^^ I know that animals having an afterlife was not the main point of the scripture. But I still feel that the meaning of that word can be taken as a hint for animals going to heaven.

Yes, there is a difference between a soul and a spirit. A soul is what you are (Remember the C.S. Lewis quote). Without a soul, you are not fully alive. So, of course, animals have souls. Otherwise they wouldn't be what they are -- a living creature with feelings, a heart, a personality, point of view, and all of the other things that go along with being a living creature.

The question is, do they have a spirit? That's what determines whether or not you have an afterlife. And that scripture -- whether it was the scripture's main point or not -- does indicate that they do have a spirit.

As for animals not being able to love, I'm sorry you feel that way, but it simply isn't true. I have seen many cases of animals loving someone. Dogs do more than just protect their masters. They are emotionally attached, and become very depressed when their masters are away.
Also, I have seen animals completely devoted to their mate, and who became so depressed after their mate died, that they died of grief themselves.
One time, I had two birds who were mates. One of them was bleeding and sick. According to the instincts of this particular breed, the healthy one would kill the sick one. This breed should do this in every case, by instinct. But my particular birds were very devoted eachother, and the healthy one defied that instinct, didn't kill her, and even took care of her and tried to nurse her back to health. According to instinct in this breed, that never happens. Yet, it did.
Animals are more than walking, breathing, instinctive robots. And they do love.

~Riella

Angelwings_the_Faun wrote:
I understand this is not your belief, but just something you heard, right? I personally believe this is an instance of taking the scriptures out of context. Just because Jesus was 33 when He was crucified does not in any way correlate with when Adam and Eve took the fruit, not scripturally anyway.

That's right, I've heard it but I don't endorse any of the "how old was Adam" dates except for the one written in the Bible that says he was 930 years old when he died.

The best evidence, if we want to call it that, as to how long Eden might have been open to humans is the fact that Adam was allowed to meet all living things and name them before "there was found no helper for the man." Some commentaries point to this to say that Adam was left solitary long enough that when God gave man a wife, man would appreciate her. Most guys don't get that aching-for-a-wife lonely in a few days, although one can't rule it out.

...

Now, animals, atoms, and Heaven, we have a lot more evidence on that.

Both the Gospel of John (Jesus eating fish) and 1 Corinthians 15 go to a lot of trouble to impress upon us the fact that the resurrection of the dead is physical. For if Christ did not bodily rise from the dead, then we wouldn't either, and we'd be in big trouble.

Do people think that they will bodily rise from the dead but that those bodies are not composed of atoms? If so, then the bodies would not be made of matter. Matter didn't sin; Man did. Atoms didn't sin. Animals didn't sin. Man did.

I realize that the idea of "glorified atoms" doesn't really sit well with a lot of people, and yet these same people are fine with creation being Glorified. I'm not wild about it myself, but I could live with it. I don't see why we couldn't be Glorified in the form of whatever atoms themselves are made of: strings, for instance. At the string level, everything vibrates or "sings." That would be kind of cool.

At least the idea of "neither atoms nor galaxies will be Glorified because there's no matter in the afterlife" is internally consistent. Not supportable by Scripture, but at least consistent.

Besides the physical activities of Jesus, Paul in 1 Cor 15 compares our bodies to seeds that have to "die," are buried in the ground, and grow up in spring as new shoots of a new plant. We don't say that the spring plant is another species, or that it's only a "spiritual body", or that it's not an atomic/material body. The seed has "died" in order to become the plant it was meant to be.

BTW, Augustine's reference to God's artistry making "nothing unseemly result" makes me think that in Heaven, people will look like themselves yet still look like they were meant to look. How that will work, I don't know, but then I'm not God. Jesus still had His crucifixion scars. I think the danger here is not a fear that God won't remove the things about your body that make you unhappy, but rather a whimsical belief that God will make you "perfect" as people define it. And we know that people aren't exactly good judges of perfection.

(It's not a G-rated movie, and not that great either, but for some reason the image that popped into mind was the Jack Black film Shallow Hal. What do people look like when we see them through the eyes of love? In like manner, two children asked, what color is God? One parent said, "God is the color of water," and the other said, "God is the color of love.")

