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.

I disagree that sexual/physical attraction is just chemical. I think chemicals have a part in it, but I also think it's much more than that. That might be one of those things that can't be proved either way, though, and is subject to opinion, I'm not sure. But I will have to disagree with you on that point.

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.

Sure they can. Because they don't have to choose to get there, because they never sinned. People sinned. Jesus Christ is the only way for humans to get to heaven, because humans sinned and need Him to cover their sin. But animals and plants, etc. never sinned. They are already fully God's, they are already how he wants them, and therefore God can certainly bring them up to Heaven, or to the New Earth, depending on how you see it.

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.

Yes, I do believe mosquitoes, cockroaches, bats, etc. will be in heaven too. Why wouldn't they? Other than the fact that they aren't as pretty or well-liked by humans, I don't see any difference between them and other animals. Of course, they wouldn't be pesty or drink blood anymore, etc. because they will be on the New Earth where things work differently.
And as for the worms in hell, that isn't exactly how the scripture is worded. It says their "worm never dies". I have heard sermons and teachings on this, and have been told that the translation of the word "worm" in this instance isn't referring to actual worm creatures, but somehow to the souls of the people in Hell -- meaning they will be conscient (sp?) in Hell, they won't fade away, they will always be there suffering. I don't think they are little earthworms from here that have been sent to Hell.

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.

So, we have discovered from scripture that animals have spirits. And the spirit is the part that connects you to God. So they have what connects them to God, yet they can't have afterlives? And they don't have souls, which is the part that would make them who they are, if they had one (which they don't). This confuses me... How can they not have souls, if a soul is what makes you who you are. Are they not who they are, because they don't have souls to make them who they are?
And as far as I've ever heard, if you have a Spirit that's connecting you to God, then that Spirit returns to God. It doesn't just disappear. I don't know how you heard differently from that... Any more you can say on that issue?

~Riella

I really cannot say whether animals here on earth will go to heaven or not. There simply isn't the Biblical evidence for one way or the other. What I do know is that there will be animals in heaven and that includes spiders and mosquitoes in their non-sin-cursed state. I still wonder what the original purpose of the mosquito was before sin entered the world. We know man didn't eat animals for meat until after the Flood, because that is when God allowed that to happen. The plants ceased to give us the protein we needed (among other things) so we needed meat to cover that.

Note: this is not to knock down vegetarians because vegi diets are good but after the Flood is when God opened the door for man to eat animals for food.

But will an animal that lived here on earth make it to heaven? I really can't say. I will say that if one goes, so do the others. I think God has some pretty big surprises for us in heaven in terms of the animals. All the dinosaurs and creatures we now believe to be extinct will be there. I also believe that in heaven our senses are going to be enhanced from what we can see now. I can see us seeing in more than three dimensions, see a wider range of colors in the electromagnetic spectrum, smell better smells, touch different touches, hear different sounds, and taste food beyond our wildest imaginations. And that is just barely scratching the surface of what it will be like. It is going to be a grand place that as Lewis describe in Narnia that will make this world just seem like a shadow. I'm very excited to see what he has in store for us.

^^ I agree with everything you said FencerforJesus.

I see Heaven that way too. Somehow, deep inside, you know what Heaven is like, even though your mind doesn't quite. It's like what C.S. Lewis says -- that if nothing on Earth satisfies, then that thing you are longing for must be in Heaven.

And that's a beautiful description of Heaven, Fencer. It's just how I've seen it, though I've never quite been able to find the words for it. And you just found the words.

~Riella

Angelwings, I think you need to read Heaven by Randy Alcorn -- or for that matter, read Paul's assurance in Romans 8 that all the material creation is "groaning" as it awaits the redemption of the cosmos, and Isaiah's and John's prophesies (the latter in Revelation) that God will make a New Heavens and a New Earth: a renewed and physical world.

To say that "matter will have no place" in Heaven is an idea closer to Gnosticism than Biblical Christianity: Neither the Devil nor human sin have corrupted God's creation beyond repair. He will redeem it for eternity.

I can understand thinking to the contrary though; I used to think that way also, by default, until I read Scripture for its message and didn't filter it through my own personal "systems" of belief (which may be consistent internally but not consistent with all of what the Bible tells us).

But please, listen to and don't automatically reject the wisdom others (such as The Old Maid and Ithilwen have shared here! I've also learned so much from these discussions over many months and years.

