Friday, November 26, 2010

A Matter of Logic (a fundamentalist that demands reproof)

A matter of Logic


I was in a Reformed Christian Paltalk chat room this week. Paltalk is a voice and text chat arena where individuals can converse with each other. The Christianity section is formed of many views, and a number of them may not be orthodox, so listeners beware.

The particular discussion topic was about how the canon was decided—reaffirmed (in a Catholic vs. Reformed view). During this discussion there was talk about how the Apostle Paul quoted from other texts not from the Bible and the quote was in the Bible. While I was not referring to early thoughts of comparative religions or social-societies, I posted the phrase that “there are truths outside the Bible”. After I had made that statement, a moderator immediately suggested that I automatically ascribed all religions as being fully true (pluralism). Then this person went on to say that my logic was flawed simply due to my statement. Of course they didn’t say how or by what means specifically my logic was flawed.

The discussion went back and forth, I stated it is true that I wear glasses, am legally married and neither of those truths not in the Bible. We can also say that we can hear from God but again that isn’t in the Bible either. I also stated the laws of logic as also true but not articulated within in the Bible, the laws of physics are true but not all are listed within the Bible, the law of non-contradiction is not in the Bible [(per ‘se) and all these laws existed before the Bible]. It should be noted that what I am implying is that there are truths outside the Bible, not that the Bible is false or cannot be utilized for logical arguments. In fact, we can use logic outside the Bible to make our case about the Bible (scriptures or theoretical concepts).

I finally stated what he said is not true because what he said was not in the Bible (no scripture support), and my text input was blocked from that point forward. Their final response was that I was a heretic and I didn’t believe in the Bible. For the record, I never stated I didn’t believe the Bible, in fact, I believe it is true. I guess this person never took the time to view my Paltalk profile which stated my beliefs. Thou shall not bear false witness, amen.

I often hear that some Christians are rather harsh in their judgment. I agree, too many times the fundamentalist Christian (extreme) often paints a picture of a person that is false (bearing false witness) before allowing them to speak. A Christian should be open to reproof, and be open to correctly understand the scriptures and the opposition. If not the person representing the Christian faith does injustice to the faith. The Bible clearly states that we must be open to reproof, not bearing false witness—falsely accusing. The ninth commandment protects against bearing false witness in cases of law or judgments. Nevertheless, I feel that this false witness also would apply to daily Christian values and how we condemn others without proper representation of the accused.

During this Paltalk discussion, there was also someone that stated God created the laws of logic, and that lead to the belittling of anyone that had a college degree. Never mind their strawman argument tactics, let’s focus on the gross oversimplification-false dichotomy tactics. The Bible tells us to test all things, so we will put them to the test within this article.

Let’s look at their [sic] logic

(P1) The Bible is Truth

(P2) Nothing is true outside the Bible (Solo Scriptura)

(C) Therefore, only the Bible is true, nothing true exists outside the Bible.

Premise number 1 (P1) states the Bible is Truth. While I agree that is true and the Bible is self-attesting historically, this is not a sound logical form to create a truthful conclusion by itself. We could agree as Christians it is persuasive but I doubt it would be persuasive on its own without the help of the Holy Spirit.

Premise number 2 (P2) states nothing is true outside the Bible, this is self-defeating. Simply because that statement [nothing is true outside the Bible] is not contained within the Bible, this is self-referential nonsense. Besides what if God spoke or performed some miracles outside the Bible, would that be non-truthful? If the premise (P2) is true, then it must follow that the statement “nothing is true outside the Bible” is false (if-then) and making the premise self-defeating and would have bad logic form.

Looking at the conclusion (C) we know that there is no way that can be true, simply because the conclusion is not within the Bible, besides it’s an inductive circular illogical argument. It is widely known that Inductive arguments always exhibit some quantity or amount of uncertainty. Where as deductive arguments tend to be (more) certain. Sure Christ stated he was the truth, the only way to the Father, but that does not equate to all truths everywhere are solely based upon the Bible. The laws of logic aren’t defined by the Bible, and pre-exist before the Bible.

We also know their logical conclusion is not true because the premises have not been proven on their part (not that I totally disagree with premise number 1). If the Bible is the only truth, then God’s existence was not true before the Bible canon. Rather absurd Christianity in my book if you believe their logic.