As for animals, stones, and trees, Romans 9 makes plain that the creation is "groaning, suffering, and longing for its renewal/redemption/liberation" from sin and death. These things are caused by the Fall. Why would these things not be in Heaven? Jesus said that if children did not praise Him, the very stones would cry out. Is that only a metaphor?

Most of the people who say "no animals" go by Ecclesiastes' "life stinks and then you die" poem. But most of the book of Job is a "life stinks and then you die" poem too, and I don't see a lot of people getting their core theology out of that one.

One of my summer fun times was looking into a few books on Judaism to try to understand more about the culture Jesus grew up in. George Robinson's Essential Torah points out something interesting:

(I'm paraphrasing; I had to return the book in time)

When God creates light, dark, sun, moon, stars, plants, animals, birds, bugs, the Bible says they were ki tov, "good."

The elephant gets a ki tov. The mosquito gets a ki tov. Man does not. Why? In part this is because a tree or flower has already reached a kind of perfection just by existing. But man doesn't get a ki tov because he is still a work in progress.

And in fact we Christians believe that we're still waiting for the day we hear, "Well done, thou good and faithful servant."

Okay, so why would something that got God's blessing be excluded from Heaven just because it's not human? "Because Christ died to save sinners, and animals, rocks, trees, and bugs aren't human." What does being human have to do with it?

Some months ago 220Christian posted a long and wonderful list of verses in which creation glorified God: this "sang," that "rejoiced," the other "testified." Maybe she'll post it again or link to it.

Now, everyone is correct that animals, rocks, trees, and bugs aren't human. But consider that Revelation 22 makes plain that there will be vegetation in the afterlife, including, yes, trees. As Anthony de Stefano (A travel guide to Heaven) phrases it,

(more paraphrasing)

"People who say that Christ didn't die for animals are like brilliant mathematicians who create brilliant formulas, but who falter at basic addition and subtraction. They're right about the calculus of Heaven (nothing sinful in it), but make mistakes at the grade-school level (animals never rebelled + God can do what He wants + Rev 22 says that God has plants in Heaven). Just because animals aren't human doesn't mean that God can't give them special permission to be in Heaven, and He already let the plants in. Do you think that God is going to give eternal life to some shrub and deny the same gift to a puppy? Is that consistent with the way God acts?"

Then there are the in-betweens, who say that, oh well, God will allow plants and/or animals to be in Heaven "if it is necessary for the happiness of the saints," which strikes me as wishy-washy in two ways.

One, the "necessity" clause allows people to whiffle that there will be donkeys in Heaven if "necessary," but that Balaam's donkey who found favor with the angel won't get in -- oh, and a cat or dog will be assigned to you in Heaven if it's "necessary" for your happiness, but it won't be any cat or dog you ever knew, certainly not the one that saved your life by howling when you were asleep and the house was on fire.

Two, plants and animals have been used as part of "special revelation" throughout history (Balaam's donkey; Elijah's birds; Jesus' colt; Jonah's fish, bush, and worm). So who are we to say that they will not continue to play some sort of role in God's plans in eternity?

Apologies for the wall o' text, but I disagree that animals won't be in Heaven. The idea that poison ivy gets in (because now its leaves are used "for the healing of the nations"), but a faithful dog wouldn't get in doesn't strike me as Biblically consistent.

I have worked at a zoo for six years, and in a veterinarian hospital for seven more. I've seen every facet of animal behavior.

Yes, they are affectionate. Affection and love are not the same thing. Love is not an emotion. It is not a feeling. It is a choice. Animals cannot, do not, and have never been able to make that choice. Depression is a chemical reaction, obviously, animals can become depressed. Anything associated solely with instinct, opportunity, or personality is accessible to them. However, it says clearly in the Bible that in order to get to heaven you must choose to accept Jesus into your heart as your personal savior, and you must obey His Word. Animals are not capable of making this decision. Otherwise, why would Jesus have to die on the cross just for people? The Bible says that all flesh is sinful, and that all have fallen short of the glory of God. Therefore, if animals were to get to heaven, they would also need a sacrifice to bridge the gap between their sinful nature and the perfect nature of heaven. Jesus did not die for animals, He died for people. This suggests that animals were not a factor. In addition, sacrifiing animals would be considered murder if animals were on the same spiritual level as people, and they would be expected to follow the commands of God. Do not murder, do not steal, etc. Following these arguments above, should fluffy the pooch go to heaven, but the man-eating shark burn in hell? No, because neither have a soul, so it is a non-issue.

