Animals - According to the bible
Terry Schwab
See content - also see "Who Go To Heaven" According to the Bible - posting
ANIMALS - According to the Bible
Living souls that are not human. (Compare Nu 31:28.) The Hebrew word
behe·mah' refers to larger four-footed creatures, usually domestic animals
but occasionally wild beasts. It is rendered "domestic animals," "beasts,"
"livestock," and "cattle." (Ge 1:26; 9:10; 34:23; Ps 107:38) The Hebrew
re'mes denotes "moving animals" or "creeping things" and comes from the root
ra·mas', meaning "move; creep." (Ge 6:20; Eze 8:10; Ge 1:28, ftn) Also, the
Hebrew term chai·yah', literally meaning "living creature," is used to refer
to "wild beasts" or "wild animals." (Ge 1:28; 3:14; Isa 56:9) The parallel
Greek term is zo'on (living creature), also rendered ‘animal.’—Re 4:7; 2Pe
2:12.
According to its kind
Jehovah God formed all the animals, each family kind having its own
originally created representatives, for the record assures us that God made
them each one "according to its kind." (Ge 1:25) In this article we shall
consider particularly land animals.
In view of God’s granting perfect man dominion over the various creatures of
the earth, it was most appropriate that Adam be privileged to name these
creatures. (Ge 1:26; 2:19, 20) Man’s having the animals in subjection placed
upon him a stewardship for which he would always be accountable to God.—Lu
12:48.
Fear of Man
Animals were so created that they would have a fear and dread of man as
their superior. (Ge 9:2, 3) According to naturalists, wild creatures, such
as the leopard and the king cobra, normally prefer to retreat from man’s
presence, although they do attack when provoked, wounded, cornered, or
suddenly surprised. It has been suggested that tigers become man-eaters, for
example, by force of circumstances, such as old age or injury that would
greatly limit the tiger’s ability to procure its normal game, or the
depletion of the tiger’s game through man’s hunting.
Permission to eat flesh
Already prior to the Flood, animals were killed to provide clothing for man
and for sacrificial purposes. (Ge 3:21; 4:4) However, not until after the
Deluge did Noah and his family receive permission from Jehovah to add flesh
to their diet, with the stipulation that it must be drained of its blood.
(Ge 9:3, 4) While this made it proper for man to kill animals for necessary
food, he was not authorized thereby to indulge in needless slaughter for the
sheer thrill of the hunt or to display personal prowess, as Nimrod, the
rebel against God, undoubtedly did.—Ge 10:9.
Some have contended that the presence of animals on isolated islands like
Australia and New Zealand is an indication that not all land animals outside
the ark perished in the Deluge. However, the findings of oceanographers
indicate that at one time land ridges connected what are now isolated land
areas. For example, oceanographic studies indicate that the Mid-Atlantic
Ridge may have crossed that ocean above the surface. Possibly there were
also other ridges, and animals could have migrated by means of these before
such ridges sank below the surface of the ocean. Other oceanographic studies
have turned up evidence that once there existed a huge South Pacific
continent that took in Australia and many of the South Sea isles. If such
was the case, then, of course, the animals had no difficulty in migrating to
these lands.
Clean and Unclean Animals.
A classification of animals is to be noted in God’s instructions to Noah to
take with him into the ark seven of each clean animal and two of each
unclean animal. (Ge 7:2, 3, 8, 9) Since a flesh diet had not yet been
authorized, this distinction between clean and unclean was probably
determined on the basis of what was acceptable to Jehovah as a sacrifice.
Hence, on emerging from the ark, Noah knew which creatures were clean and
suitable for offering upon the altar. (Ge 8:20) At that time no restriction
existed with respect to the type of animals that Noah and his family could
eat, as is indicated by Jehovah’s words: "Every moving animal that is alive
may serve as food for you."—Ge 9:3.
God’s law to the Israelites
God’s law to the Israelites, therefore, introduced a new distinction when it
classified certain animals as clean and fit for food and others as unclean
and prohibited as food. The scripture specifies: "Every creature that splits
the hoof and forms a cleft in the hoofs and chews the cud among the beasts,
that is what you may eat." (Le 11:3) And again: "You must eat no detestable
thing of any sort. This is the sort of beast that you may eat: the bull, the
sheep and the goat, the stag and gazelle and roebuck and wild goat and
antelope and wild sheep and chamois; and every beast that splits the hoof
and that forms a cleft into two hoofs, chewing the cud among the beasts."—De
14:3-6.
Animals lacking one or both of the above-mentioned features were not to be
eaten by those under the terms of the Law covenant. The prohibited animals
included the rock badger, the hare, the pig, the camel. Also, creatures
‘going upon their paws’ were prohibited, this doubtless embracing such
creatures as the lion, the bear, and the wolf.—Le 11:4-8, 26, 27; De 14:7,
8.
These dietary limitations applied only to those who were under the Mosaic
Law, for the statement of Leviticus 11:8 is: "They are unclean for you,"
that is, for the Israelites. With the abrogation of the Law on the basis of
the sacrificial death of Christ Jesus, the prohibitions were canceled, and
once more all humans could consider themselves under the same broad
provision announced to Noah following the Deluge.—Col 2:13-17; Ge 9:3, 4.
Since the restriction concerning unclean foods was taken out of the way with
the rest of the Law, a question may arise as to why Peter, about three and a
half years later, still had not eaten any "unclean" animals. (Ac 10:10-15)
It must be remembered that the cancellation of the Law resulted in great
changes in the lives of Christ’s followers, and therefore, it reasonably
took some time for them to appreciate all that was involved.
Illustrative Usage.
The outstanding traits of animals are alluded to and used by Bible writers
to symbolize a variety of qualities and powers. At times animal features may
portray excellent qualities, divine as well as human. (Eze 1:10, 11; Re 4:6,
7) In other instances animals may be employed to represent wild, beastlike
ruling powers that oppress and crush peoples.—Da 7:2-7; 8:5-8, 20, 21; Re
13:1-17; see BEASTS, SYMBOLIC.
