Moderators Kevin H Posted March 27, 2010 Moderators Posted March 27, 2010 My sister's had 3 dogs, a German Shepherd mix, and two miniture dobermans. A few years ago one of her minitures almost died but lived through the event although became diabetic from it, and is doing well. Then 2 1/2 years ago the other miniture was at the vet for a check up and got away and was on a hill full of coydogs. My sister asked people and the state police located there if she could search their property for the dog. Everyone told her that she could but not to get her hopes up as a miniture doberman would have become a meal for the coydogs the very first night. However after about a week she found the dog and he is still doing well. Angels must have been with the dog. 5 months ago her German Shepherd mix was diagnosed with cancer and given 2 to 4 weeks to live, but he out lived the prediction by about 4 months doing well until the last week, he just died 3 of weeks ago. Our pets are an important part of our life. People deserve eternal death. We make the choices and Adam and Eve made the original choice that brought death to the animals. They are only a victim of Adam and Eve's choice. They die as part of the curse of the thorns. Remember when Jesus died he wore a crown of thorns. Jesus was bearing the curse for nature, the curse for the animals in wearing the crown of thorns. Are we going to deny the efficacy of Jesus bearing the thorns, the curse on nature? Is the cross only sufficient for our choosen sin but not the crown of thorns for the curse on nature, the curse on our pets not sufficient for our pets who have to suffer from what we did? Or is Jesus wearing the crown of thorns as effecient as what he did for us on the cross? Quote
Moderators Kevin H Posted March 27, 2010 Moderators Posted March 27, 2010 The monks did not know if he was alive or dead. The emperor called for his death and a group of men kidnapped him and apparently killed him. But there was no body and occasionally came a rumor that the kidnappers took him into hiding to save his life. But as the weeks stretched into months and no firm word, the monks felt that their leader was not going to return. They choose one monk to care for the building while the others left, taking nearly everything that was not nailed down, including several dogs that the monks kept to warn them if someone tried to listen to their discussions. The monk who was left was barely able to hide a small puppy from the others. He wanted it to catch mice and rats and therefore would not feed the puppy, thinking it would make him a better mouser. One night there was a knock on the door. The monk was surprised and pleased as a burley man with a thick beard came in. The monk made dinner for his guest. As this burley man sat down to eat, he saw the puppy and cut off a piece of sausage to feed him. The monk protested but the guest, known as Squire George, ignored the monk as he shared his meal with the puppy. Squire George was the long lost leader of the monastery, returned from hiding to help his friends with some difficult choices. The puppy and Squire George became fast friends, sharing the meal, playing and slept that night together. The next morning Squire George shaved and went to visit his friends who needed his advice. While his friends were happy that he was alive and to see him again, they were not too welcoming of his advice, and Squire George returned home feeling very sad. Walking in the door the puppy saw him and came running to Squire George, giving him a welcome that only a puppy can give, and Squire George couldn’t help but laugh and while playing with the puppy said “No one else liked me today, but you still like me, you must be a fool to still like me” and the word “Fool” or “Tolpel” (umlaut over the “o”) became the puppy’s name. The years went by and the friendship with Tolpel grew. Squire George married and had children, and Toplel was a part of the family, and probably protected the family since he was still a good mouse and rat catcher, even with sharing in the family meals, and that probably protected Squire George and his family from getting and dieing from the Plague as it came across Europe. Squire George worked hard and sometimes saw very good results, but other times not so good results, and these times would make Squire George very sad. After one hard day Squire George was feeling very sad. He looked at his life and felt like a failure. On one particularly difficult day Squire George even felt that God could not love him and he was thinking that it was so hopeless that he should just give up his work, give up his faith and give up on God to to spend the rest of his life enjoying sin before he would be sent to hell as he believed that was where he was heading. As he was thinking this, Toplel saw him and gave Squire George the type of friendly greeting that only a beloved dog can give his master, which reminded Squire George of Tolpel’s greeting while still a puppy, Squire George then felt “Tolpel loves me! If Tolpel can love me, I know that Jesus also loves me!” and he recommitted his heart to Jesus and continued with his work, which has been a blessing to all of us, since Squire George was the name that Martin Luther used while hiding from the emperor. In showing Jesus love to Tolpel by being kind to this puppy, Jesus was able to show his love to Martin Luther through Tolpel, and Martin Luther always believed that Tolpel will be in heaven. This story was adapted from portions of two books, “Tolpel, Luther’s dog” and "Martin Luther" by William Graffan. It’s a small book and part of the story is in Tolpel is in this book and in the two other children’s book Graffan wrote on Luther’s wife. They are excellent books for both young and old. They are available from S. G. Verlag, Brestauerstaasse 15, 38176 Wittenberg/Bortfeld Germany. Quote
Administrators Tom Wetmore Posted March 27, 2010 Administrators Posted March 27, 2010 Have to agree with GLG, Nuf sed. How does anyone really know what animals were originally created. Here is my theory. The clean animals identified by Moses were the purebreds, the unmixed species as originally created by God before sin. The Hebrew word, tahowr, we translate as "clean", literally means pure, unmixed. Sin brought about change to the natural order corrupting some species and creating new species of mixed origin. The Genesis account of the flood does not identify any of them, but includes the distinction as if well understood since the flood was proximate enough to the creation as to be common knowledge. Quote "Absurdity reigns and confusion makes it look good." "Sinless perfection is such a shallow goal." "I love God only as much as the person I love the least." *Forgiveness is always good news. And that is the gospel truth. (And finally, the ideas expressed above are solely my person views and not that of any organization with which I am associated.)
Aliensanctuary Posted March 27, 2010 Posted March 27, 2010 I the next life the animals there will not be afraid of humans, just as they were unafraid of them before the Flood. I suspect we will be able to communicate with them in a way not possible in this life. Then, we can form strong bonds of friendship with our furry and feathery companions which will not be broken by death if they, too, drink from the River of Life and eat from the Tree of Life. I don't believe the animals will be territorial to the point of bloodshed, as it is here in this life. No, there will be no more wild animals because they will no longer fear man, or each other. They will either be our friends, or for a few, our close companions, if that is permitted. We probably won't even remember our dogs and cats and other pets from our former life. Quote The Parable of the Lamb and the Pigpen https://www.createspace.com/3401451
Moderators LynnDel Posted March 27, 2010 Moderators Posted March 27, 2010 Interesting theory, Tom. My thoughts had never wandered in that direction before. LD Quote LD
Members phkrause Posted March 27, 2010 Members Posted March 27, 2010 Originally Posted By: pkrause Have to agree with GLG, Nuf sed. How does anyone really know what animals were originally created. Here is my theory. The clean animals identified by Moses were the purebreds, the unmixed species as originally created by God before sin. The Hebrew word, tahowr, we translate as "clean", literally means pure, unmixed. Sin brought about change to the natural order corrupting some species and creating new species of mixed origin. The Genesis account of the flood does not identify any of them, but includes the distinction as if well understood since the flood was proximate enough to the creation as to be common knowledge. Interesting theory Tom. It makes sense too. Because before sin the animals must of been non meat eaters, and things must of changed for them as to what they needed to survive. I'm guessing from what you've said here you think this happen after the flood? I don't, I think this must've happen pretty much after sin enter. Of course this is my thoughts. pk pk Quote phkrause When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; But when a wicked man rules, the people groan. Proverbs 29;2
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.