Someday, in the New Earth, when we are all completely satisfied with a diet that does not include animal flesh, God is going to resurrect many of the animals that shared the earth with us during history. We may able to communicate with them at least to some extent. So imagine the fateful meetings, when the former meat eaters meet up with the animals whom they ate. Will apologies be in order?
Is this standard Christian belief?
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Omega M.--no, this is just what I believe. I can show it is a logical extension of things stated in the Bible, but no denomination has articulated this as doctrine, as far as I know.
When someone asks me if their beloved pets will be with them in the New Earth, I tell them yes, and can give Scriptural reasons for saying that.
See, this world at present is four-fifths covered with water, and even the land area has large regions that are virtually uninhabitable--like the whole continent of Antarctica, deserts, the rugged heights of mountain ranges, etc. When Paradise is restored, all the earth's land will be inhabitable, and there will be no more large seas, only smaller bodies of water. This means there will be plenty of room for all the people of all ages whom God chooses to raise from the dead, and there will be room for a vast number of animals as well. Why not resurrect animals that have lived formerly, in a world of corruption and pain that was not their fault?
I can go into the Bible texts if anyone wants--such as Jesus' statements that not a sparrow falls, but God knows it, and that in the New Earth, He will grant any request that we make. What reason would He have for not restoring to us our beloved pets, who have been faithful companions to us in this age? And why not bring back the very animals that have suffered on our account, so they can enjoy life as God originally intended for them to have?
This, as I said, is not a point of doctrine, just something I believe, based on Scripure. But I think it may have some value, to those who care about such things. If you do not have faith in God, and believe the Bible is God's Word, then this and my previous post about this are not for you.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is LDS doctrine that the Resurrection will apply to animals. Or if not doctrine, at least common teaching.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: ... This means there will be plenty of room for all the people of all ages whom God chooses to raise from the dead, and there will be room for a vast number of animals as well. Why not resurrect animals that have lived formerly, in a world of corruption and pain that was not their fault?
Depends on your definition of "vast":
quote: They are divided up into 32 orders, or groups of insects. The largest order is the beetles (Coleoptera) with 125 different families and around 500,000 different species. In fact, one out of every four animals on earth is a beetle. Scientists estimate that 10% of the animal biomass of the world is ants, and another 10% is termites. This means that 'social insects' probably make up an incredible 20% of the total animal biomass of this planet!
So doing a rough calculation if we assume a lifespan of a year for an ant, then roughly ten years of ants forms the entire animal biomass of the planet.
Even using the most conservative figure for the lifespan of the Earth (6000 years), that would be what, 600 times the space that we currently use for all animals on Earth, just for ants.
Obviously, we're going to need to pick and choose our animals Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
ketchupqueen, thanks for letting me know that. I had not been aware LDS believe in the resurrection of animals. I think the main reason many Christians and Jews suppose that resurrection is only for humans is the way Ecclesiastes 3:21 is rendered in the old KJV: "Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?" This gives the impression that since God does not receive the spirits of animals back into His hand, therefore they cannot be resurrected. But the text apparently is mistranslated in the KJV. Here is how the text is rendered in the NASB: "Who knows that the breath of man ascends upward and the breath of the beast descends downward to the earth?" This suggests we don't actually know which is the case. It is even clearer in the NRSV: "Who knows whether the human spirit goes upward and the spirit of animals goes downward to the earth?" And here is how The Living Bible renders it: "For who can prove that the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of animals goes downward into dust?" And of course the NIV rendering: "Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?"
According to the Bible, God can resurrect the dead because He "remembers" them. Jesus made it clear that God remembers the animals. Luke 10:29 says: "Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father." (NASB) And Luke 12:6 says in part: "Are not five sparrows sold for two cents? And yet not one of them is forgotten before God." (NASB)
And Jesus made this promise to all those who love Him: "And whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it." (John 14, 13, 14; NASB)
So in the New Earth, if I am privileged to be there, and I ask Jesus to resurrect my beloved pets, who have been faithful and affectionate companions to me during lonely times and all times in this world, why would He refuse?