Proper Use and View of Animal Creation.
In connection with worship under the Mosaic Law, cattle, sheep, and goats
were among the creatures acceptable for sacrifice. Such animals were to be
sound ones, and no castrated animal was admissible. (Le 22:23-25) The use of
animal blood for food or for any purpose other than sacrifice was
prohibited. (Le 17:13, 14) Worship of any representation of an animal or
other created thing was strictly forbidden.—Ex 20:4, 5.
The Bible inculcates just and merciful treatment of the lower creatures.
Indeed, Jehovah represents himself as the Loving Provider for their lives
and well-being. (Pr 12:10; Ps 145:15, 16) The Mosaic Law enjoined proper
care of domestic animals. When found straying, domestic animals were to be
returned safely to their owner; when crushed under a burden, they were to be
relieved. (Ex 23:4, 5) They were to be worked humanely. (De 22:10; 25:4)
They, as well as man, were to benefit from the Sabbath rests. (Ex 20:10;
23:12; De 5:14) Dangerous animals were to be controlled or destroyed. (Ge
9:5; Ex 21:28, 29) Crossbreeding of different sorts was forbidden.—Le 19:19.
God-fearing men see in animals part of God’s generous provision for human
welfare. Animals have served man as burden bearers, as sources of food and
clothing, as sanitation agents, and as helpers in the vital activities of
plowing and harvesting. Their variety of form and color has delighted his
eye; their habits and instincts have been and still are an extensive field
for inquiry into the marvels of God’s creative work. Though animals die in
the same manner as man, they do not share his hope of a resurrection.—2Pe
2:12; .
Terry - Hype...@worldnet.att.net
Steven Schrader
> Animals do not go to heaven
Mmm, doesn't much interest me then. I'd prefer to be where my loved ones
are. Thanks for the info though.
Later,
---
Steven Schrader
The Musician's Homepage - "http://www.enteract.com/~digialex/"
"Pooh knew what he meant, but, being a Bear of Very Little Brain,
couldn't think of the words." - The House at Pooh Corner
SagaLore
Steven Schrader wrote in message ...
>On 10 Feb 1999, Terry Schwab wrote:
>
>
>are. Thanks for the info though.
Well you _did_ at least read the rest of it, or did you stop there? :P
SJR
"Only the mediocre are always at their best" Giraudoux
___________________________________
http://www.rusling.mcmail.com
_________________
Steven Schrader wrote in message ...
>On 10 Feb 1999, Terry Schwab wrote:
>
>
>are. Thanks for the info though.
Sam
Steven Schrader
> Steven Schrader wrote in message ...
> >On 10 Feb 1999, Terry Schwab wrote:
> >
> >> Animals do not go to heaven
> >
> >Mmm, doesn't much interest me then. I'd prefer to be where my loved ones
> >are. Thanks for the info though.
>
> Well you _did_ at least read the rest of it, or did you stop there? :P
Of course. Why?
later,
Steven Schrader
> Steven Schrader wrote in message ...
> >On 10 Feb 1999, Terry Schwab wrote:
> >
> >> Animals do not go to heaven
> >
> >Mmm, doesn't much interest me then. I'd prefer to be where my loved ones
> >are. Thanks for the info though.
> You just hurt cos that excludes you qc:
Heh, I don't much mind being exluded from somewhere I don't want to go in
the first place. :)
Later,
jac...@melbpc.org.au
<digi...@enteract.com> wrote:
>On 10 Feb 1999, Terry Schwab wrote:
>
>> Animals do not go to heaven
>
>Mmm, doesn't much interest me then. I'd prefer to be where my loved ones
>are. Thanks for the info though.
Steven, Animals do not to to hell either! So you'll be on your own...
Blade
jac...@melbpc.org.au wrote in message
<36c914aa...@news.melbpc.org.au>...
>On Wed, 10 Feb 1999 15:18:20 -0600, Steven Schrader
><digi...@enteract.com> wrote:
>
>>On 10 Feb 1999, Terry Schwab wrote:
>>
>>
>>are. Thanks for the info though.
>
>Steven, Animals do not to to hell either! So you'll be on your own...
So does own now mean mean several million billion?
Blade
Comparing religion to science is like comparing a molehill to a mountain!
Change .con to demon<dot>co<dot>uk to send mail.
Hall
Terry Schwab wrote:
Animals do not go to heaven.
Steven Schrader wrote:
Mmm, doesn't much interest me then. I'd prefer to be where my loved ones
are. Thanks for the info though.
Steven, what if:
1) Christians are right and faith in Jesus is the only way to avoid Hell,
and
2) Hell turns out to be eternal solitary confinement?
Will you be sorry that you rejected God's plan of salvation then?
Respectfully Submitted,
Jane Hall
Steven Schrader
Depends partly on if I learn anymore about God before then I think. I'm
sure I won't be particularly pleased about the constant discomfort (who
would?) but I'd also know that I was always honest about my beliefs and
what I felt was the right path.
Charos
tells me Jesus was real etc. etc...you can bet your BALLS I'd admit my
mistake and accept christ as lord...I mean, who wouldn't after that sudden
proof? Or would the Christian god turn me away simply because I needed
complete proof of his existence? Would it not be just as good to accept him
after death? Better late than never...
*+_Charos_+*
Felix Theonugraha
Charos wrote in message ...
>Who ever said I would?? If I die and meet up with god in heaven and he
>tells me Jesus was real etc. etc...you can bet your BALLS I'd admit my
>mistake and accept christ as lord...I mean, who wouldn't after that sudden
>proof? Or would the Christian god turn me away simply because I needed
>complete proof of his existence? Would it not be just as good to accept
him
>after death? Better late than never...
>
Felix
jac...@melbpc.org.au
wrote:
>>Steven, Animals do not to to hell either! So you'll be on your own...
>
>So does own now mean mean several million billion?
In the sense of ALONE. There will be no friendship or solace in Hell.
