Did I say I believed?

I received and email with the side picture attached along with following was statement:
A Nativity Scene was erected in a church yard.
During the night the folks came across this scene.
An abandoned dog was looking for a comfortable, protected place to sleep.
He chose baby Jesus as his comfort.
No one had the heart to send him away so he was there all night.
We should all have the good sense of this dog and curl up in Jesus' lap from time to time. This is too sweet not to share. No one mentioned that the dog breed is a "shepherd!”

There are a few things I found instantly wrong with this email but it wasn’t suppose to be an email I found anything wrong with and here are 3 reasons why

1) This is suppose to make me realize that Jesus, god and religion in general was something I should consider because this homeless abandoned dog found comfort in the arms of baby Jesus
2) That Christians are kind people who did not want to disturb this creature who sought out comfortable place to sleep
3) And that he chose baby Jesus to protect him from harm

Now anyone who knows me, knows I am not a religious person, my main belief is live your life right, don’t go out of your way to harm others intentionally and if, and I mean if there is such a place as heaven, then you should not be turned away. If there isn’t well not like we will be around afterwards to discuss/whine about it.

So this email brought many issues up as I happen to love animals and yes, I believe all animals have a soul, and feelings just as all humans do. Just watch your pet’s eyes sometimes when you talk to them, or listen to them when they feel sad, lonely or hurt. Then try and make me believe they don’t have a soul with feelings and they are just animals. But I am getting off topic here wanting to go into a rant about how people use and abuse animals because they think they have no feelings. This will be a conversation for another time. Back to why this email showed me just how much I disagree with the kind hearts of Christians.

For all purposes intended of these loving, caring Christians not one of them wanted to disturb this abandoned dog. Not one of them brought this dog food, nor water or a blanket. Not one of them picked this dog up and took it home. Oh sure these are slanders that cannot prove, some might say, anything as they might have not told anyone they did behind the email intended. Give me break; Christians all over are the first to brag their asses off at how helpful they are. I am sure that somewhere in this email they would have stated that that someone took this dog in, feed it, watered it and showed it human love. Instead they tried to show that god loved it and the dog knew he could seek shelter with the one being that he felt he could trust in (says alot for human kind if this was true, now doesn't it). I am not sure about you, but I cannot recall the last time God or Jesus fed and watered my dogs, I cannot recall when the last time either of them played even so much as fetch with them. Shrug
This dog wasn’t just abandoned by humans then turned into email photo opp for Christians to say "hey, see you should believe in Jesus, this dog does" because this dog in their point of view was not just simply abandoned in the world by a human and found a basket with some soft materials to keep it warm while sleeping for the night not caring what it represented, which happen to be a nativity scene. Instead this dog was abandoned and alone seeking comfort and protection in a nativity scene because this dog knew that Jesus would look out for it (even if human's wouldn't). No one cared that this same dog most likely slept in a back alley the night before or hasn’t had a real meal in most likely days except for garbage that could be scrounged up. This dog had most likely never had a human love it, since the day someone decided they didn’t want a dog anymore and disposed of like a candy wrapper out the window of a car.
If this same photo was of a dog sleeping on the streets and you knew it was abandoned would you think it was seeking out Jesus’ protection? You'd have to be christian to think that, then walk away believing that Jesus or God will take care of it.



See there is no difference except that one found a more comfortable place to sleep then the other one. Now considering that some catholic’s and Christens believe that animals have no souls makes me wonder just how desperate they are to use this image as a way to say that this German Sheppard actively sought out the nativity scene because he or she believed that they would be comforted and protected by Jesus and God? If so does that mean that animals might possibly have a soul after all and that maybe some religious people are wrong n their beliefs? Could this also mean that animals have a so called high level of thought like humans are suppose to have since don’t cha know this German Sheppard found comfort and protection in the glory of a plastic doll’s cradle? I thought not.

Opps!! I was a bit wrong. As after searching on catholic/Christian web sites I came across this insert where one poster asked the question right out do animals have souls? This was the reply:
“A soul is the life energy that animates the pile of chemicals that make up you, I, animals and any living thing. The human soul also happens to be a spirit. Our spirit was created when we were conceived and will continue forever. The souls of animals are not spirits so when they die they die forever. So the answer to your original questions is yes. With this definition even plants or bacteria have souls, but they are not spirits so are distinctly different from the human soul/spirit.”

Hmm what is the definition of a spirit and a soul I asked myself?
Soul:
1. The animating and vital principle in humans credited with the faculties of thought, action, and emotion and often conceived as an immaterial entity.
2. The spiritual nature of humans, regarded as immortal, separable from the body at death, and susceptible to happiness or misery in a future state.
3. The disembodied spirit of a dead human.

Spirit:
1.
a. The vital principle or animating force within living beings.
b. Incorporeal consciousness.
2. The soul, considered as departing from the body of a person at death.
5.
a. The part of a human associated with the mind, will, and feelings

After reading both definitions from http://www.thefreedictionary.com I find no real difference in either explanation.
Both the soul and the spirit are what we credit to control our mind; thoughts, actions, will and emotions; feelings, as well as the disembodiment after our death. So to mean this would mean that Yes, Animals do have souls. But do you think animals have thoughts such as an animal Jesus or of an animal God? If they do then we as a society really need to rethink our ideas. Again this is another discussion for another time so I will get back on track.

The facts still remain that this email was in no way suppose to open up all these other issues. It was an email filled with propaganda sent to me by someone who thought that I would see just what they wanted me to see and not what I ended up seeing in the email myself. It was an email that was suppose to show me the glorifying image of just how wonderful Jesus and God is, that even a abandoned dog would find comfort in it.

Well pardon my language but I call “bullshit”. So the next time someone in my life wants to send me religious propaganda, send me something with real proof. Wait better yet, have Jesus or God come visit in physical form because as far as I am concerned the players who speak of him aren’t doing such a great job convincing me he is the one I should be attending church for on my Sundays and giving money to the church plate for. Nor are they the saviours of my afterlife. Till then I will keep living my life to the best of my ability, in ways I know I should be living and save all the money I would have had to dish out on a plate in church to help dish out food I buy to the plates of my family and occasionally a friend or two.
But hey to each their own, if you believe then who am I to tell you different but it works both ways.


Ok I had to post this of a guy/gal who posted back to the people who tried to distinguish between animals having a soul or not... This guy or gal has to be one of my people in relation to how I think.
“I think some folks are really grasping for straws.
I can fully understand if you believe animals have souls.
I can also fully understand if you believe animals do not have souls.
But to see people saying 'Yes, animals have souls. Just not rational, eternal ones' is a little bit ridiculous.
You either have a soul, in the sense that when you die your consciousness continues in an afterlife or you do not have a soul and when you die your consciousness ends.”
I think those people are just trying to find an easy out for the inevitable 'well if animals don't have souls then why does it matter if we abuse them?' argument.