Check out 2 Corinthians 5 also, in which Paul assures believers that although they'll be "unclothed" for a while -- souls separated from their bodies -- they'll be given new bodies, like Christ Himself, clothed again. See also Philippians 3: 20-21, which encourages believers to anticipate receiving their new resurrection bodies that will be like Jesus' body. You may remember that after His resurrection Jesus went to great lengths to prove He was not just some kind of super-spiritual entity. Yes, He somehow entered locked rooms, and apparently traveled great distances (might our resurrection bodies have similar abilities?) yet He was physical. He walked on the road to Emmaus, broke bread and ate fish with others.

Jewels and gems only have value to greed and people who seek after them, so what would we need them in heaven for?

Oh, do not reject God's good created things as if sinful man could corrupt the material world so easily. Again, that is Gnostic thinking! God says multiple times, including in Haggai 2, that "the silver is mine, and the gold is mine," and all valuable things, including "the treasures of the nations," are and always will be His. Some things will be burned up or not survive the "shaking" (Haggai again) but good things will continue.

Specifically about animals in Heaven: animal-like creatures apparently surround the throne in the present Heaven, but no reason exists to say God would not re-create or even resurrect the kinds of animals we know and love, and who He knows and loves (a sparrows doesn't fall without Him knowing it), on the New Earth. For more, here's an excellent article by the aforementioned Alcorn: Will there be animals in heaven?.

Also, even in the current Heaven, there is measurable time (Revelation 5: silence in Heaven for "half an hour"). The idea that "time shall be no more" in eternity sounds very spiritual, and is a line from a Christian song, and is a popular thought about evangelicals, but it isn't proven in the Bible.

Again, please read Heaven and discover what happens when you read Scripture apart from Gnostic and Christoplatonic assumptions that can infect all Christians' views on the After-world, by accident!

Welcome to the discussion, by the way -- though it's me who returns here late. Glad to see it's been revitalized, though.

Wow, it's been a very long while since I posted in here . I said it in the older SF thread on Heaven by Alcorn (which Doc Ransom rightly points out. It should be required reading for all Christians) that at the very least there are currently horses in the intermediate Heaven. Elijah was carried off in a fiery chariot pulled by horses, and Christ Himself returns riding one. It would not surprise me at all if at some point on the renewed Earth (or perhaps in the Intermediate Heaven) that there may be some massive nature preserve which God has set up for beloved critters of all stripes. Animals are, after all, our oldest earthly friends and if there was no chance at ever seeing a well loved pet at some point on the recreated Earth (if their soul just melts away into oblivion upon death, as you claim) then I don't want any pets to get attached to here. And that kind of flies in the face of our being good stewards of the Earth, does it not?

Food for thought.

I have read the most of the discussion on animals and heaven, and though I am not opposed to animals beign in heaven, and am actually more leanient to the belief that there will be animals in heaven, however I was just wondering.

What about parasites ? You know tapeworms and co.

Quick question. Will those tapeworms and other parasites function as parasites in heaven? I still have no idea what the original purpose of the mosquito was and drawing blood and passing diseases was never intended prior to sin. Did you know that in an environment with higher oxygen levels, air pressure, and humidity that rattlesnake venom is not dangerous? Everything that will be in heaven will perform their original intended function and it will be awesome to see.

Well I supose I ought to point out that some parasites are beneficial, even necessary, for the proper functioning of your digestive tract, and other parts of your body. In regards to the not-so-benign of the parasites, I'm guessing that their role in heaven will be drastically different, perhaps more akin to that of earthworms- who knows what God has in store

Yeah, to further what you said wolfloversk, there is this:

... So he said to me, "These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. "Therefore they are before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple. And He who sits on the throne will dwell among them. "They shall neither hunger anymore nor thirst anymore; the sun shall not strike then, nor any heat; Revelation 7:16 NKJ

It's plain from this that physics, as we know it, will be different in heaven. From that, it's logical to assume that the roles of animals will also be different.

Hey guys, sorry I haven't been responding, down with the flu at the moment. What I can say is that I believe firmly what I believe, because I have researched it intensely, and not because this is a simple belief system bestowed on me through any religious faction.

I believe animals do not go to heaven when they die, there is no proof of this. I am not opposed to the idea, but I will not teach something that has no proof, and further, no bearing on salvation. I beleive the same way with inanimate objects, such as rocks, trees, gemstones, etc.