The Last Church
gets a second chance to decide after death to follow the teaching of
Christ. I know, I've been dead, once already.
Michael
--
http://www.the-last-church.org
mic...@the-last-church.org
Charos wrote in message ...
David Shipley
>
> Terry Schwab wrote:
>
> Animals do not go to heaven.
>
> Steven Schrader wrote:
>
> Mmm, doesn't much interest me then. I'd prefer to be where my loved ones
> are. Thanks for the info though.
>
> Steven, what if:
>
> and
> 2) Hell turns out to be eternal solitary confinement?
>
> Will you be sorry that you rejected God's plan of salvation then?
>
1) Muslims are right and following the 5 pillars is the only way to
avoid Hell?
and
2) Hell turns out to be eternal solitary confinement?
Will you be sorry that you rejected Allah and His Prophet then?
--
---------------
Anla'Shok Dave
We Live for the Cats
We Die for the Cats
---------------
AA #1396
EAC(UK) Theofinder General
Yarash, SBR
SJR
I was thinking about how people seem to read the Bible a
whole lot more as they get older, then it dawned on me . . . they were
cramming for their finals.
___________________________________
http://www.rusling.mcmail.com
_________________
The Last Church wrote in message <7a23cb$g5n$1...@whitecliff.sierra.net>...
>Animals do go to heaven, else we would not get there either. Everyone
>gets a second chance to decide after death to follow the teaching of
>Christ. I know, I've been dead, once already.
Sam
Blade
jac...@melbpc.org.au wrote in message >>>Steven, Animals do not to to hell
either! So you'll be on your own...
>>
>>So does own now mean mean several million billion?
>
>In the sense of ALONE. There will be no friendship or solace in Hell.
Nonsense, I intend to be good buddies with Satan, and plot the downfall of
god with him. We'll have a common interest, the prevention of belief in a
god.
jac...@melbpc.org.au
wrote:
>>In the sense of ALONE. There will be no friendship or solace in Hell.
>
>Nonsense, I intend to be good buddies with Satan, and plot the downfall of
>god with him. We'll have a common interest, the prevention of belief in a
>god.
What you intend, in your arrogance and rebellion against God, and the
ultimate reality of your eternal punishment in Hell are and wil be two
very different things - unless you confess and repent of your sins and
seek salvation via the Lord Jesus Christ - as commanded in Scripture.
jac...@melbpc.org.au
<mic...@the-last-church.org> wrote:
>Animals do go to heaven, else we would not get there either. Everyone
>gets a second chance to decide after death to follow the teaching of
>Christ. I know, I've been dead, once already.
> Michael
Animals do not go to Heaven.
Only humans, created in the image of God, and with a soul, as
tripartite beings go to Heaven.
There are no second chances. Death is the dividing line.
There is no purgatory or prayers for the dead. These are nothing but
catholic invention and are not mentioned in Scripture.
It appears you are still dead Michael! :-)
wersh
(jac...@melbpc.org.au) declared:
Right on!
I'd like to point out, however, that it would be strange that you'd
buddy up with Satan to prevent belief in a god after you've gotten
evidence of that god. Now Blade, I didn't think you would be deceptive
like that. If there is a god, and you discover such to be true, I
figured you'd at least admit such, even if you still reject him.
wersh
we...@flashmail.com
nlg...@hotmail.com
jac...@melbpc.org.au wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Feb 1999 12:38:39 -0800, "The Last Church"
> <mic...@the-last-church.org> wrote:
>
> >Animals do go to heaven, else we would not get there either. Everyone
> >gets a second chance to decide after death to follow the teaching of
> >Christ. I know, I've been dead, once already.
> > Michael
>
Then where do they go? Hell? Can animals sin?
> Only humans, created in the image of God, and with a soul, as
> tripartite beings go to Heaven.
Ah ah, I think you forgot the part where you start condemning us
non-believers.
> There are no second chances. Death is the dividing line.
Oh? I didn't know you died.
> There is no purgatory or prayers for the dead. These are nothing but
> catholic invention and are not mentioned in Scripture.
Ah, now it's the old Denomination Condemnation trick. You are just WAY too
predictable. At least once in awhile, you can try and pull something *else*
out of your ass. It'll make things more interesting.
JMHO,
Jon
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
jac...@melbpc.org.au
Jon,
I started to reply but noted the post was from you and so haven't
taken it seriously.
Been There
>>
>hmm...i don't think that option is possible though...
>
>Felix
>
I will agree that all the teaching I have recieved in church is that
once you are dead that is that and your choice is made.
However I will bring one thing to your attention. A brother at church
showed a music video of a spiritual song called "One drop of blood". It was
about a man standing before the throne and God asks him how he pleads over
his sins . Since he can not contest his guilt he pleads the Blood and his
sins are forgiven. Then he stands with others that plead the blood and
watches people going before the throne to be found guilty if they did not
plead the blood. Now if we had noted the content of the song at the time we
would have most likely have been offended but all the people in the room
could talk about was the annointing of God that was in the room as we
watched. When we left all that people were talking about was the annointing
they felt and not about the content of the song. I do not think any one even
noticed that it went against the teachings on judgment.
Now I did not notice the message of the song at the time, but rather
just the annointing. Then I forgot about the song without giving any thought
to its words. Many months latter the matter of wether there was any hope
after death came up. When I looked inside for scripture to explain why there
was no hope for the dead all I could remember was the words of that song and
its annointing.
Now I advise people it is best to be saved but if you will not. Then do
remember to plead the Blood of Jesus when you stand before the white throne.
nlg...@hotmail.com
In other words, Lindsay, you just didn't know how to respond, and are making
excuses instead. I *CAN'T* believe I once almost gave you the benefit of the
doubt. You've proven yourself unworthy of anything so nice many times over.
wersh
<lave...@hotmail.com> declared:
I think perhaps you misunderstood the song. Those that were able to
plead the Blood of Jesus had accepted him as Saviour during their
lives. At the judgment throne of God, that is a Christians only plea:
the Blood. Those who didn't plea the Blood couldn't, though I'm sure
they would if they could; they couldn't because they had rejected
Jesus, and his Blood, during their lives.
wersh
we...@flashmail.com
wersh
(jac...@melbpc.org.au) declared:
>On Sat, 13 Feb 1999 04:54:59 GMT, nlg...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>Jon,
>
>I started to reply but noted the post was from you and so haven't
>taken it seriously.