Animals are indeed intelligent creatures worthy of our awe and respect as Christ's creations, but they are no less creations than trees and flowers and clouds. None of which can be taken to heaven. Again, having a dog as a loyal companion is one of life's great pleasures, but they should never replace the companionship of other people or God for that matter. Dogs should not be dressed, fed, or treated like people. This is why we end up with dogs that control their owners, pets with bad behavior, and injuries caused by owners thinking their animals should be treated like people. Animals understand instinct and order, they have no interest in choices or the "finer things" of life, nor do they have the capability to choose eternal life over eternal damnation as we do. It would be assumed that if you think they can love, then they can also hate, which would follow that if they can make it to heaven, then they can make it to hell. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and is certainly not supported by scripture.

It is a choice.

I really don't think love is a choice. I wish it was though.

Angelwings_The_Faun --

First of all, I wanted to make sure you knew something. I see you often mentioning that animals should not be treated like people -- that they shouldn't be thought of as being as important as people, or be dressed up, and given fine things, etc. I'm not sure if you're saying this for my sake or not, but just in case, I wanted to tell you that I agree with you on this point. I always thought it was foolish when people pamper their pets to any extreme, or when people put animals above or equally with humans on their priority list. That certainly wasn't what I was thinking of when I said animals go to heaven.

Now, onward to the discussion --

I never said that animals were on the same spiritual plain as human beings. But just because they are on a different plain, that doesn't mean they can't be in Heaven. As The Old Maid pointed out, plants can be in heaven. By your reasoning, that would mean plants must choose between good and evil. Of course that isn't the case. (And I know you don't believe that, either. I'm just making a point)
The very reason why animals can go to heaven is actually because they are on a different plain than us. We are able to sin, because we are expected to uphold God's laws and expectations; and if we go against these laws and expectations, then we have sinned. But God hasn't put animals under any expectations, so animals can't sin and therefore can't go to hell. But being God's good creation, they can be taken up to heaven. Just because they can't sin, that doesn't mean they don't love, and it doesn't mean they don't have souls or spirits, and it doesn't mean they can't go to heaven. It just means that they are different from us. And there are many things in heaven that are different from us.

And yes, animals can love. And by love I don't mean an affection that is part of their instinct. One of the examples I showed you in my last post proves that. It was an example of one animal actually going against their instinct -- defying it -- in order to care for a loved mate. It went against every characteristic of its breed.

And depression is more than just a chemical reaction, in both humans and animals. There is a type of depression that is only chemical. But there is also another kind that is purely emotional, and I have witnessed it in both humans and animals.

~Riella

Well I believe along the same line's as Ithilwen. As she said, there are hints throughout the scripture. Especially in Isaiah. Also how do we know that animals do not sin?

In Genisis we know the serpant tempted Adam and Eve. We know that it was either Satan himself, or that he was controling the serpent. I lean more toward the second there because God punished the serpent just as he punished man. He took away his legs, and caused distaste between women and serpents. So if the snake ended up letting himself be controlled/ possessed by the devil, would he not have sinned?

^^ That's a very interesting take on the Serpent, Wolfy. I'm not sure whether I agree or not, but it is very interesting.
I had actually asked a question about the serpent earlier, but it got lost in the evolution vs. creation debate. Interesting that it should come up in the next subject, lol.

So, do you believe animals can go to hell? And if so, how can they be cleansed of sin, if they can't read, understand, or speak, and therefore can't hear the message of the Gospel or accept it?