My logic

(P1) all circles are round, not square

(P2) All squares are square, not round

(C) Therefore, these truths exists outside the Bible

Premise 1 (P1) circles are round, not square we know this is true. Granted, some circles can be elliptical or oblong but they are not squares. Premise 2 (P2) squares are square, not round. Not much thought to reach that premise, I know. Conclusion (C) it is proven by these two premises that truth does exist outside the Bible. Therefore, we can conclude logically that truth does exist outside the Bible unless one wants to become a deconstructionist and redefine the terminology, forms, and definition of circles and squares. Plato covered forms, old news. I hold the Sola Scriptura over the Solo Scriptura view held by this fundamentalist.

With this response not only have I completely defeated the logic of this fundamentalist, they have self-defeated themselves—a double hitter. The laws of logic are not in the Bible but are true and exist outside and existed before the Bible; God also exists outside the Bible and before it was written (according to Christianity). We know that God cannot create a being greater than himself, nor can he create square triangles, all true outside the Bible. Mathematics and science work outside the Bible, let’s not get too carried away by that statement. I would also hold to the belief that the Bible is self-attesting. Lastly, the Bible canon was not completely assembled and compiled together until after Christ. We know that Paul and others did write after Christ left this earth, but according to this hyper-fundamentalist they suggest we knew not of any truth before the Bible was compiled. Surely that also proves to be problematic within their premises as they equate God as the Bible and limited by the Bible canon.

We know that the laws of physics are true and exist outside the Bible; we also know that the laws of logic and non-contradiction are not created, the Bible is created. So when the Bible was not created, God was still alive and still true. We know that God exists not only because of the Bible, but we can know more about him through the Bible. To test all things (as it is written within the Bible) and hold fast to what is good, truth must exist outside the Bible and before the Bible was written. That isn’t to state the Bible is not truth but we know and readily admit truth does exist outside the Bible. We can say things such as; John Adams was the second President of the US (eternally true from this point on) and it is true even though it is not within the Bible. And lastly; it is true you are reading this so you know it is true that you must exist, and so does this text (I think, therefore I am).

God created the laws of Logic?

Let’s make it clear; God did not create the laws of logic or non-contradiction, for if he did they did not exist at one time or another (I am against Cornelius Van Till’s theory of logic being created). Before you thump me over the head with your Bibles, to create something means that at one time it did not exist as we know it or them (i.e. the Bible). To say that God created the laws of logic would have very disastrous implications, don’t fall prey. I believe that the laws of logic are a characteristic of God.

If I were to accept the opposition, to clarify, according to their faulty position and logic, there was a time where these laws did not exist, but we know and define God as infinite no beginning and having no end. Thinking clearly we must state that these laws always existed as a characteristic of God, while not being God (another argument for his existence). Funny thing was this fundamentalist person (and/or someone that agreed with them) stated that God was the logos, if we define that term as logic (as suggested by them) which if that was so—and they believe logic was created—then God (being logic) was created (i.e. Van Till’s suggestion). That is blasphemy and their logic is flawed, fundamentally. How I end up being the heretic, I don’t know but it looks like they may need to take a critical thinking class and a theology class or two. So they believe God was created, I can’t say that is an orthodox view on their part. Lastly, there are many translations of the Bible; I wonder which one they view as truth? Another argument for another time, I suppose.


The problem is that one can become a hyper-fundamentalist, not discerning what is being said, and then jump to random and unfounded faulty non-logical conclusions. Christianity needs nothing to do with this kind of fundamentalist and splinter tactics. A good engineering practice I learned years ago; when in doubt, assume nothing. This also carries over to how we read and understand the text, I hope you can see how a faulty logic system can either allow you to find truth or never really know truth.

Saturday, November 6, 2010

A Family Part I

What is a family?

Certainly the term “family” has evolved over history and especially the last few decades. Within this article, I have elected not to discuss the various types of families defined by the typical Webster’s dictionary. I also do not plan on discussing couples as being defined by tradition or non-tradition. The main focal point will be what I believe to define family and family values that I hold.

A little history

For myself; being adopted I never had the chance to meet my birth parents. My birth mother is still alive and I write her on occasion. My birth Father passed away years ago due to an ongoing heart condition. My adoptive parents were very traditional in most ways. They expected certain things of me, much like most parents would. The only thing I expected from them was basic necessities, love, compassion, and raising me (values instilled) until maturity (18 years of age). I was never rebellious; I attribute that to an early onset understanding, and respect of my adoptive parents choosing to take on the responsibility of me when it really wasn’t their obligation to begin with. Some could often become rebellious in such instances, but I chose to seek understanding through my experiences and situations.

