meant to be. This world is incomplete because our spirit is separated from God and not on the level it should be. The next world is incomplete because we will not have our bodies, but New Earth will be paradise.

I think your missing the sense in which I am using 'mind'. I don't mean a brain. I mean a mind as in a soul. A soul is not the life-force of a being. It is something that exists outside of the body. This 'spirit' that you are talking about is basically what I mean by 'soul/mind'. I think we can all agree that dogs do have life, so your definition of 'soul' is pointless. But I think we have more in common on this topic than I originally thought.

Maybe this will help you understand what I'm talking about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism#Mind-matter_and_mind-body_dualism

I don't disagree with you. The only reason people ask questions like this is because they're trying to think of heaven too much on earthly terms. The fact of the matter is that we won't have connections on heaven like we have connections now. We will be without bodies, so we will not have the desire for things like eating, drinking, breathing, and we will be completely covered and surround by God's love and grace, so we will not desire things like human company or companionship. On New Earth, that will be completely different and I don't claim to know exactly what will happen because it is not nearly as flushed out, but I know enough to say that animals cease to exist after they die. It is simply the fate of that part of creation.

Agreed, except for the part I bolded. I think fellowship will still be very present.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm not trying to turn this into a Catholic/Protestant debate. I'm questioning why you guys don't accept Jewish tradition that has been past down to us, which God has not contradicted in Scripture or through a different form of revelation. I assume that we are called to accept what our Jewish brothers and sisters have given us up to this point as valid because God persevered them in a way none of the rest of the world was preserved. Isn't that why during the refomation you, as protestants, decided to draw your Old Testament Cannon from Judaism rather than using the cannon that had been accepted in Christianity for centuries?

The catholic/protestant debate thing was brought up by someone else, so this wasn't in direct response to you. Sorry if I made it seem life this.

I'm not saying that Jewish tradition is wrong. I'm just saying that it is not inspired, and it is not something I can put my faith in. So I can't take it as evidence. And lol at your last sentence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JAG
I guess I meant perfection as in the un fallen state of mankind in the origin of creation.

Job, well, we all know is an exception, but also, it was about God showing His end grace, and God did pull through in the end. I just don't think the example of Job could be used in parallel to fallen mankind. If so, it would seem we could blame origin of our sins on Satan rather than ourselves.

I was just giving an example of God using evil for good because you asked me why God would use Satan to tempt someone (if I recall correctly, I may have to go back and read it over again).

I was sort of wondering why you feel "perfection" or an "un-fallen state" dismisses "choice" or "free will."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, if Satan's a snake, and animals have no souls, then Satan doesn't have a soul

...

This argument makes me severely happy.

Anyway, Lonehunter, when Zabby says "soul," she just means a mind insofar as such exists in a brain operating independently of an eternal spirit. It's completely irrelevant to whether animals have an individual eternal essence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...

This argument makes me severely happy.

Anyway, Lonehunter, when Zabby says "soul," she just means a mind insofar as such exists in a brain operating independently of an eternal spirit. It's completely irrelevant to whether animals have an individual eternal essence.

Exactly. I think that's where we started talking past each other. Hopefully now that I've cleared that up things will start coming together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just thought of something. Hell is Sheol which is death which is basically not existing and becoming part of the earth. So if animals become part of the earth, that means they go to Hell.

Or am I missing something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly. I think that's where we started talking past each other. Hopefully now that I've cleared that up things will start coming together.

lonehunter, you haven't cleared anything up. All you've done is reject my definition of soul, completely ignoring all the theological texts that I have read and the explanations I have been taught.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JAG
I just thought of something. Hell is Sheol which is death which is basically not existing and becoming part of the earth. So if animals become part of the earth, that means they go to Hell.

Or am I missing something?

Sheol is not hell. Jews didn't have a clear concept of hell until Christ came.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×