Mucus--I don't care about insects. Insects were not preserved on Noah's Ark. I doubt there will be any blood-sucking mosquitoes in the New Earth. But there may be dinosaurs in the New Earth.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of our LDS Prophets is quoted as saying that what he looks forward to most in the Resurrection is meeting dinosaurs. Or somethign like that. Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:At 500 pounds of beef per cow, 143 MM pounds of beef equates to about 286000 cows that were slaughtered for no purpose, and an additional 286000 cows that will be slaughtered to replace them.
Considering that a lot of the meat has almost certainly already been eaten, I doubt it.
The status of the beef doesn't make my point any less valid.
I don't believe in wasting food of any kind, but with meat in particular, you are killing an animal in order to eat it, so we shouldn't be cavalier about it. I don't think there's anything wrong with eating meat. It's the natural order of things and all that, but if you're going to kill an animal you should make good use of everything, so as not to have wasted it's life.
Every time there's a recall like this it makes me sick.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Insects were not preserved on Noah's Ark.
You know this how?
Don't you know anything? Their DNA was preserved in amber.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
I'm literally going by the definition of "animals." But sure, let's try this out.
1) What animals were preserved on the ark? 2) Why is resurrection reserved for those on the ark? 3) You mentioned beloved pets. What if someone has an ant farm or a pet dolphin/whale? 4) How did we get today's insects if they did not make it onto the ark?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:The status of the beef doesn't make my point any less valid.
I don't believe in wasting food of any kind, but with meat in particular, you are killing an animal in order to eat it, so we shouldn't be cavalier about it. I don't think there's anything wrong with eating meat. It's the natural order of things and all that, but if you're going to kill an animal you should make good use of everything, so as not to have wasted it's life.
Oh, I agree with you on the importance of not wasting meat. However, since a lot of the meat was already eaten, there's no reason that what has been eaten will be replaced by killing more cows. KWIM?
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with the theory of "mad-cow is already rampant here" is that the humans who died of in in Great Britain died within a year or two, if I understand correctly. Where are all the people here dying of it?
Edit: I just read the wiki, which seems to imply that the humans in the UK who have died of it were exposed years before. However, I still doubt it's widespread here. AFAIK, our cattle-raising practices here have been just as bad for just as long, but we've had no outbreaks yet. Why not?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Funny, ketchupqueen--no, I wasn't there with Noah on the Ark. (Just call me "Japeth!") Insects were not on the ark, rivka, because they did not need to be. They survived by their own means--eggs floating in debris in water, etc. Some insects can also go dormant and live in virtual suspended animation for years.
steven, I have read a few medical experts who say that a surprisingly large percentage of patients who died of what was diagnosed as "senile dementia," and even Alzheimer's, when autopsied, were discovered to have the spongiform encephalopathy (brains that look like sponges with holes in them) characteristic of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (Mad Cow Disease in humans). They have called for more such patients to be autopsied, to provide a larger data sample. But there seems to be determined resistance to do this, as if many people just don't want to know.
Also it is widely reported that a Mad Cow-like illness has been observed in wild deer and elk herds, especially in Colorado. Some people think it may derive somehow from scrapie in sheep and goats. Scrapie also produces spongiform encephalopathy similar to Mad Cow Disease. It has been known to exist in this country since the 18th century. It is common enough that the U.S. is not allowed to export meat from sheep or goats to any other country. It has been assumed (perhaps wishful thinking) that scrapie cannot be communicated to humans. But perhaps it can be communicated to deer and elk, which often mingle with cattle on ranches. And cattle can transmit Mad Cow Disease to humans. So far, the only reaction has been to cling to the belief that they are not the same disease, even though it is admitted that they are all caused by "prions."
The bad thing about prions is there is no cure for them, and they are more resilient than bacteria or viruses. Cooking has no effect on them.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have read a few medical experts who say that a surprisingly large percentage of patients who died of what was diagnosed as "senile dementia," and even Alzheimer's, when autopsied, were discovered to have the spongiform encephalopathy (brains that look like sponges with holes in them) characteristic of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (Mad Cow Disease in humans).
It's funny how this hasn't been found in anybody in their 20s, 30s, or 40s here. I realize the disease supposedly has a long incubation period, but still...
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
We knew a man whose wife lived across the street who was diagnosed with Alzheimer's in his late 20's. It was very tragic. He died after just a few years of very bizarre behavior. I doubt that his brain was autopsied. It should have been. People have been getting Alzheimer's at astonishingly young ages these days. No one is quite sure why.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