While some would often want to reach out to their birth parents, I find that the strongest bonds are created by shared memories and experiences during childhood through adulthood. So seeking to create a relationship without experiences (whilst having high expectations) has always been challenging to me. I admit that these experiences come through time but the parent also has a responsibility to be part of the experience while that time is opportune. I did later find out that I also had a brother that was also given up for adoption; we finally met when we were both adults and both had our own families. I soon found that my brother and I, even with so much time apart between our childhood and adulthood, we both shared so many like traits.

I was never really much of a self-centered person so I didn’t really have an aggressive attitude; in fact there were many times where I felt insignificant in the mix of everyday life. In today’s society that may seem odd, but for me it didn’t. I would rather listen to someone else tell stories or recant memories rather than me recounting them to someone else. I think some of the better memories I can recall would be some of the things my father used to tell me about working a 40-hour job versus becoming an entrepreneur. My father was a welder by trade and held various other titles for a number of years before deciding to be his own boss. I would like to think that some attributes are instilled from my parents and the remaining--left to my current needs.

My thoughts about family

Certainly, within most families there are civil rivalries that extend from the oldest, middle, and youngest. For me, I didn’t really pay that much attention to such pursuits, I always viewed them as trivial (subjective, perhaps). By that, I mean that these are views that stem from a personal point of view from which a child or adolescent would not ascertain to a utilitarian view. From a parent standpoint, I knew that they (my parents) often made decisions that they attributed to be the best scenario for all at that instance. Did everyone benefit from those choices, most likely not, but the thing I attribute from such decisions (not mine) is that I can’t always see every side of the argument or situation. Perhaps, I didn’t always show this in my actions, but I had this inane sense that it was so. Notwithstanding I often find myself asking the logic behind many decisions (that are not my own) but realize that I do not always see all things; I am vastly limited to what is surrounding myself and my own thoughts. Keeping an open mind often means being open, what a concept.

So what do I believe are the traits of a family?

• Love (mutually reciprocated)

• Respect (earning your keep, teamwork, sticking strong to your words)

• Helping (reaching out, giving and receiving help when in need)

• Understanding (not always a one-way street)

• Trust (learning to put trust, despite not fully understanding)

• Honor (respecting of self and others)

• Sharing and creating memories (good and bad)

• Sharing experiences (good and bad)

• Learning from experiences and sometimes mistakes (parents and siblings)

• Reliance (but not to be ever-ending one-way over extending expectations)

• Teaching/Learning independence (arising self-reliance)

• Realistic expectations (of parents and children)

• Struggles and hardships (health, wealth, sickness, poverty, relocation, etc.)

• Caring (sometimes tough-love)

• Tolerance (not so much criticizing especially of the past)

• Forgiveness (letting go of the past, ego, and pride)

• Guidance (willingness to be open and lucid but not to extremes)

• Respect (even if there is a disagreement)

• Clarity (seeking authorial intent, not baseless conclusions)

• Listening and understanding (ability to listen and discern)

• Reasoning (valid and sound rationality)

• Self-Assessment (reaching for perfection of one’s self before criticizing others)

• Space (learning not to become overbearing)

There are a number of other traits that I have not listed but for brevity sake these are some of the most difficult to obtain. Throughout the good and bad times, it should be the good times that are reminisced, not so much the bad times. Focusing too much on the bad only leads to behavioral and mental (thought processes implied, not disorders) problems.

I am certain most everyone has been wronged or thought they have been wronged. The problem is there are no do-over’s (at least until time machines are invented), and we can’t take back the negative and hurtful things we have said or done. I find that it helps to become more aware of things that trigger anger and learning how to prevent such things from taking over your thoughts and your life. I am not much one for “karma” but I do feel that by virtue--of a no reward basis, you should always do the right thing. I realize that we may not at times do or say the right things, but forgiveness goes a long way in building a relationship within a family.

In most cases there are always two-sides to the story and somewhere in-between you find truth. This truth sometimes isn’t always what you believe or perceive (objective reality). Being able to discern the implied meaning often means letting go of your preconceived notions and pre-understandings and truly being open (not just open to your own ideology, and this isn’t hippie 101 by any means).