ROTFLOL!
That's the most rediculous reply I've seen in a while!
The Jackel patented "I don't like you so I'm ignoring you" reply :)
wersh
we...@flashmail.com
wersh
declared:
>In article <36c7d317...@news.melbpc.org.au>,
> jac...@melbpc.org.au wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Feb 1999 12:38:39 -0800, "The Last Church"
>> <mic...@the-last-church.org> wrote:
>>
>> >Animals do go to heaven, else we would not get there either. Everyone
>> >gets a second chance to decide after death to follow the teaching of
>> >Christ. I know, I've been dead, once already.
>> > Michael
>>
>> Animals do not go to Heaven.
>
>Then where do they go? Hell? Can animals sin?
They don't go to heaven or hell. They go nowhere. They have no soul or
spirit, so where in the spiritual realm could they go? Nowhere,
because they dobn't exist in the spiritual realm, only in the physical
realm.
>
>> Only humans, created in the image of God, and with a soul, as
>> tripartite beings go to Heaven.
>
>Ah ah, I think you forgot the part where you start condemning us
>non-believers.
That wasn't relevant to the discussion at hand. Why should he bring it
up? Why did you?
>> There are no second chances. Death is the dividing line.
>
>Oh? I didn't know you died.
Why do you ask him if he died? I don't see how he implied that...
>> There is no purgatory or prayers for the dead. These are nothing but
>> catholic invention and are not mentioned in Scripture.
>
>Ah, now it's the old Denomination Condemnation trick.
Except that he's right, this time. Purgatory and praying for the dead
don't exist in the Bible, just in the stuff catholics added. (I'm not
trying to pick a fight with the catholics here either; I disagree with
them, but I'm not condemning them)
>You are just WAY too predictable. At least once in awhile, you can try and pull something *else*
>out of your ass. It'll make things more interesting.
Actually, I didn't think his post was that bad (for once). You are the
one being predictable, you are the one throwing shit out of your ass.
And you aren't the least bit interesting, in this post.
>JMHO,
>Jon
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
wersh
we...@flashmail.com
Karen Hi
will be there though,for scriptures testify to that.
Karen
kare...@webtv.net
wersh
kare...@webtv.net (Karen Hi) declared:
> Do animals go to heaven? I don't know,friend. I do know that animals
>will be there though,for scriptures testify to that.
I didnt know that... where is that?
>
>
>Karen
>kare...@webtv.net
>
wersh
we...@flashmail.com
Harry Merrick
> Do animals go to heaven? I don't know,friend. I do know that animals
> will be there though,for scriptures testify to that.
>
> Karen
> kare...@webtv.net
My own interpretations of the Bible and it's teachings would have me
believe that you are perfectly correct Karen. Life is life in any form,
and as such is a miracle of God, if it is He you believe in. The Spirit,
or Soul, is believed by Christians to be the one thing given us by God,
that gives us life. With no Spirit or Soul the body would be lifeless. So,
ergo, the animals are part of God's miracle of life and most certainly
*will* be in Heaven, for they do not have the intelligence to commit sin
as we know it. Should I be fortunate enough to make it to Heaven
eventually, I, certainly, would be more than pleased to find animals there
also.
--
Harry.
---
"Those Who Dwell In The Past Have No Life In The Future."
(Anon)
---
ICQ# 2546277
Blade
wersh wrote in message <36c4dc1d...@news.pottsville.infi.net>...
>On Sat, 13 Feb 1999 01:19:04 GMT, the notorious jac...@melbpc.org.au
>(jac...@melbpc.org.au) declared:
>
>>On Sat, 13 Feb 1999 00:35:59 -0000, "Blade" <Bl...@mysanctuary.con>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>In the sense of ALONE. There will be no friendship or solace in Hell.
>>>
>>>Nonsense, I intend to be good buddies with Satan, and plot the downfall
of
>>>god with him. We'll have a common interest, the prevention of belief in a
>>>god.
>>
>>What you intend, in your arrogance and rebellion against God, and the
>>ultimate reality of your eternal punishment in Hell are and wil be two
>>very different things - unless you confess and repent of your sins and
>>seek salvation via the Lord Jesus Christ - as commanded in Scripture.
>Right on!
>I'd like to point out, however, that it would be strange that you'd
>buddy up with Satan to prevent belief in a god after you've gotten
>evidence of that god. Now Blade, I didn't think you would be deceptive
>like that. If there is a god, and you discover such to be true, I
>figured you'd at least admit such, even if you still reject him.
>
You are right, I would just not like him.
nlg...@hotmail.com
we...@flashmail.com (wersh) wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Feb 1999 04:54:59 GMT, the notorious nlg...@hotmail.com
> declared:
>
> >In article <36c7d317...@news.melbpc.org.au>,
> > jac...@melbpc.org.au wrote:
> >> On Fri, 12 Feb 1999 12:38:39 -0800, "The Last Church"
> >> <mic...@the-last-church.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Animals do go to heaven, else we would not get there either. Everyone
> >> >gets a second chance to decide after death to follow the teaching of
> >> >Christ. I know, I've been dead, once already.
> >> > Michael
> >>
> >> Animals do not go to Heaven.
> >
> >Then where do they go? Hell? Can animals sin?
> They don't go to heaven or hell. They go nowhere.
Why can't people go there as well?
They have no soul or
> spirit, so where in the spiritual realm could they go? Nowhere,
> because they dobn't exist in the spiritual realm, only in the physical
> realm.
Does it mention this in the Bible? Just curious.
> >> Only humans, created in the image of God, and with a soul, as
> >> tripartite beings go to Heaven.