~Riella

Well, I guess when we die we go into the ground, and trees grow from the ground, so when we die we become trees. I think it's a good reflection of our lives because we spend our life on earth, always wanting something more. Then we become trees, still bound to the earth in a more permanent way, still literally reaching for the skies.

That's really poetic and interesting, but that's not what C.S. Lewis believed, and it's not what most of the folks on here would likely believe either.

Lewis clearly knew there was something more than just this physical realm. That's why he created Aslan's Country.

"I have come home at last! This is my real country! I belong here. This is the land I have been looking for all my life, though I never knew it till now...Come further up, come further in!"
— C.S. Lewis (The Last Battle)

That quote isn't all that C.S. Lewis believed about heaven, but it's certainly a good start.

There's also Biblical proof about where we go when we die. I was actually just reading this Bible verse this morning. It's in Ecclesiastes 12, verses 1-2 & 6-7.

1 Remember your Creator
in the days of your youth,
before the days of trouble come
and the years approach when you will say,
“I find no pleasure in them”—
2 before the sun and the light
and the moon and the stars grow dark,
and the clouds return after the rain.....
6 Remember him—before the silver cord is severed,
and the golden bowl is broken;
before the pitcher is shattered at the spring,
and the wheel broken at the well,
7 and the dust returns to the ground it came from,
and the spirit returns to God who gave it.

That's really poetic and interesting, but that's not what C.S. Lewis believed, and it's not what most of the folks on here would likely believe either.

Lewis clearly knew there was something more than just this physical realm. That's why he created Aslan's Country.

I think the passage in Prince Caspian where Aslan awakens the sleeping trees is very interesting. After thinking about it, I guess we become trees until the end when we are woken up. The Bible supports this when it says the trees will come alive and clap their hands, along with everything else that will happen at the end times.

Interpretation is everything and I've got to say that understanding is rather unusual. I've always understood that verse as referring to creation rejoicing at the future prospect of being fully redeemed to its Creator. Of course God could make the tree and rocks really get up and do those things but it isn't necessary.

I don't believe love is a choice. I wish it were though.

Affection is cause by chemical reactions. So is attraction. Love however, is absolutely a choice. Unfortunately, because people fail to understand this we have a divorce rate of 56% in America alone. If we remembered that just because we dont like each other sometimes doesn't mean that we can't choose to love each other despite that. That is why the Bible teaches us to choose to love our enemies. This would be an impossible command to follow if it were not optional.

First of all, I wanted to make sure you knew something. I see you often mentioning that animals should not be treated like people -- that they shouldn't be thought of as being as important as people, or be dressed up, and given fine things, etc. I'm not sure if you're saying this for my sake or not, but just in case, I wanted to tell you that I agree with you on this point.

Oh yes, I just go on about it because it's a pet peeve of mine. I feel like wacking people upside the head when they come into the vet and their animal is vomiting and is suffering from pancreatitis or kidney failure because it's been eating steak and onions for the last year and half, and the owners can't seem to comprehend that this is the problem. Ugh. Nothing personal.

I never said that animals were on the same spiritual plain as human beings. But just because they are on a different plain, that doesn't mean they can't be in Heaven. As The Old Maid pointed out, plants can be in heaven. By your reasoning, that would mean plants must choose between good and evil. Of course that isn't the case. (And I know you don't believe that, either. I'm just making a point)

Well, I don't believe that plants will make to heaven either way, so it makes no difference to me. That is getting into Native American and even Wiccan beliefs. Plants are plants, rocks are rocks. You might as well say that the entire earth can make it to heaven, which would be rediculous.

The very reason why animals can go to heaven is actually because they are on a different plain than us. We are able to sin, because we are expected to uphold God's laws and expectations; and if we go against these laws and expectations, then we have sinned. But God hasn't put animals under any expectations, so animals can't sin and therefore can't go to hell.

But they are expected to have the ability to choose love over hatred? This makes no sense whatsoever. If they can choose to love then they can choose to sin. I believe they can't choose either, because heaven was not created for nor intended for animals, just as hell was not created nor intended for people.

But being God's good creation, they can be taken up to heaven. Just because they can't sin, that doesn't mean they don't love, and it doesn't mean they don't have souls or spirits, and it doesn't mean they can't go to heaven. It just means that they are different from us. And there are many things in heaven that are different from us.