More to come...

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Pets in Heaven Part IV

How do pets fit in?

Deem states[1]: “Throughout the Bible, there is no mention of pets running around in heaven. The only creatures described in heaven are angels and humans. The Bible indicates that God is a spirit.” Again, I also suggest there is no mention of Children (babies-toddlers) running around either but to emphatically conclude there are no babies in Heaven could and would be considered absurd to Christians. Therefore, we should be careful not create a view based upon one scripture (especially apocalyptical texts), or simply create an invalid or unsound case from silence. Again, I ask why would God create animals, call it good, then change his mind and not be good. And it is true we know that Adam being alone is not good. Secondly, to be more correct, I believe that God is not a spirit, but God is spirit in John 4:24 God is spirit, and the people who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.[2] While this may be a semantic argument, it could make a theological difference for some.

Deem also states: “However, animals are non-spiritual beings. The higher animals (including the ones we usually choose as pets) are soulish creatures, which is why they can relate to us. However, they lack a spirit, which we humans have, so that their fate is different from ours”. This statement could be controversial to someone that holds a dichotomist[3] viewpoint concerning the body and soul. A dichotomist, which is the majority of historical Christianity, would view a person have both material and immaterial counterparts. In other words; a person has a body and a soul/spirit/heart/mind. Deem would support the trichotomist[4] view which separates into three parts; body, soul, and spirit.

Secondly, from a trichotomist view (perhaps such as Deem’s) where does the (our) soul go if heaven is only for spiritual beings? To recap, Deem also states; “The Bible indicates that God is a spirit. Angels are also spiritual beings. This is why humans take on a spiritual body so that we can be with God and the angels.” Since Deem separates the body, soul, and spirit into three, where does that leave the soul? What would happen to the soul? Hyper-spiritualizing of the text may not be the best way to interpret the Bible. While I am not sure that is the implication of Deem’s article, it certainly looks to be that way at face value.

We know that animals played a significant part for sacrifices (partial atonement). Some animal lovers may view this in a negative aspect, but the fact of the matter was the when a sacrifice was offered it was usually the best of the pick. Often times I imagine how difficult it was to raise these animals; have a relationship with them for a time span and then no longer have them. It must have been difficult for them to offer their animals and it would have left the owner remorseful (albeit some did purchase animals that were not their own for sacrifice). We know that animals are no longer needed for sacrifices.

In Genesis Chapter 4 is one of the first instances within the Bible. Gen 4:2 Then she gave birth to his brother Abel. Abel took care of the flocks, while Cain cultivated the ground. Gen 4:3 At the designated time Cain brought some of the fruit of the ground for an offering to the Lord. 4:4 But Abel brought some of the firstborn of his flock – even the fattest of them. And the Lord was pleased with Abel and his offering.

After the fall we find in Genesis chapter six that God regretted making humankind upon the earth.

Gen 6:6 The Lord regretted that he had made humankind on the earth, and he was highly offended. 6:7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe humankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth – everything from humankind to animals, including creatures that move on the ground and birds of the air, for I regret that I have made them.” 6:8 But Noah found favor in the sight of the Lord.

6:11 The earth was ruined in the sight of God; the earth was filled with violence. 6:12 God saw the earth, and indeed it was ruined, for all living creatures on the earth were sinful. 6:13 So God said to Noah, “I have decided that all living creatures must die, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. Now I am about to destroy them and the earth.

From the NET Bible the notes from these passages:
“suggesting that the author intends to picture all living creatures, humankind and animals, as guilty of moral failure. This would explain why the animals, not just humankind, are victims of the ensuing divine judgment. The OT sometimes views animals as morally culpable (Gen 9:5; Exod 21:28-29; Jonah 3:7-8). The OT also teaches that a person’s sin can contaminate others (people and animals) in the sinful person’s sphere (see the story of Achan, especially Josh 7:10). So the animals could be viewed here as morally contaminated because of their association with sinful humankind.”

Are animals morally culpable (held morally or legally responsible)? I strongly encourage you to grab your Bible and read the following verses: (Gen 9:5; Exod 21:28-29; Jonah 3:7-8) and reason with these scriptures as it pertains to morally culpability, and divine judgment. While I am not saying directly that being morally culpable equates to our pets in heaven, it does give some evidence or possibility that we have valid reasoning to believe our pets could go to heaven. Also it makes us aware that our sin could contaminate animals, so we should be aware of this as a possibility. I will simply let the reader do further study and relate how we are indeed like animals concerning judgment.

