
First of all, hi everybody. I’m new to the forum and I look forward to fruitful discussions.
Now, I’m an unapologetic cat lover but I’ve noticed that they are complete absent from the Bible, both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. Why is that? Where there no cats in Israel at the time? They had agriculture so they must have had a rodent problem, so cats would certainly have been useful. Were they not significant? Or were they tainted by their associations with Egyptian paganism?

The only biblical mention of cats is in the deuterocanonical book of Baruch 6, in the Catholic Bible. The Orthodox Bible separates Baruch 6 as a separate book, the Letter of Jeremiah.
Baruch 6 is nominally addressed to the Jews carried off to Babylon. It cautions them not to fear the Babylonian idols, which are not gods but mere lifeless statues. Baruch 6:21 notes that various birds sit on them (with unstated but likely results) and that cats also walk on them.
** you do not have permission to see this link **

If Bart is right, Jesus didn’t think in terms of going to heaven or hell. The Kingdom would be on earth, and it seems likely there would be animals He never said otherwise. Heaven is God’s realm, and only God, his angels, and maybe a few very special humans (Moses, Elijah) abide there.
Humans have long had an idea that animals would be in the afterlife with them, since the afterlife is often conceived of as a continuation of earthly life, and we depend so much upon them. That’s why ancient people often were buried with dogs. The dogs were usually killed, to provide companionship and protection on the journey to the spirit realm–the Egyptians did that with people sometimes too.
Different cultures have different ideas about cats–they are revered and despised in equal measure, since they have never been fully domesticated. And since they often are seen to seemingly torment their prey, play with their food, people project negative human qualities on them. The same thing happens with dogs in some cultures (certainly in the Middle East, where many are scavengers).
To the extent we imagine them being in the afterlife, it’s usually because we would not wish to be separated from a beloved companion–or dream we might see them again someday. But on what terms? They would hardly need us for food and protection in the afterlife. Nor would we be allowed to molest or denigrate them, as so many of us have done. And anyway, why just companion animals? What about all the animals we ate for food? What about all the animals we have no relationship with as well? Why should we live on eternally, and they just wither away?
Descartes insisted animals have no higher consciousness, no capacity to feel pain–in effect, no soul. This was in part because French Catholicism in that period was concerned with this very question–if everything goes to heaven, wouldn’t heaven get overcrowded? Doesn’t it diminish the distinction of going? And since animals don’t have an evolved sense of good and evil, how would it even be decided which of them go? Descartes was looking for an answer to that problem–they don’t go, because there’s nothing left of them after death. They aren’t real. He was horribly wrong, and that’s not just sentiment speaking–science speaks louder, and says that our consciousness was built on the foundation they laid. The ancients who gave animals souls just like ours were far closer to the truth than the early rationalists–or many modern ones, like Daniel Dennett (one of the atheist evangelists of our time).
I guess I’d like to believe in the Peaceable Kingdom. All life is reunited somewhere, somehow, without death, without pain, without predation or exploitation. All equal. The Lion lays down with the Lamb.
Maybe that’s all hogwash (sorry pigs), but we could try to make it closer to the truth in this world.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert


