Will we need veterinarians in heaven?

Originally posted by @moonbus
Only humans have souls. Therefore, there will be no pets in heaven. That's the official doctrine.

I wonder how many other religions exclude animals from their heaven?

For instance, if there are humans in heaven, you have to know we carry a kilogram or so of useful bacteria in our bodies so one would suppose we would still need to eat, sleep, poop and such which would imply an eco system needed for at least humans.

So why would there not be an eco system including other animals?

My guess is humans don't know how to generate a viable heaven mythology.

-Removed-

I just want the religious set to confront plot problems with their heaven myth. Like would humans even survive without animals? So suppose you are blind and have a guide dog, you go to heaven now you can see? All your ills are corrected, say a 104 yo with RA, now they are what 24 and all the boo boo's fixed?
Do they think there is no ecology in heaven? For instance, would people expect to have to eat, drink water, defecate, pee and so forth? Would they have sex? Would they have kids? Would they even have bodies or would they just be a simulation in some kind of cosmic computer code? Would they talk to their god? Would there be another heaven for say, Muslims?

Or would the Christian heaven be so restrictive there would be very few humans to go to this heaven? Everyone else suffers burns on their bodies forever and ever? Doesn't that seem to be a tad bit extreme for a god to be SO pisssed at these humans it treats them like an 8 yo would take a magnifying glass and burn ants?

Can't you see a problem with all this?

Originally posted by @fmf
Didn't you once declare your belief that dogs have a better understanding of the Christian God than atheists do?

If your aim is to somehow make fun of the things I say in this forum, you'll have to do better than this.

FMF: Didn't you once declare your belief that dogs have a better understanding of the Christian God than atheists do?

Originally posted by @suzianne
If your aim is to somehow make fun of the things I say in this forum, you'll have to do better than this.

Are you denying you said it?

Originally posted by @fmf
Are you denying you said it?

Even if she said it, it was likely hyperbolic.

Are you incapable or distinguishing as much?

Originally posted by @philokalia
Even if she said it, it was likely hyperbolic.

Are you incapable or distinguishing as much?

Nope. It was regular Suzianne fare. It wasn't even one of her scornful diatribes. It was her take on the nature of "unconditional love" ~ something that Christians and dogs can conceive of apparently but atheists can't ~ and she stuck with the assertion as it was questioned by several people. It ran for a few pages. Sober stick-to-her-guns stuff. Sort of standard really. You seem incapable of distinguishing what kind of poster and online persona Suzianne is. Maybe it's some kind of groupist weakness you have.

Originally posted by @fmf
Are you denying you said it?

Of course not, because it's true.

FMF: Are you denying you said it?

Originally posted by @suzianne
Of course not, because it's true.

Thanks for confirming it. It's interesting, though, that you felt me reiterating it was making fun of the things you say on this forum.

Originally posted by @fmf
It was her take on the nature of "unconditional love" ~ something that Christians and dogs can conceive of apparently but atheists can't ~

Originally posted by @fmf
Didn't you once declare your belief that dogs have a better understanding of the Christian God than atheists do?

"A better understanding of the Christian God", not "unconditional love". Is this new post some sort of attempted "gotcha"?

I'm sure some atheists can understand unconditional love, but it is their failure to connect it with God which separates them from dogs.

Originally posted by @fmf
Thanks for confirming it. It's interesting, though, that you felt me reiterating it was making fun of the things you say on this forum.

It (and the follow-up post) seemed to insinuate that this is somehow a controversial idea.

Perhaps it is... to you.

Do you deny that you brought it up again to somehow gain more 'mileage' against me?

And I said it was you attempting to make fun of me. I never said you succeeded. Edit: Actually I said "somehow making fun of me".

Originally posted by @suzianne
It (and the follow-up post) seemed to insinuate that this is somehow a controversial idea.

It's an utterly ludicrous idea. Completely laughable. It makes you look a fool.

Originally posted by @fmf
You seem incapable of distinguishing what kind of poster and online persona Suzianne is.

You seem to be saying that he doesn't see the real me. Neither one of you do, but that's because that's your choice.

Actually he's rather like you.

Just slap a denigrating label on the people who disagree with you and call it a day.

Originally posted by @fmf
It's an utterly ludicrous idea. Completely laughable. It makes you look a fool.

Your vision only encompasses the surface. Your biggest failure in these forums is to only perceive people in two dimensions.

But that's not really news.

Originally posted by @fmf
It's an utterly ludicrous idea. Completely laughable. It makes you look a fool.

That's you, always looking for the "gotcha".

That's just lazy.