Certainly they are different from us, but as we pointed out earlier, they were created with the same breath and in the same manner, save man was endowed with a soul and animals were not. It is not our physical being that goes to heaven, it is our spiritual being (different from your "spirit"), which is to say your soul that goes to heaven. There is no scripture that says animals have souls, and there is no scripture that says animals are allowed in heaven. Sorry, there just is no proof. I'm not saying it isn't possible, because God can do the impossible, but what I am saying is that it would be incorrect to teach that the Bible says it is so.

And depression is more than just a chemical reaction, in both humans and animals. There is a type of depression that is only chemical. But there is also another kind that is purely emotional, and I have witnessed it in both humans and animals.

Certainly, but again, this type of depression is caused by demonic oppression, which would be wasted on animals.

Okay how about the pigs. Let's see what kind of trouble I can get into here. In the scripture it records that Legion was inside of a man, when God cast him/them out they begged to be able to go into the pigs, which God allowed. Consequently the entire herd jumped off a cliff and drowned in the sea. So obviously God places more value on the soul of one man than an entire heard of pigs. Well, we would never teach that a person that is demon possessed when he/she dies could go to heaven. So, where did the pigs go?
The answer is no where. They did not go to hell, they did not go to heaven. That is why God did not hesitate to grant the demons request, because He knew it was of no consequence.

And depression is more than just a chemical reaction, in both humans and animals. There is a type of depression that is only chemical. But there is also another kind that is purely emotional, and I have witnessed it in both humans and animals.

Certainly, but again, this type of depression is caused by demonic oppression, which would be wasted on animals.

I wasn't talking about depression caused by demons. I'm talking about a natural depression that comes from situations. If something bad happens, you're going to be depressed. It doesn't mean demons are causing you to be depressed. Human beings have real feelings that arise from the circumstances that they are in. Real feelings without an outside cause like chemical imbalances or demonic influences.

Affection is cause by chemical reactions. So is attraction. Love however, is absolutely a choice.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say affection and attraction are chemical reactions. Chemical reactions, I'm sure, have a part in it. But that is not the short and the long of it. When a husband and wife show affection, that is more than them just reacting chemically. It's a gift of God; not a chemical process.

But they are expected to have the ability to choose love over hatred? This makes no sense whatsoever. If they can choose to love then they can choose to sin.

Animals don't choose love over hatred. They don't have to. Animals aren't people, and it is people who choose to either love or hate, to sin or obey. Animals aren't going on any journey of purification like we are. God isn't trying to bring them to any point that is more holy than where they are now. They are already at the point God wants them. Which is why I believe God will take them up to heaven automatically after death.
The same with the example you gave with the pigs. When they died, they would go to heaven. I don't see why demons going into them would make any difference. The pigs shared their bodies with the demons; they didn't become demons, so why would that effect them once their soul was released from the body?

I think one reason why we don't seem to be agreeing is because we might have different definitions for the words "Soul" and "Spirit". Every church I've ever been to has told me the following definitions:
That a soul is what every living, thinking being "is". As C.S. Lewis said, you don't have a soul -- you are a soul, and you have a body. It is what every human, animal, every living thinking creature is, not has.
Whereas, what determines whether or not you have an afterlife -- that which God breathed into us -- that is our Spirit.
And the translation of the scripture in Ecclesiastes, which I quoted before, indicates that animals may have Spirits too.
From what I've heard you say, it sounds like you give different meanings to the two words than the definitions I have always heard. I'd be interested to know what those definitions are, and how you came by them. It may help the conversation a good deal.

On a side note, I would also like to point out that there have been many people who have died and been resussitated (No idea if I spelled that right. Sorry), and seen a glimpse of the afterlife, or people who have been given visions from God about the afterlife. And many, if not most, or all, of the accounts I've ever heard included seeing plants and/or animals there. Some people have even seen animals that were once pets here on earth.
I'm not sure if anyone puts any stock in these accounts, but just in case, I thought I'd mention it.