> >
> >Ah ah, I think you forgot the part where you start condemning us
> >non-believers.
> That wasn't relevant to the discussion at hand.
No?
> Why should he bring it
> up? Why did you?
I said it because Jackel said that "Only humans created in the image of God,
and with a soul, as tripartite beings go to Heaven." Knowing how he tends to
act, I thought he forgot his usual addition at the end of that like, "Except,
of course, all you pagans."
> >> There are no second chances. Death is the dividing line.
> >
> >Oh? I didn't know you died.
> Why do you ask him if he died? I don't see how he implied that...
I just thought that he sounded like he already knew everything about death,
which I highly doubt.
> >> There is no purgatory or prayers for the dead. These are nothing but
> >> catholic invention and are not mentioned in Scripture.
> >
> >Ah, now it's the old Denomination Condemnation trick.
> Except that he's right, this time. Purgatory and praying for the dead
> don't exist in the Bible, just in the stuff catholics added. (I'm not
> trying to pick a fight with the catholics here either; I disagree with
> them, but I'm not condemning them)
Okay, and that's fine. But seeing as how pretty much everything is up for
grabs, it really doesn't matter at this point.
> >You are just WAY too predictable. At least once in awhile, you can try and pull something *else*
> >out of your ass. It'll make things more interesting.
> Actually, I didn't think his post was that bad (for once). You are the
> one being predictable,
Oh? Explain how?
> you are the one throwing shit out of your ass.
Why, because I know how Jackel is? How just about everyone on this ng knows
how he is?
> And you aren't the least bit interesting, in this post.
Did you have a bad day or something? As I said, I did give him the benefit
of the doubt before, but he's long ago used that up. I can't just be polite
and pretend that he makes sense, so I'm sorry if that conflicts with what you
want.
jac...@melbpc.org.au
>In article <36e024b5...@news.melbpc.org.au>,
> jac...@melbpc.org.au wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Feb 1999 04:54:59 GMT, nlg...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Jon,
>>
>> I started to reply but noted the post was from you and so haven't
>> taken it seriously.
>
>In other words, Lindsay, you just didn't know how to respond, and are making
>excuses instead. I *CAN'T* believe I once almost gave you the benefit of the
>doubt. You've proven yourself unworthy of anything so nice many times over.
Seriously Jon, I can't be bothered wasting time with you and other
time wasters.
You never gave me any benefit of the doubt. You are merely saying
that as a tactic to sound reasonable. You are lying.
Your have proven yourself to be a godless and rebellious fool.
wersh
declared:
>In article <36c5c3cd...@news.pottsville.infi.net>,
> we...@flashmail.com (wersh) wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Feb 1999 04:54:59 GMT, the notorious nlg...@hotmail.com
>> declared:
>>
>> >In article <36c7d317...@news.melbpc.org.au>,
>> > jac...@melbpc.org.au wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 12 Feb 1999 12:38:39 -0800, "The Last Church"
>> >> <mic...@the-last-church.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Animals do go to heaven, else we would not get there either. Everyone
>> >> >gets a second chance to decide after death to follow the teaching of
>> >> >Christ. I know, I've been dead, once already.
>> >> > Michael
>> >>
>> >> Animals do not go to Heaven.
>> >
>> >Then where do they go? Hell? Can animals sin?
>
>> They don't go to heaven or hell. They go nowhere.
>
> Why can't people go there as well?
Because we have souls that exist in the spiritual realm.
> They have no soul or
>> spirit, so where in the spiritual realm could they go? Nowhere,
>> because they dobn't exist in the spiritual realm, only in the physical
>> realm.
>
>Does it mention this in the Bible? Just curious.
Hmm.. I honestly don't know. Maybe I'm just infering it from related
verses, I dunno. But I'm pretty sure it's not against anything in the
Bible.
>
>> >> Only humans, created in the image of God, and with a soul, as
>> >> tripartite beings go to Heaven.
>> >
>> >Ah ah, I think you forgot the part where you start condemning us
>> >non-believers.
>
>> That wasn't relevant to the discussion at hand.
>
>No?
>
>> Why should he bring it
>> up? Why did you?
>
>I said it because Jackel said that "Only humans created in the image of God,
>and with a soul, as tripartite beings go to Heaven." Knowing how he tends to
>act, I thought he forgot his usual addition at the end of that like, "Except,
>of course, all you pagans."
Let him say it himself. Don't egg him on :)
>
>> >> There are no second chances. Death is the dividing line.
>> >
>> >Oh? I didn't know you died.
>
>> Why do you ask him if he died? I don't see how he implied that...
>
>I just thought that he sounded like he already knew everything about death,
>which I highly doubt.
okay.
>> >> There is no purgatory or prayers for the dead. These are nothing but
>> >> catholic invention and are not mentioned in Scripture.
>> >
>> >Ah, now it's the old Denomination Condemnation trick.
>
>> Except that he's right, this time. Purgatory and praying for the dead
>> don't exist in the Bible, just in the stuff catholics added. (I'm not
>> trying to pick a fight with the catholics here either; I disagree with
>> them, but I'm not condemning them)
>
>Okay, and that's fine. But seeing as how pretty much everything is up for
>grabs, it really doesn't matter at this point.
Okay.
>> >You are just WAY too predictable. At least once in awhile, you can try and pull something *else*
>> >out of your ass. It'll make things more interesting.
>
>> Actually, I didn't think his post was that bad (for once). You are the
>> one being predictable,
>
>Oh? Explain how?
Alright: you were predictable in taking a nasty attitude towards
Jackel. Even if it is justified, it was predictable.
>> you are the one throwing shit out of your ass.
did I say that? hehe...
>
>Why, because I know how Jackel is? How just about everyone on this ng knows
>how he is?
no, 'cause I felt you were going off topic based on your
disgruntledness with Jackel.
>> And you aren't the least bit interesting, in this post.