No, Riella God was not talking about actual worms in hell, that was the whole point.

And Dr Elwin Ransom, the scriptures where God is referring to material possession is almost always for the point of refocusing our attention off of things and on to Him. In other words, we people have a tendancy to hold on tightly and to worry about our stuff, but God is contantly saying, "Don't worry about all that stuff, I've got this!" It is in no way saying that earthly riches will acompany us to heaven, in fact, there are numerous scriptures to the contrary, even going to far as to say that a camel would easier pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man making it into heaven, not because wealth is sinful, but because wealthy people have a tendancy to believe their wealth more important than faith. Also, you might note that God's good creation was a man at one point, until a man fell to temptation and screwed it up. Obviously, we humans have a knack for it.

As for the conversation on parasites, so, all fluffy nice animals will stay the same, but the ones who suck blood and cause disease will "transform" into something more pleasant? A bit of a double standard, wouldn't you say? After all, God created the mosquito to suck blood, the pirhanna to attack viciously, and the bot fly to lay eggs in flesh. Obviously, these things would not occur in heaven, so I choose to believe that rather than pick and choose the ones we would rather see in heaven, none of them will go, but rather will probably be created anew on the new earth. If people could manage to realize that animals are property and not people, it wouldn't be such a difficult concept to grasp.

Welcome back, Angelwings. This seems to be shaping up to be a fascinating discussion. Mind if I offer some thoughts, point-by-point? I find it helps to keep things organized and moving along.

Hey guys, sorry I haven't been responding, down with the flu at the moment.

Get well soon!

What I can say is that I believe firmly what I believe, because I have researched it intensely, and not because this is a simple belief system bestowed on me through any religious faction.

I think you'll find that the case for many people in these discussions (which, again, I've benefited from so much in the past several years). That's how Christians grow: never assuming they've moved beyond their traditions and subtle wrong beliefs, but looking to the Spirit to help us grow by listening to each other, exercising varying spiritual gifts, and always, always testing what we hear with the rightly read Word.

I believe animals do not go to heaven when they die, there is no proof of this.

No proof against it either -- however, did you read Alcorn's article I linked above, about how clearly God does have access to animals in the current Heaven to use for miracles (horses, etc.) and that nothing in Scripture speaks against them being in the New Earth? Regardless, I've found it helpful to make it clear when I'm talking about the current Heaven (the present-day spiritual reality) versus the future, and clearly spiritual-meets-physical, New Heavens and New Earth.

I am not opposed to the idea, but I will not teach something that has no proof, and further, no bearing on salvation.

Doesn't rule out speculation, though, any more than direct Scripture can't be found to support online debate via NarniaWeb or any other website (sometimes called the "regulative principle," itself an un-Biblical manner). I can really understand the heart behind this, but note that Christ in the Great Commission encouraged His people to teach new believers "everything I have commanded you." That includes the whole council of Scripture -- even the parts that seem to have no bearing on salvation, such as the role of government, or Proverbs-like wisdom living, etc.

I beleive the same way with inanimate objects, such as rocks, trees, gemstones, etc.

Please do take up my recommendation to read Heaven. I was about your age (listed in your profile) when I by Evangelical Default® thought I had nothing further to learn about the After-world. ...

No, Riella God was not talking about actual worms in hell, that was the whole point.

Yup. Metaphorical language, because the reality of Hell is even worse.

And Dr Elwin Ransom, the scriptures where God is referring to material possession is almost always for the point of refocusing our attention off of things and on to Him.

I'm down with that! But don't let's go Gnostic, even by accident, and act as though the material things are themselves corrupt instead of the way we use them being corrupt -- that was my main point there.

In other words, we people have a tendancy to hold on tightly and to worry about our stuff, but God is contantly saying, "Don't worry about all that stuff, I've got this!"

Amen times ten. So glad we agree. "I shake you warmly by the hand!"

It is in no way saying that earthly riches will acompany us to heaven, in fact, there are numerous scriptures to the contrary

If I found you an Alcorn article using Biblical support for the principle of continuity between this world and the next, would you enjoy reading it? As I'll point out below, the verse you cited doesn't seem to apply to this particular discussion. Maybe others do -- and to be sure, nothing I say should be construed to place more emphasis on You should want to go to Heaven, because that's where your stuff will be! rather than God Himself is your greatest pleasure, and Heaven (and later the New Heavens and New Earth -- Revelation 21:3) is where He dwells.

even going to far as to say that a camel would easier pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man making it into heaven, not because wealth is sinful

So many people seem to miss that truth about what Jesus said -- very glad you didn't! But for the next part, might I offer a nuance you might have missed (as I once did until someone's sermon helped me)?

but because wealthy people have a tendancy to believe their wealth more important than faith.