P.S. Whoa, they're making their pets sick by giving them steak? Yikes. Some of the pet owners are even worse than I thought...

~Riella

Well, I don't believe that plants will make to heaven either way, so it makes no difference to me. That is getting into Native American and even Wiccan beliefs.

I'd disagree.

Rev. 22:2 ... In the middle of its street on either side of the river was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit every month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

Rev. 2:7 ...He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches: To him who overcomes, I will grant to eat of the tree of life which is in the Paradise of God.'

Ezekiel 47:12 ... By the river on its bank, on one side and on the other, will grow all kinds of trees for food Their leaves will not wither and their fruit will not fail They will bear every month because their water flows from the sanctuary, and their fruit will be for food and their leaves for healing.

Isaiah 65:21 ... They will build houses and inhabit them; they will also plant vineyards and eat their fruit.

Sure sounds like plants to me, unless you want to argue that these veres are poetry and not to be taken literally. I would say they are literal, because if not, then the forbidden fruit that Adam and Eve ate wouldn't have been literal either.

You might as well say that the entire earth can make it to heaven, which would be ridiculous.

Hmm, the Bible says ...

Rev. 21:1 ... Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea.

Okay, what's in this new earth, besides all those trees?

Rev. 21:18 ... jasper and gold as pure and translucent as glass ...

Rev. 21:19 ... "every kind of precious stone" ... jasper; sapphire; chalcedony; emerald;

Rev. 21:20 ... sardonyx; sardius; chrysolite; beryl; topaz; chrysoprase; jacinth; amethyst;

Rev. 21: 21 ... giant pearls and streets of gold

Okay, so we've established that both plants and rocks, as you phrased it, will in fact be in the afterlife. Personally if I could only have either gold or animals, but not both, I'd skip the gold. Fortunately I don't have to worry about it.

Isaiah 65:25 ... The wolf and the lamb will graze together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox; and dust will be the serpent's food. They will do no evil or harm in all My holy mountain," says the LORD.

Side note: in the future, is it that the serpent didn't get in, or that it did but snakes and dragons (if any) will be more like earthworms.

But as for the carnivores eating straw, that simply cannot happen in this life without God's miracle; carnivores would eat to the point of bursting yet still starve to death, sort of like Star Trek's tribbles. But the Bible states that these creatures will be transformed.

Animals did not rebel. Man did. And that, the Fall, is what made animals eat each other and behave the ways that they do. The Bible is plain that God will heal them and restore them to how He meant them to live.

Isaiah 11:6-9 ... And the wolf will dwell with the lamb,
And the leopard will lie down with the young goat,
And the calf and the young lion and the fatling together;
And a little boy will lead them.
Also the cow and the bear will graze,
Their young will lie down together,
And the lion will eat straw like the ox.
The nursing child will play by the hole of the cobra,
And the weaned child will put his hand on the viper's den.
They will not hurt or destroy in all My holy mountain,
For the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD
As the waters cover the sea.

I emphasized "the earth" to show that this scene is that there will be an earth in the afterlife. I can understand that people would be reluctant to see this particular polluted, crime-ridden earth return. But like us, the earth itself is scheduled to die and to be resurrected by God's power as the New Earth.

If on the one hand, the only quibble here is that you agree that Things That Aren't People will be on some future earthly paradise as per some Rapturist/Millennial beliefs, that's that's one thing. If on the other hand, one would rather take these verses allegorically -- "the wolf and the lamb represent different races and nations and individuals who used to fight before they found peace in the Church" -- that's one thing too. But neither of these are really what the concern is.

I would strongly suggest 1 Corinthians 15, again especially verses 12-26 and 35-58. The afterlife will indeed be physical; that is a core part of Christian belief.

The closest I can find anywhere in the Bible to any claim that the afterlife is "not physical" is the fact that the dead go disembodied to the Intermediate Heaven while waiting for the Last Day, while the body is buried for however many years or centuries it has to wait. But the resurrection of the dead for eternity is physical, and there will be a physical afterlife for us to inhabit. And while I too don't approve of overly anthromorphizing animals, I still do not see Biblical support for the idea that trees, pearls, and gold get into eternity (which the above verse say they do), but animals don't.