>
>Did you have a bad day or something?
something like that... mood swings and such. sorry :)
>As I said, I did give him the benefit
>of the doubt before, but he's long ago used that up. I can't just be polite
>and pretend that he makes sense, so I'm sorry if that conflicts with what you
>want.
ah, well it doesn't conflict w/ what I want. I just felt that you were
attacking Jackel where, for once, he wasn't really attacking anyone
else. Except maybe Michael.
>
>JMHO,
>Jon
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
wersh
we...@flashmail.com
wersh
(jac...@melbpc.org.au) declared:
>On Sat, 13 Feb 1999 15:06:17 GMT, nlg...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>In article <36e024b5...@news.melbpc.org.au>,
>> jac...@melbpc.org.au wrote:
>>> On Sat, 13 Feb 1999 04:54:59 GMT, nlg...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Jon,
>>>
>>> I started to reply but noted the post was from you and so haven't
>>> taken it seriously.
>>
>>In other words, Lindsay, you just didn't know how to respond, and are making
>>excuses instead. I *CAN'T* believe I once almost gave you the benefit of the
>>doubt. You've proven yourself unworthy of anything so nice many times over.
>
>Seriously Jon, I can't be bothered wasting time with you and other
>time wasters.
Then why are you here, bothering with him?
>
>You never gave me any benefit of the doubt.
He didn't say he did, he said he almost did.
>You are merely saying that as a tactic to sound reasonable.
He didn't say that. You are lying.
>You are lying.
You are lying.
>
>Your have proven yourself to be a godless and rebellious fool.
And just how do you figure he proved all that?
wersh
we...@flashmail.com
jac...@melbpc.org.au
post feeling the need to judge and say something negative. What a
guy! What a christian!
On Sun, 14 Feb 1999 04:14:34 GMT, we...@flashmail.com (wersh) wrote:
>>>In other words, Lindsay, you just didn't know how to respond, and are making
>>>excuses instead. I *CAN'T* believe I once almost gave you the benefit of the
>>>doubt. You've proven yourself unworthy of anything so nice many times over.
>>
>>Seriously Jon, I can't be bothered wasting time with you and other
>>time wasters.
>Then why are you here, bothering with him?
What business is that of yours Mr Wersh? Why do you feel the need to
jump in and have a say? Touch of the Steven's?! :-)
Why aren't I allowed to respond to a post directed to me?
Why can't I make closure in my way?
Are you the discussion scorer? Is it out of 10?
>>You never gave me any benefit of the doubt.
>He didn't say he did, he said he almost did.
So? The point is moot.
>>You are merely saying that as a tactic to sound reasonable.
>He didn't say that. You are lying.
My point stands. And your accusation of me lying is strongly
suggestive that you are getting way too angry here and not praying
before you post. You really don't know what you are talking about.
And jumping in like this is little more than meddling, and you should
do a little study on that topic Mr Wersh.
>>You are lying.
>You are lying.
Your response technique is bordering on the childish.
It strongly suggests an anger problem at this time and that you are
not thinking clearly before you post.
>>Your have proven yourself to be a godless and rebellious fool.
>And just how do you figure he proved all that?
By the body of his work on arc-t - sticky beak! :-)
wersh
(jac...@melbpc.org.au) declared:
>hmmm! Mr Wersh's been very busy today, following just about every
>post feeling the need to judge and say something negative. What a
>guy! What a christian!
1. its wersh, not Mr Wersh
2. i don't "feel the need to judge and say something negative"
3. yes I am a Christian
4. yes I am a guy
5. yes I've been busy
6. you've followed every post I've made to you, it would seem
7. I'm being honest
8. you're being sarcastic
>
>On Sun, 14 Feb 1999 04:14:34 GMT, we...@flashmail.com (wersh) wrote:
>
>>>>In other words, Lindsay, you just didn't know how to respond, and are making
>>>>excuses instead. I *CAN'T* believe I once almost gave you the benefit of the
>>>>doubt. You've proven yourself unworthy of anything so nice many times over.
>>>
>>>Seriously Jon, I can't be bothered wasting time with you and other
>>>time wasters.
>>Then why are you here, bothering with him?
>
>What business is that of yours Mr Wersh? Why do you feel the need to
>jump in and have a say? Touch of the Steven's?! :-)
its wersh - learn the name and remember it - just wersh, with no
additions
I asked a simple question, a logical question based on what you said
>Why aren't I allowed to respond to a post directed to me?
you are; but you said you can't be bothered; I asked, why do you
bother then?
>
>Why can't I make closure in my way?
sure! that's beside the point
>
>Are you the discussion scorer? Is it out of 10?
huh?
>
>>>You never gave me any benefit of the doubt.
>>He didn't say he did, he said he almost did.
>
>So? The point is moot.
oh sure, the point is moot when you're proven wrong.
>
>>>You are merely saying that as a tactic to sound reasonable.
>>He didn't say that. You are lying.
>
>My point stands. And your accusation of me lying is strongly
>suggestive that you are getting way too angry here and not praying
>before you post. You really don't know what you are talking about.
I'm more amused than angry, to be honest. Prove me wrong, that I don't
know what I'm talking about. can you? will you? please do
>And jumping in like this is little more than meddling, and you should
>do a little study on that topic Mr Wersh.
its wersh - not Mr Wersh - that's lowercase w - e - r - s - h
did ya get it that time?
[okay, that's making me a bit angry :( but nothing else]
>
>>>You are lying.
>>You are lying.
>
>Your response technique is bordering on the childish.
>It strongly suggests an anger problem at this time and that you are
>not thinking clearly before you post.
*rolls eyes* I disagree.
>
>>>Your have proven yourself to be a godless and rebellious fool.
>>And just how do you figure he proved all that?
>
>By the body of his work on arc-t - sticky beak! :-)
huh? sticky beak? I don't get it... sorry (again)
wersh
we...@flashmail.com
nlg...@hotmail.com
jac...@melbpc.org.au wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Feb 1999 15:06:17 GMT, nlg...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >In article <36e024b5...@news.melbpc.org.au>,
> > jac...@melbpc.org.au wrote:
> >> On Sat, 13 Feb 1999 04:54:59 GMT, nlg...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> Jon,
> >>
> >> I started to reply but noted the post was from you and so haven't
> >> taken it seriously.