If that's the case, it's a tendency the disciples didn't recognize. Instead they reacted with stunned surprise that Jesus would say that. In fact, Jesus didn't say His statement was because people have a tendency to have more faith in their wealth than in God (which may be true, but He didn't say it). Instead He said “With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God” (Mark 10:37). The point He was making is not necessarily that wealth is an issue, but that even the best and most spiritual people you can find cannot enter Heaven. Only through God's grace can this be possible.

More about this topic at Camels and needles, the Kingdom and peoples, part 1 and part 2.

Also, you might note that God's good creation was a man at one point, until a man fell to temptation and screwed it up. Obviously, we humans have a knack for it.

So far, I don't think anything I've said detracts from that truth about humans' total depravity (or if you prefer, total inability to do anything to please God), apart from His saving grace.

As for the conversation on parasites, so, all fluffy nice animals will stay the same, but the ones who suck blood and cause disease will "transform" into something more pleasant? A bit of a double standard, wouldn't you say? After all, God created the mosquito to suck blood, the pirhanna to attack viciously, and the bot fly to lay eggs in flesh.

Yeah ... that's a slightly different issue, and doctrinally difficult because:

1. To say God created these things intentionally seems to make Him "the author of sin," which God cannot do (though He is still sovereign).

2. To say God didn't create these things is to hand their "creation" to some kind of random evolution, which is un-Biblical and absurd due to the amazing design of these creatures' attack/defend abilities and traits.

If the discussion keeps going that way, I can find some articles on Answers in Genesis about how a very good God could have created animals in a "very good" (His words) creation, then had those same animals (presumably after the Fall) begin to behave in bloodier ways. These would also touch on what happens to such creatures after the resurrection of creation -- something Alcorn often explores as well.

Obviously, these things would not occur in heaven, so I choose to believe that rather than pick and choose the ones we would rather see in heaven, none of them will go, but rather will probably be created anew on the new earth.

For now I'm with you: I wouldn't worry about what animals will or won't be in Heaven, because we can already be sure God will not abandon the whole animals project, but resurrection (or re-create) then on the New Heavens and New Earth, whose physical nature we're more certain about.

If people could manage to realize that animals are property and not people, it wouldn't be such a difficult concept to grasp.

God's property, I'd hasten to say. But yeah ... people can take the animals-aren't-that-different-from-us view too far. And thus you get all kinds of straaange _____ Only For Your Pet!™ products around Christmas gift-giving time. Saw one that actually had ways for your Pet to post Twitter updates via some kind of collar attachment. Ha, ha, ha ha!

As for the conversation on parasites, so, all fluffy nice animals will stay the same, but the ones who suck blood and cause disease will "transform" into something more pleasant?

Actually it stands to reason that if there are any animals in heaven, then all of their purposes will be changed in some way, including the fluffy "nice" ones. I mean after all we probably won't be eating chicken or cow in heaven (at least I don't think so, I could be wrong) So their purpose will probably change as well.

In all honesty I just have a feeling that this is one of those questions we're not suppossed to know the answer to yet. We'll just have to wait til we get there

And I hope your feeling better Angelwings_The_Faun

I hope you get better Angelwings. Those dratted flus!

I am not opposed to the idea, but I will not teach something that has no proof, and further, no bearing on salvation.

This quote makes me smile. I remember the time when I might have said something like this myself. However, consider this: can you prove that 2 + 4 = 6 or the existence of an infinite line? Of course, you can't. There is no proof because such ideas as these exist solely in the mind, just a concept. We assume that these ideas are true because we test them in the real world and they seem to work. Still, at the end of the day, they can't be proven because they are a concept. Also, can you prove that "yes" means yes? Again, you can't because language is by convention; meaning that we all agree that "yes" means yes, so it means yes. However, "yes" still remains unproven to mean yes. Therefore, things can be true, but not proven. So, to finish, let me ask you this: how do you know that there is a heaven at all? Yeah, I thought so!

No, Riella God was not talking about actual worms in hell, that was the whole point.