These posts are getting a little more like novels and less like posts, so I will attempt to focus on the main questions here.

I wasn't talking about depression caused by demons. I'm talking about a natural depression that comes from situations. If something bad happens, you're going to be depressed.

I think you may be confusing depression with sadness. If you'll note, sadness is a side effect of depression, not necessarily the cause. Sadness is an emotion. Depression is a state of mind brought on by:
A) A chemical embalance having to do with the production of endorphins.
B) Opression (note, WAY different than possession) by satanic forces as one of many tools used by said forces to destroy people.
And has many other side effects, including loss of interest, listlesness, fatigue, body aches, anger, social withdrawal, financial distress, and thoughts or actions related to suicide.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say affection and attraction are chemical reactions. Chemical reactions, I'm sure, have a part in it. But that is not the short and the long of it. When a husband and wife show affection, that is more than them just reacting chemically. It's a gift of God; not a chemical process.

Husbands and wives showing affection is a choice, but the feeling of affection is chemically induced, as is sexual attraction, or even the momentary reaction of thinking a person you've never seen before is handsome or beautiful. It has more to do with chemicals and biology than it does with choices. Love is different from all of these things.

Animals don't choose love over hatred. They don't have to. Animals aren't people, and it is people who choose to either love or hate, to sin or obey.

Exactly! Finally, we're getting somewhere. Animals do no, nor have they ever been able to choose heaven over hell or vice versa, and the Bible indicates that the only way to make it to heaven bar none is to choose it. Therefore, animals, plants, rivers, rocks, etc. have not the ability to enter heaven.

Animals aren't going on any journey of purification like we are. God isn't trying to bring them to any point that is more holy than where they are now. They are already at the point God wants them. Which is why I believe God will take them up to heaven automatically after death.

So, I assume then that we will have mosquitoes, cockroaches, snakes, jellyfish, bats, rats, and worms in heaven? Since, they can't choose, right, they all just go to heaven?
Hmmm...so when the Bible says that those unfortunate people who choose to go to hell "Their worms will never stop."...uhhh, wait that would mean worms must automatically go to hell! Sucks for them.
Unless, God was using worms as a way to indicate that the decay of death never ends in hell, just as he uses animals for metaphoric purposes all the time.

I think one reason why we don't seem to be agreeing is because we might have different definitions for the words "Soul" and "Spirit"...
From what I've heard you say, it sounds like you give different meanings to the two words than the definitions I have always heard. I'd be interested to know what those definitions are, and how you came by them. It may help the conversation a good deal.

Absolutely! Here is the difference between them:
The soul and the spirit are the two primary immaterial aspects that Scripture ascribes to humanity. The word “spirit” refers only to the immaterial facet of humanity. Human beings have a spirit, but are we not spirits. However, in Scripture, only believers are said to be spiritually alive (1 Corinthians 2:11; Hebrews 4:12; James 2:26), while unbelievers are spiritually dead (Ephesians 2:1-5; Colossians 2:13). In Paul's writing, the spiritual was pivotal to the life of the believer (1 Corinthians 2:14; 3:1; Ephesians 1:3; 5:19; Colossians 1:9; 3:16). The spirit is the element in humanity which gives us the ability to have an intimate relationship with God. Whenever the word “spirit” is used, it refers to the immaterial part of humanity that “connects” with God, who Himself is spirit (John 4:24).

The word “soul” can refer to both the immaterial and material aspects of humanity. Unlike human beings having a spirit, human beings are souls. In its most basic sense, the word “soul” means “life.” However, beyond this essential meaning, the Bible speaks of the soul in many contexts. One of these is humanity’s eagerness to sin (Luke 12:26). Humanity is naturally evil, and our souls are tainted as a result. The life principle of the soul is removed at the time of physical death (Genesis 35:18; Jeremiah 15:2). The soul, as with the spirit, is the center of many spiritual and emotional experiences (Job 30:25; Psalm 43:5; Jeremiah 13:17). Whenever the word “soul” is used, it can refer to the whole person, whether alive or in the afterlife.