We also see some domesticated (perhaps pets of some sort, but most likely referred to livestock formally) were also on the ark. Genesis 8:1 But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and domestic animals that were with him in the ark. God caused a wind to blow over the earth and the waters receded. We can also see that after the flood animals are now to be fearful of man:

Genesis 9:2 Every living creature of the earth and every bird of the sky will be terrified of you. Everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea are under your authority.

Other noteworthy passages:

Psalms 36:6 Your justice is like the highest mountains, your fairness like the deepest sea; you preserve mankind and the animal kingdom.

NET Notes:
“God’s justice/fairness is firm and reliable like the highest mountains and as abundant as the water in the deepest sea. The psalmist uses a legal metaphor to describe God’s preservation of his creation. Like a just judge who vindicates the innocent, God protects his creation from destructive forces.”


"Be thou comforted, little dog; thou too in Resurrection shall have a little golden tail." — Martin Luther



[3] Dichotomy [dye-cawt’-uh-mee](Greek dicha, “two parts,” and Greek temnein, “to cut”)
The philosophical teaching about the constitution of man that humans are made up of two essential parts: material and immaterial. Material: all that is physical (body). Non-material: all that is non-material (spirit/soul/heart/mind). Adherents include Augustine, John Calvin, Hodge, along with most of historic orthodox Christianity. This belief is in contrast to trichotomy, the belief that man is made up of three essential parts: body, soul, and spirit.

[4] Trichotomy [trye-cawt’-uh-mee]
(Greek trikha, “three parts,” and Greek temnein, “to cut”)
The philosophical teaching about the constitution of man that humans are made up of three essential parts: body, soul, and spirit. Body: all that is physical. Soul: reason, emotions, will, memories, personality, dispositions. Spirit: the seat of our being, that which relates to God. Adherents include Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Watchman Nee, Bill Gothard, C.I. Scofield. This belief is in contrast to dichotomy, the belief that man is made up of two essential parts: material (body) and immaterial (soul/spirit).

Pets in Heaven Part III

The purpose of heaven

I begin with a quote from Deem[1]:

"The purpose of heaven is to reward those who love God and want to live with Him forever. Contrary to popular opinion, entry into heaven is not based upon one's good works (e.g., good works exceed the evil deeds), but upon acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior of one's life. Those who cannot agree to God's terms are not allowed into heaven, since there will be no evil or rebellion tolerated there. By accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior, we give Him permission to change us into perfect beings in the heaven".

I do agree; that entry into heaven is not based upon one’s good works and would be attributed to the acceptance of Jesus Christ as resurrected Lord, and Savior through his atonement. I believe there is more to heaven than just rewards; heaven is how God intended us to live, without sin, without death pain and sorrow. We need to be careful and not become too trivial—viewing or attributing heaven as a membership to Capital One Rewards™ or Speedy Rewards™ card program. I am not saying Deem is making the issue trivial but someone could think so.

Assuming we take Deem literally, so how do we reconcile babies that pass away, or those with mental handicaps that would not be able to come to God based upon works or acceptance of Jesus Christ? In Deem’s view, how can he reconcile this dilemma based upon scripture or his view? If we were to use his rhetoric about one verse in Revelation, then the outcome would be horrifying. One holding Deem’s view perhaps could not reconcile, but does that mean babies and those with mental handicaps will not be in heaven? I would think they would be in heaven (fully restored), but I cannot prove that with scripture, emphatically. Is it wrong to believe so? No, I do believe God is just, reasonable, and fair to allow them into heaven just the same as he would pets. Despite there being no scriptural evidence for such believe on my part, it is reasonable to believe God would allow for such instances. So in essence, those of us capable to choose would be held responsible for our actions and whether we live according to the Bible.