Sorry, I'm confused... If you already knew that it wasn't actual worms, why did you use it as an example of an animal's afterlife? (I don't mean this in a rude way at all, so please don't misunderstand me. I just really am confused. I'm probably just missing something...)
I never said I believed that animals go to Hell. And I never said I believe that scripture was referring to real worms. So, in case anyone thought I believed that, I don't.

As for the conversation on parasites, so, all fluffy nice animals will stay the same, but the ones who suck blood and cause disease will "transform" into something more pleasant? A bit of a double standard, wouldn't you say? After all, God created the mosquito to suck blood, the pirhanna to attack viciously, and the bot fly to lay eggs in flesh. Obviously, these things would not occur in heaven, so I choose to believe that rather than pick and choose the ones we would rather see in heaven, none of them will go, but rather will probably be created anew on the new earth.

As Wolfy pointed out, all the animals will be transformed. Even the fluffy nice ones can be bloodthirsty. Anyone who's seen a really nasty cat fight knows that. Plus, they do eat eachother (cats eat mice), which is also something that would be changed if they were in Heaven.
And I don't believe God "created" them to do those things. He created them with other purposes. Adam and Eve brought sin and evil into the world, and that caused death to happen, and for the animals to act the way they do. God would never make something be evil, although He does allow things to be evil.

If people could manage to realize that animals are property and not people, it wouldn't be such a difficult concept to grasp.

I don't think that the belief of animals going to Heaven can, in every case, be attributed to viewing them as equal with people. Though some people do elevate animals way too much, it is not the reason for believing they go to Heaven. I certainly don't view them anywhere near being equal to people, yet I believe they go to Heaven. It's just one of those debatable cases where some people are on one side of the argument, and other people are on the other side. It doesn't mean everyone on a certain side is elevating animals.

I believe animals do not go to heaven when they die, there is no proof of this. I am not opposed to the idea, but I will not teach something that has no proof, and further, no bearing on salvation.

I believe animals do go to Heaven because they are living creatures proven to have spirits, and therefore -- since there is no scripture that indicates they don't go to Heaven -- I see no reason why they wouldn't go there. I'm not saying it proves it 100%, and I'm not exactly "teaching" anyone that animals are for sure going to Heaven.
None of us can entirely prove it either way. But discussion boards like this are useful to... well... discuss things that we can't be sure of -- to find out the chances of things. To find out whether something is more likely or less likely, using the knowledge that we do have. My purpose here was not to prove 100% that animals do go to Heaven, because no one can do that any more than they can prove 100% that they don't go there. I just wanted to prove that it is possible and, in my opinion, even likely that they will be there.

And get well soon, Angelwings! Drink lots of tea. That always helps me get over flus faster.

~Riella

Hey thanks everyone for the well wishing! This is the fifth day of my flu symptoms, and thankfully, they seem to be receding, I certainly appreciate it!
Before I respond to some of these comments, I would like to take a moment to let you all know how refreshing it is to debate things with people who know the difference between a debate and an argument. It's very nice to have people discuss different points of view without attacking one another...let me tell you, that is SO rare these days, especially on the internet, and I am most pleased with all of your responses, whether or not I agree with them!

That's how Christians grow: never assuming they've moved beyond their traditions and subtle wrong beliefs, but looking to the Spirit to help us grow by listening to each other, exercising varying spiritual gifts, and always, always testing what we hear with the rightly read Word.

Yes, exactly! Finally, another person who believes we don't need to be spoonfed the scripture our entire lives!

No proof against it either -- however, did you read Alcorn's article I linked above, about how clearly God does have access to animals in the current Heaven to use for miracles (horses, etc.) and that nothing in Scripture speaks against them being in the New Earth? Regardless, I've found it helpful to make it clear when I'm talking about the current Heaven (the present-day spiritual reality) versus the future, and clearly spiritual-meets-physical, New Heavens and New Earth.

Yes, which is why I did mention above (somewhere, lol) that I do believe there will be animals on the New Earth, so I think we agree on this point.

Doesn't rule out speculation, though...

Oh, I don't, but speculations can easily become misguided teaching and false prophecy, which are very different, and very dangerous. I have an incredibly overactive imagination (you should see some of my artwork!), but even I know that there are times when we as believers should tread carefully when it comes to what the scripture doesn't actually say.

Please do take up my recommendation to read Heaven. I was about your age (listed in your profile) when I by Evangelical Default® thought I had nothing further to learn about the After-world. ...