So, the soul and the spirit are connected, but separable (Hebrews 4:12). The soul is the essence of humanity’s being; it is who we are. The spirit is the aspect of humanity that connects with God. Obviously all of God creations are connected to God, but Animals do not have souls, and therefore without that, they cannot enter heaven.

Unfortunately, this post is hugely long, but for me to answer these properly, I will have to break it down to each verse. I'm not sure the mods would love that, so I will keep it minimal. Suffice it to say that some of these were taken completely out of context, and were not properly researched.

I'd disagree.

Rev. 22:2 ... In the middle of its street on either side of the river was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit every month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

This scripture is clearly not talking about an actual tree. This verse of scripture is referring to Jacob and the twelve tribes, whom God used to heal the nation of Israel.

Rev. 2:7 ...He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches: To him who overcomes, I will grant to eat of the tree of life which is in the Paradise of God.'

This scripture is referring to the giving of eternal life at salvation. Has nothing to do with an actual tree.

Ezekiel 47:12 ... By the river on its bank, on one side and on the other, will grow all kinds of trees for food Their leaves will not wither and their fruit will not fail They will bear every month because their water flows from the sanctuary, and their fruit will be for food and their leaves for healing.

Interstingly, this scripture is talking about christians. This scripture referes to faithful believers who constantly keep their roots in the word of God. Fruit refers to the evidence of Christ in their lives, leaves refers to their teachings, water flowing from the sanctuary literally means their faith is constantly coming from heaven. It's actually a really beautiful picture of us.

Isaiah 65:21 ... They will build houses and inhabit them; they will also plant vineyards and eat their fruit.

If you read the rest of this verse, it become pretty clear that this is talking about the salvation of Israel as a nation, not heaven.

Rev. 21:1 ... Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea.

Note: "...I saw a NEW HEAVEN..." This is talking about way after the thousand year reign and after this earth is destroyed. God will create a new heaven and a new earth. I have no idea what it will be like, but I do know that nothing there, other than those of us that hang on to salvation until the end will be there from this place. If there are animals and plants, I'm sure God would be happy to create more, rather than putting them in heavenly storage.

Rev. 21:18 ... jasper and gold as pure and translucent as glass ...

Rev. 21:19 ... "every kind of precious stone" ... jasper; sapphire; chalcedony; emerald;

Rev. 21:20 ... sardonyx; sardius; chrysolite; beryl; topaz; chrysoprase; jacinth; amethyst;

Rev. 21: 21 ... giant pearls and streets of gold

All of the above was a vision of heaven, as interpreted by a man. Think about it, he's saying it'll be beautiful, not that there will actually be streets made of gold or sea made of crystal. Jewels and gems only have value to greed and people who seek after them, so what would we need them in heaven for? Another theory is that the vision showed streets of gold, etc., to illustrate how utterly worthless these things are. Consider, gold being used as pavement.

Okay, so we've established that both plants and rocks, as you phrased it, will in fact be in the afterlife.

Yeah, not quite.

Isaiah 65:25 ... The wolf and the lamb will graze together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox; and dust will be the serpent's food. They will do no evil or harm in all My holy mountain," says the LORD.

Again, this is the same verse spelling out the salvation of Israel as a nation before the second coming. "Wolf and Lamb" are symbolic of the gentile and the jew having peace together(these same animals been used many times in past and future scriptures to indicate the differences between the two peoples, as are sheep and goats, etc.) Also, note that the lion and ox eating straw together indicates and end to death at the hands of others.
Take into account that many times God is described as a lion (ironically, this is why C.S. Lewis chose the form of a lion for Aslan). However, this by no means indicates that God is actually a lion.

I would strongly suggest 1 Corinthians 15, again especially verses 12-26 and 35-58. The afterlife will indeed be physical; that is a core part of Christian belief.

Not so. The soul being a separate metaphysical part of our being will indeed have a somewhat physical experience in the afterlife, as we will be in our true element. Unfortunately, our only concept of physical is that which we are currently surrounded, and therefore, cannot grasp accurately this concept.