> >
> >excuses instead. I *CAN'T* believe I once almost gave you the benefit of the
> >doubt. You've proven yourself unworthy of anything so nice many times over.
>
> Seriously Jon, I can't be bothered wasting time with you and other
> time wasters.
So why do you waste our time so much? It's obvious you don't believe
anything that doesn't come out of your own mouth, so why stay in an ng? Just
like to hear yourself talk?
> You never gave me any benefit of the doubt. You are merely saying
> that as a tactic to sound reasonable. You are lying.
Would you like me to show you the post, O Wise One?
> Your have proven yourself to be a godless and rebellious fool.
Godless? Okay. Rebellious? How?
nlg...@hotmail.com
we...@flashmail.com (wersh) wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Feb 1999 02:55:05 GMT, the notorious nlg...@hotmail.com
> declared:
>
> >In article <36c5c3cd...@news.pottsville.infi.net>,
> > we...@flashmail.com (wersh) wrote:
> >> On Sat, 13 Feb 1999 04:54:59 GMT, the notorious nlg...@hotmail.com
> >> declared:
> >>
> >> >In article <36c7d317...@news.melbpc.org.au>,
> >> > jac...@melbpc.org.au wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 12 Feb 1999 12:38:39 -0800, "The Last Church"
> >> >> <mic...@the-last-church.org> wrote:
<snipped>
> >> >> Animals do not go to Heaven.
> >> >
> >> >Then where do they go? Hell? Can animals sin?
> >
> >> They don't go to heaven or hell. They go nowhere.
> >
> > Why can't people go there as well?
> Because we have souls that exist in the spiritual realm.
Well, if you decide not to believe in all that, couldn't you forfeit it or
something?
> >> Why should he bring it
> >> up? Why did you?
> >
> >I said it because Jackel said that "Only humans created in the image of God,
> >and with a soul, as tripartite beings go to Heaven." Knowing how he tends to
> >act, I thought he forgot his usual addition at the end of that like, "Except,
> >of course, all you pagans."
> Let him say it himself. Don't egg him on :)
Hehe, I don't think he would need much prodding.
> >> >You are just WAY too predictable. At least once in awhile, you can try and pull something *else*
> >> >out of your ass. It'll make things more interesting.
> >
> >> Actually, I didn't think his post was that bad (for once). You are the
> >> one being predictable,
> >
> >Oh? Explain how?
> Alright: you were predictable in taking a nasty attitude towards
> Jackel. Even if it is justified, it was predictable.
Yeah, but it seems to be the attitude most people around here treat him with.
Maybe that's why it's predictable.
> >> you are the one throwing shit out of your ass.
> did I say that? hehe...
> >
> >Why, because I know how Jackel is? How just about everyone on this ng knows
> >how he is?
> no, 'cause I felt you were going off topic based on your
> disgruntledness with Jackel.
Do you honestly believe, after Jackel said he was going to simply ignore me,
that if I had written a nice, on-topic post, that it would have made any
difference?
wersh
declared:
>In article <36c649e6...@news.pottsville.infi.net>,
> we...@flashmail.com (wersh) wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Feb 1999 02:55:05 GMT, the notorious nlg...@hotmail.com
>> declared:
>>
>> >In article <36c5c3cd...@news.pottsville.infi.net>,
>> > we...@flashmail.com (wersh) wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 13 Feb 1999 04:54:59 GMT, the notorious nlg...@hotmail.com
>> >> declared:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <36c7d317...@news.melbpc.org.au>,
>> >> > jac...@melbpc.org.au wrote:
>> >> >> On Fri, 12 Feb 1999 12:38:39 -0800, "The Last Church"
>> >> >> <mic...@the-last-church.org> wrote:
>
><snipped>
>
>> >> >> Animals do not go to Heaven.
>> >> >
>> >> >Then where do they go? Hell? Can animals sin?
>> >
>> >> They don't go to heaven or hell. They go nowhere.
>> >
>> > Why can't people go there as well?
>
>> Because we have souls that exist in the spiritual realm.
>
>Well, if you decide not to believe in all that, couldn't you forfeit it or
>something?
No, because your soul / spirit was created to be immortal. Can't be
forfeit, I don't think; sorry :(
>> >> Why should he bring it
>> >> up? Why did you?
>> >
>> >I said it because Jackel said that "Only humans created in the image of God,
>> >and with a soul, as tripartite beings go to Heaven." Knowing how he tends to
>> >act, I thought he forgot his usual addition at the end of that like, "Except,
>> >of course, all you pagans."
>
>> Let him say it himself. Don't egg him on :)
>
>Hehe, I don't think he would need much prodding.
LoL! No, he wouldn't.
>> >> >You are just WAY too predictable. At least once in awhile, you can try and pull something *else*
>> >> >out of your ass. It'll make things more interesting.
>> >
>> >> Actually, I didn't think his post was that bad (for once). You are the
>> >> one being predictable,
>> >
>> >Oh? Explain how?
>
>> Alright: you were predictable in taking a nasty attitude towards
>> Jackel. Even if it is justified, it was predictable.
>
>Yeah, but it seems to be the attitude most people around here treat him with.
> Maybe that's why it's predictable.
Yep, that is the prevalent reaction.
>> >> you are the one throwing shit out of your ass.
>> did I say that? hehe...
>> >
>> >Why, because I know how Jackel is? How just about everyone on this ng knows
>> >how he is?
>
>> no, 'cause I felt you were going off topic based on your
>> disgruntledness with Jackel.
