Hi Liane!

It's always good to see you here.

I only wish you came here more often.

I didn't realize that this was happening in Canada, therefore, I guess I will need to check this out further.

Hi Daryl:

Thanks for your reply. It is indeed a grave responsibility that God has given us to be in charge of His creation. We often can get caught up in spiritual things and miss the mark to care for His earth and His creation, whether they be people or animals.

As James says: 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

You see our faith is nothing without the works that God has entrusted to us to do. We can have all the faith in the world, but if we are not doing that which is required of us, our faith does nothing for us in the plan of salvation.

It is a balance that each one of us needs to seek God to answer for and allow Him to guide us in that balance.

There are so many needs out there, though, one must make a choice of which one and do the work that will help the most. I have chosen the horses, both domestic and wild to help.

Sharing this among my Christian family here and elsewhere I hope that there will be an awareness that will cause us to share in the work of saving the horses from such a barbaric and inhumane death through the slaughterhouse facilities.

I've always understood that our pets will be there, for we know that the Apostle Paul says that all creation travaileth under the curse, so therefore if the animals suffer under the curse why would He refuse to let the animals partake in the reward?

I have at the moment a gorgeous little hamster called cinnamon and if anything was to happen to I would be very upset. However I also believe that if our pets are not there then God has something better for us.

Better? As good, perhaps, but not better. He will wipe away our tears.

For the Biblical reasons expressed and defended against in the following forum posts: Posts #134588; [#134597]; #134602; [#134736]; #134758 and this blog post I (now) see that this view expressed by DebbieB exegetically is the accurate one. The indications in Rom 8:19-21 lead to the understanding that God will resurrect, at the very least, animals (=living beings e.g., Gen 1:24, 30). Indeed they were “innocently” made to suffer the effects of sin due to Man’s fall. Then, like humans, their (quite observably perceivable) “psyche” (aka “soul”) then will be purged/excised/expunged of all and any sinful traits and mentality.

Good points. Also the suffering and deaths of creatures is represented in the curse of the thorns. Did not Jesus wear the crown of thorns? So why do we think that his death for us is sufficient but his wearing the crown of thorns for them is insufficient?

What about the amalgamated animals? Did they themselves sin?

I substantively do not Spiritually make much, salvation-wise, of the “crown of thorns” itself here. I however see that a related, even if merely naturally related, implication is that in both cases it was thorns that made man suffer and indeed thematically represented the lost glory/kingdom of man. I.e., symbolic of the substitution of Crown that Man should have worn. So also on this point, it was further seen that Christ was made to associate with all of the hardship and humiliation that “befell” fallen man.

So if nature “fell” and “suffer” solely because of Man, then all that was needed to restore nature, including animals, to their once perfect and innocent state, was the redemption of man. So Christ’s sacrifice only had to focus on that aspect. So Mans’ suffering and humiliation would have been the object of this development, if it even was inspired at all, as it actually easily could be by God, i.e., purposely suggesting this to the Roman soldiers. (Matt 27:27, 28)

As amalgamated creations, they are scientifically just cross-breeds and so they already hereditarily had this falleness. It may be that God won’t honor those, apparently grotesque amalgamations, which may indeed be most non-natural (e.g., a dog with an eagle = probably producing a sort of flying dinosauric creature). Such amalgamations may contain inherent nefarious elements which make them naturally prone to be violent/destructive. (E.g., (apparently) the dinosaur-type creatures that were deliberately left behind at the Flood). I think God will either only save original breeds and perhaps non-inherently dangerous cross-breeds, particularly those within the same species of animal.

First of all who cares, we are looking at those which have had the ability to form a relationship with us. But they were killed out in the flood due to the havic they would have on life after the flood. When things are made right, one possibility is that maybe in this small universe God might look around for a small corner where he can squeeze them in. God is creative, both in restoration but also accomidation. For all I know God may plan a planet made of mostly dung and a few other nessisities that all the flys can enjoy.