WishboneDawn

I tend to think he might not. His covenents, as far as I know, are with humans. He's our shepard. The responsibility for doing good for animals was given to humans. We're to be their stewards.

Sort of similar to a ministry model I was reading about last week. The preist ministers to the congregation but then it's the congregation that should be out ministering (not ness. evangelizing!) to people outside the congregation.

That's one view anyway.

Mickie

According to every Christian I've ever talked to (where this came up)... no, animals are here for our consumption/use. They do not have souls, nor are they found in heaven. In an ironic twist of fate... they just die.

Unless of course it is their 5 year old asking about her favorite pet Fluffy who just got plastered by a car. "Yes honey, Fluffy is in heaven."

ETA: that is why it is a-OKAY to drown new unwanted kittens in the river.

xaxxat

I think not. Just think of the number of animals sacrificed to please Yahweh.

Mikezrh

I agree. Animals don't figure in scripture as recipients of eternal life & I don't know of any scriptural record of God performing miracles for the benefit of the animal. Of course, what an individual Christian may claim in this respect is only limited by their imagination (heck, I've heard of cars being miraculously healed!!) but there seems to be no scriptural precedent for animals being beneficiaries of God's miracles.

Mike

post tenebras lux

But they frequently refuse to allow the poor kittens'/puppies' mothers to be neutered - 'Oh no! That's not NATURAL!'

Just feel the LOVE.

Sheshbazzar

The thought inherent in the animal sacrifice was of the innocent (animal) being sacrificed as a substitute for the death of the guilty (men).
In such a system based upon an awareness of 'sin' and 'guilt', the recognition of the total innocence of the sacrifice was certainly an intentional "guilt trip" reminder to the guilty of their failure to amend their ways.

Any compassionate person would be repulsed by the sheer magnitude of 'innocent' victims being slain, a veritable flood of innocent blood, indicative of just how guilty men are under the Law.

Dogs lick the sores of the suffering, and eat of the crumbs which fall from the Masters table, having their place in His household, they await his return that they might again lie at His feet.

Which of you sojourners having been received into the hospitality of another mans house would think it proper to engage in the abusing of that mans dogs with harsh and vulgar language? arousing them, and jeering at them when they raise up a howl of protest? would you also kick that mans dogs because he was not present?
When the Master of the house returns, shall He not know of what His guests have done against Him, and against His household in His absence?
How would you deal with a house guest who spoke and wrote slander against your family, tormented your children, and abused and kicked your dogs in your absence?

If the innocent died that the guilty might live, then justice will only be fully complete when all of the guilty die, and all of the innocent be brought alive again.

All the earths creatures suffer as the result of mans guilt, the redemption of men likewise shall be the redemption of all of creation.
Innocent blood cries out to YHWH, and ALL of the innocent shall live.

Johnny Skeptic

I still need to know if there are any tangible differences between the lives of humans and animals. Some humans die from accidents, and some animals die from accidents. Some humans die from starvation, and some animals die from starvation. Some humans have unusual recoveries from sickness, and some animals have unusual recoveries from sickness. Some humans die in hurricanes, and some animals die in hurricanes. It seems to me that God is not any more interested in tangibly helping humans than he is in tangibly helping animals. If he does not exist, then it is to be expected that the tangible lives of humans and animals would be similar. It he does exist, then we can be certain that he has no interest in preventing such things as natural disasters and serious birth defect in babies.

Matthew 14:14 says "And Jesus went forth, and saw a great multitude, and was moved with compassion toward them, and he healed their sick." On the other hand, Exodus 4:11 says "And the Lord said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord?" Such being the case, why did Paul attribute his thorn in the flesh to Satan? He was known for having uncorroborated visions.

Today, why do most Christians attribute their troubles to the Devil? Why do many Christians ask God to heal them? John 9:1-3 say "And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him." Based upon those verses, Christians should not ask God to heal them. The simple truth is that Christians do not have a clue who causes their troubles.

Thomas II

Sorry,Johnny, I wasn't trying to make fun of your thoughts, it's just that sometimes the religious is funny...
Ok,ok...let's see...I can't recall miracles with animals performed by Jesus...
I do remember once, he sent a bunch of demons into some pigs...which seems a bit extreme to treat the poor inocent pigs like that,if you think about it...

Toto

The same question is here in GRD.

Mikezrh

Sorry for another digression, Johnny, but I need to make a comment in response to Sheshbazzar's post.

According to Richard Friedman in Who Wrote The Bible? (pp 91-92) the idea that animal sacrifice was primarily used as a compensation for sin is a misunderstanding. "In the biblical world, however, the most common type of sacrifice was for meals. The apparent rationale was that if humans wanted to eat meat they had to recognize that they were taking life. They could not regard this as an ordinary act of daily secular life. It was a sacred act, to be performed in a prescribed manner, by an appointed person (a priest), at an altar. A portion of the sacrifice (a tithe) was given to the priest. This applied to all meat meals (but not fish or fowl)." There's a parallel to this belief & ritual in Zoroastrianism as well. I don't think Friedman is saying that animal sacrifice was never used as a sin offering - it most certainly was - just that it wasn't the primary reason for the occurrence of animal sacrifice.

Back to the thread .........

Mike