Oh, I'd never believe I have nothing further to learn, that would be foolish, however, my point of view on the scriptures concerning the descriptions of heaven are man's interpretations of a spiritual plain of existence, and therefore, cannot be expected to be exact. For instance, in no way do I believe that the winged creatures surrounding the throne that are described in Daniel as having four faces (one of an ox, one of a lion, one of an eagle, and one of a man) and four wings actually have these features. Instead, I believe that this is a symbolic representation. Just as the creature with the ten horns is not actually a creature with ten horns, but rather a representation of satan and a man's intepretation of future events. It can be confusing, but some things in the Bible are literal and other things are representatives of things we could normally never comprehend.

I'm down with that! But don't let's go Gnostic, even by accident, and act as though the material things are themselves corrupt instead of the way we use them being corrupt -- that was my main point there.

Sure, I understand. We're still on the same page.

Amen times ten. So glad we agree. "I shake you warmly by the hand!"

Accepts handshake See, this is what debating is about. Respecting other perspectives, despite the fact that we don't agree on every point.

If I found you an Alcorn article using Biblical support for the principle of continuity between this world and the next, would you enjoy reading it?

Surely!

So many people seem to miss that truth about what Jesus said -- very glad you didn't!

Thanks!

If that's the case, it's a tendency the disciples didn't recognize. Instead they reacted with stunned surprise that Jesus would say that.

As they did many times. The Disciples had much to learn as do we all, and were corrected by Jesus many times during their travels with Him. Remember the incident with the children, when Jesus had to repremand them for not allowing the children to come to Him? How about Thomas, who was reprimanded for His doubt, or Peter when he cut the guards ear off? There are many instances when even the Disciples didn't get it the first time around.

Instead He said,“With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God” (Mark 10:37). The point He was making is not necessarily that wealth is an issue, but that even the best and most spiritual people you can find cannot enter Heaven. Only through God's grace can this be possible.

Alright, I can agree that may have been a facet of His intentions in this passage, but recall that just before this passage it was demonstrated that a man wanting to be a disciple could not give up his earthly posessions in order to join Him. This surely is not an example of "the best" or "most spiritual" people. In fact, the scripture does not indicate whether the man was religiously inclined at all.

So far, I don't think anything I've said detracts from that truth about humans' total depravity (or if you prefer, total inability to do anything to please God), apart from His saving grace.

No, but the implication was that what God calls good creation stays that way, which is unfortunately not so, thanks to free will (not that I have anything against that, I'm just making a point here). Which is again, something rather unique to mankind.

Yeah ... that's a slightly different issue, and doctrinally difficult because:

1. To say God created these things intentionally seems to make Him "the author of sin," which God cannot do (though He is still sovereign).

I wouldn't say so. Animals acting on instinct is not sin, despite the fact that they cause harm to others in the process. However, I believe that there are instances where animals have been used for sinful purpose, whether by man or by satan. For instance, the Ghost and the Darkness. Those lions were documented as acting uncharacteristic for their species and killing men for the sheer pleasure of it, as the number of their kills could not serve any other practical purpose. I don't think animals can choose to sin, as they do not posess free will and do not have souls, so therefore, these animals were most likely posessed by demons.

2. To say God didn't create these things is to hand their "creation" to some kind of random evolution, which is un-Biblical and absurd due to the amazing design of these creatures' attack/defend abilities and traits.

Agreed.

For now I'm with you: I wouldn't worry about what animals will or won't be in Heaven, because we can already be sure God will not abandon the whole animals project, but resurrection (or re-create) then on the New Heavens and New Earth, whose physical nature we're more certain about.

Yes, agreed.

God's property, I'd hasten to say.

God's property indeed, as are we all. However, I was referring to the dominion of man over animals, as decreed by God. No one ever thinks about this, but why do you think God let Adam name all the animals in the garden instead of either doing it Himself, or letting them choose their own names? Two reasons: A) to physically show Adam that there was no other creature like him on the earth, which was to prepare him to recieve Eve as an equal partner and B) to show him that he had dominion over the animals. This has not changed, and unfortunately, many people (as you said) have even stooped to franchising the idea that animals are equals. Surely, animals are to be respected and taken care of as you would take care of any valuable property, but they are not for the replacement of people, and they are not for the spiritual realm any more than cars or mailboxes or canned peas.