>
>Do you honestly believe, after Jackel said he was going to simply ignore me,
>that if I had written a nice, on-topic post, that it would have made any
>difference?
hehe, I don't know that you could have said *anything* to make a
difference :-)
>JMHO,
>Jon
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
wersh
we...@flashmail.com
Steven Schrader
> On Sun, 14 Feb 1999 05:16:05 GMT, the notorious jac...@melbpc.org.au
>
> >hmmm! Mr Wersh's been very busy today, following just about every
> >post feeling the need to judge and say something negative. What a
> >guy! What a christian!
> 1. its wersh, not Mr Wersh
> 2. i don't "feel the need to judge and say something negative"
> 3. yes I am a Christian
> 4. yes I am a guy
> 5. yes I've been busy
> 6. you've followed every post I've made to you, it would seem
> 7. I'm being honest
> 8. you're being sarcastic
Hey Wersh, it's obvious that all Lindsay intends to do is to continue to
pick fights here. Why do you even bother?
Just curious. :)
Later,
---
Steven Schrader
The Musician's Homepage - "http://www.enteract.com/~digialex/"
"Pooh knew what he meant, but, being a Bear of Very Little Brain,
couldn't think of the words." - The House at Pooh Corner
Steven Schrader
> Do animals go to heaven? I don't know,friend. I do know that animals
> will be there though,for scriptures testify to that.
Hey Karen, could you rephrase that? The way that reads it seems like
you're saying that you don't know of animals go to heaven or not, but then
you say that they _do_ go..
wersh
<digi...@enteract.com> declared:
>On Sun, 14 Feb 1999, wersh wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 14 Feb 1999 05:16:05 GMT, the notorious jac...@melbpc.org.au
>>
>> >hmmm! Mr Wersh's been very busy today, following just about every
>> >post feeling the need to judge and say something negative. What a
>> >guy! What a christian!
>
>> 1. its wersh, not Mr Wersh
>> 2. i don't "feel the need to judge and say something negative"
>> 3. yes I am a Christian
>> 4. yes I am a guy
>> 5. yes I've been busy
>> 6. you've followed every post I've made to you, it would seem
>> 7. I'm being honest
>> 8. you're being sarcastic
>
>Hey Wersh, it's obvious that all Lindsay intends to do is to continue to
>pick fights here. Why do you even bother?
hehe, I was in one of those moods :)
>Just curious. :)
that's how cat's die ya'know ;)
>
>Later,
>---
>Steven Schrader
>The Musician's Homepage - "http://www.enteract.com/~digialex/"
> "Pooh knew what he meant, but, being a Bear of Very Little Brain,
> couldn't think of the words." - The House at Pooh Corner
>
wersh
we...@flashmail.com
Steven Schrader
> On Sun, 14 Feb 1999 11:21:54 -0600, the notorious Steven Schrader
>
> >Hey Wersh, it's obvious that all Lindsay intends to do is to continue to
> >pick fights here. Why do you even bother?
> hehe, I was in one of those moods :)
Heh, okee, that I can understand. :) It just surprises me a bit that
people still continue to be baited by Lindsay's tactics..
> >Just curious. :)
> that's how cat's die ya'know ;)
Nah, I'm cautious too. :)
mich pharm
100...@nathan.enteract.com>, Steven Schrader <digi...@enteract.com> ate
pie and then in an attempt to converse sputtered in a sprinkle of
crumbs...
>On Sat, 13 Feb 1999, Karen Hi wrote:
>
>> Do animals go to heaven? I don't know,friend. I do know that animals
>> will be there though,for scriptures testify to that.
>
>Hey Karen, could you rephrase that? The way that reads it seems like
>you're saying that you don't know of animals go to heaven or not, but then
>you say that they _do_ go..
I think she's saying that she doesn't know if the animals we have here
with us go to heaven, but she does know that in heaven there are animals,
just not necessarily the ones from Earth.
--
mich
"Oiih! I ate a bug! I bug I ate! With little wings!"
-The Genius Guy (on Animaniacs)
Steven Schrader
> In article <Pine.BSF.3.96.990214112224.24638C-
> 100...@nathan.enteract.com>, Steven Schrader <digi...@enteract.com> ate
> pie and then in an attempt to converse sputtered in a sprinkle of
> crumbs...
>
> >On Sat, 13 Feb 1999, Karen Hi wrote:
> >
> >> Do animals go to heaven? I don't know,friend. I do know that animals
> >> will be there though,for scriptures testify to that.
> >
> >Hey Karen, could you rephrase that? The way that reads it seems like
> >you're saying that you don't know of animals go to heaven or not, but then
> >you say that they _do_ go..
>
> I think she's saying that she doesn't know if the animals we have here
> with us go to heaven, but she does know that in heaven there are animals,
> just not necessarily the ones from Earth.
Ah, okay. :) Er, wait, huh? So what kind of animals are in heaven?
mich pharm
converse sputtered in a sprinkle of crumbs...
>On Sun, 14 Feb 1999, mich pharm wrote:
>
>> In article <Pine.BSF.3.96.990214112224.24638C-
>> 100...@nathan.enteract.com>, Steven Schrader <digi...@enteract.com> ate
>> pie and then in an attempt to converse sputtered in a sprinkle of
>> crumbs...
>>
>> >On Sat, 13 Feb 1999, Karen Hi wrote:
>> >
>> >> Do animals go to heaven? I don't know,friend. I do know that animals
>> >> will be there though,for scriptures testify to that.
>> >
>> >Hey Karen, could you rephrase that? The way that reads it seems like
>> >you're saying that you don't know of animals go to heaven or not, but then
>> >you say that they _do_ go..
>>
>> I think she's saying that she doesn't know if the animals we have here
>> with us go to heaven, but she does know that in heaven there are animals,
>> just not necessarily the ones from Earth.
>
>Ah, okay. :) Er, wait, huh? So what kind of animals are in heaven?
>
heh, I dunno, maybe the same species, i.e. dogs, cats, etc., but their
"essence of life" (I don't know if they'd be souls or what) were not from
Earth, but they were created in Heaven. That's what I meant. (:
--
mich
"but you guys! if i eat one more meatball... i'm gonna diiie!"
-Wakko Warner