Pets In Heaven, Part II

Why are we here on Earth?
4/24/2010 Revision 1

For some a simple answer would be because God wanted us here. But, in his article Deem suggests; “that God created this universe for the purpose of choosing or rejecting Him” and Deem also states that; “Everything has a purpose - most of which is to teach us about love and the difference between good and evil”.[1] In my response, I would first state that God in his aseity (non-dependency upon anything else); is not dependent upon us choosing or rejecting him. It is his glory that he creates the heavens, earth, and all life (pets included), yet he is not dependant upon creation, animals, or us for his glory. Secondly, I think Deem fails to answer “how everything has purpose” within his article. For example; why were the animals created in Genesis?

I do honestly believe that God wants to have a relationship with us. I also agree that we and all things do have a purpose and I believe it is more than to teach us about the difference between good and evil in a superficial meaning. We are to be the light of the world and show love (e.g. helping of others) to one another. Furthermore, I also believe emphatically it was the serpent wanting man/woman to know about good and evil from the beginning, God by his very command specifically told Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of knowledge, but God ultimately knew they would disobey him. So I would also be in disagreement with Deem on this matter.

Moving forward; in Genesis 1:1 we know that God created the earth and the heavens. In Genesis 1:20 God creates animals to inhabit the earth (before humans), and it was good[2] (key term). And in Genesis 1:26-27 humankind was created to rule over the animals. In Genesis 1:30 And to all the animals of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to all the creatures that move on the ground – everything that has the breath of life in it – I give every green plant for food.” It was so. We know that it was good when God created the animals, my question would be if we are to assume it was good as the Bible states, then why would it not be good in Heaven? Keep in mind that this was before the fall of man, and God makes all things new (restoring the good).

In Genesis chapter two Adam names the animals: Genesis 2:19 The Lord God formed out of the ground every living animal of the field and every bird of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So we know that animals do play a significant role in creation for our survival. For example; from history we know that we are dependant upon animals for a wide variety of things such as; the food chain, plowing fields, milk, eggs, farmers earning money from livestock, and the study of certain medicines and vaccines.

We also know from Genesis that God told Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of knowledge. The difference (or concept) of knowing good and evil was only after the temptation and the introduction to deception from the serpent suggesting Adam and Eve would surely not die, and they would be able to see good and evil. So we as Christians know that while God warned about this eating from the tree of knowledge it did not stop Adam and Eve, and it was not God’s intention for them to do so (according to his commands). So with that I would disagree that God necessarily wanted humankind to know good and evil at least in a manner of ignoring his commands.

[2] Genesis 1:30 And to all the animals of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to all the creatures that move on the ground – everything that has the breath of life in it – I give every green plant for food.” It was so.

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Pets in Heaven

By D. Adams 04/20/2010

After the recent passing of one of my pets, I found myself somewhat depressed. I began to wonder if pets would be in Heaven. I have had several pets throughout my life, but never really questioned if I would see them again in Heaven. While searching for some possible answers, I ran across an alleged answer from Rich Deem from the God and Science website. Within this article about pets; Mr. Deem suggests many things about the nature of God within that article, but needless to say I would disagree with his approach and thus his conclusion on this matter.

Before going further, within this article, the goal is not to take away from Rich Deem’s knowledge, his Christian faith, or his work within his website—but to share what I believe to be a realistic and holistic approach to finding a possible answer. I must admit there are no definitive scriptures about pets in Heaven, and there are equally no scriptures about babies or mentally disabled people (neither of which can hear nor understand the word) in Heaven for that matter. I seriously doubt you would find a Christian that would postulate babies not being in heaven based upon no scriptural evidence, and I also would use this same reasoning about our pets. Also, we need to be careful as to not becoming too dogmatic or too fundamental in our approach to find answers where scripture seems to be silent.

You can read more about Richard Deem and his positive contributions to the Christian faith from the website: Reasons to believe

Finally, this topic should be handled with utmost care. Perhaps you lost a pet in the past, perhaps you lost your pet today, or perhaps you may lose a pet in the near future. People can come to know Christ by argument, and by experiences, and by the same token people can be pushed further away from Christ by arguments and by experiences. I feel that triggering conditions (or perhaps stumbling belief forming mechanisms) are much more enhanced or elevated when someone is in depression or despair, so with that I hope to present this subject in a positive uplifting manner that will help the believer achieve a sense of peace and bring them closer to the faith, hope and love we have in Christ.

I will begin by addressing the three points made in Deem’s article by breaking my responses into three corresponding yet separate sections.

1. Why are we here on Earth?
2. The purpose of Heaven.
3. How do pets fit in?

Coming Soon...