My 1800s-Style Dress Makes Me A Christian

That title sounds so ridiculous... bear with me here.

According to many, many people, your clothing and the way you wear your hair is what you believe. If you're a Christian, you have to be sharply dressed and completely covered at all times. If you're an atheist, you have tattoos all over your arms and wear lots of black. Basically, the clothing worn by men and women in, say, the 1800s was about as chaste and godly as one could get.

Didn't you know that in the Bible it says that if you wear formal clothes all the time, you're a Christian?

Oh wait...

Yeah, that isn't actually in the Bible. Sorry about that.

Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God...

~ John 1:12

"To all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name"... they became children of God. There are also numerous passages that say 'you must be born again'.

I could list many verses, but I'm willing to bet that most of my readers have 'what makes a Christian a Christian' verses memorised. If not, feel free to let me know in the comments and I'll provide some verses.

Nothing in the Bible says that what a person wears is what makes them a Christian.

I'm going to post quite a few photographs here now, of myself. They're being put here to make a point, so please bear with it. I don't typically like uploading more than one or two photos of myself in a blog post, but this time, it has a meaning. 

So, I look quite different in all of those photographs, yeah? Sometimes I'm wearing a skirt and a shirt, sometimes I'm wearing black leather and a beanie, sometimes I'm wearing a bandanna on my head and a cross pendant around my neck, sometimes I'm dressed like a pirate.

There is something that these outfits don't change. Do you know what that is?

Who I am on the inside doesn't change because I'm wearing something different. I am a Christian when I'm wearing a skirt and chilling out with Boba Fett. I'm a Christian when I'm masquerading as a pirate. I'm a Christian when I'm dressed all in black. I'm a Christian when I'm dressed as a necktie-and-trench-coat-wearing, blue-eyed angel. 

Why? Because my heart doesn't change when my outfit or my hairstyle does. 

I'm still me, regardless of what I'm wearing. Maybe the clothes I wear give me a boost of confidence, or make me feel less vulnerable. But overall, I am still the same person I was before I donned the fedora and the wrist bandannas.

Several people on Facebook a few weeks ago saw a photograph of two young men who were wearing grungey-looking clothing and had their hair styled into these fabulously crazy mohawks. Someone argued that there was no way they could be Christians, even after two others kept trying to explain to them that these two guys actually went to a church in their town quite often.

Every few days, I see people insisting that a person can't be a Christian because of the way they dress, or that a person must be an atheist because of the way they look.

It doesn't work like that anymore, guys. A modestly-dressed woman in a dress could just as much be an atheist, as the guy with the mohawk and tattoos could be a Christian. 

Stereotypes don't exist anymore. 

Christians are supposed to be sweet, kind, gentle, and loving people who never get in trouble. And yet I know quite a few very ugly-hearted, self-professed 'Christians' who love to cause trouble and hurt others. 

Atheists are supposed to be harsh and closed-minded, and yet I've met some quite well-mannered and often open-minded atheists in my time.

People of the LGBTQ community are made out to be rude, perverted, and disgusting monsters who have no manners. And yet, I have met and am close friends with young men and women who identify as gay or bi, and they are possibly some of the kindest, gentlest, and most polite people I've ever met. (Bonus stereotype - folks in the LGBTQ community are 'unable to be Christians', and yet 95% of the ones I know are, in fact, Christians.)

Stereotypes have been shattered, guys. Things aren't as clean-cut as you want to think. The heart is what matters to God. Not the clothing, not the hair; nothing like that. The tattoos, the mohawks, the leather... it's not what makes the person a Christian. It's their heart and soul that does.

Sometimes I want to chop all my hair off, and dye it in a vivid shade of green, or perhaps lavender, or maybe a mixture of orange and yellow and red. I want to style it into a mohawk, and wear bandannas on my wrists. I want to wear jackets and hats and jewelry of all kinds, and draw people and scrawl quotes onto my arms with ink pens. 

I would still be a Christian.

Sometimes I want to dye my hair in the colours of the rainbow and style it in an intricate braid, and wear a t-shirt proclaiming my stand for human rights boldly on the front.

I would still be a Christian.

Sometimes I want to don a leather jacket and jeans, pack a duffel bag, and run away from home to learn how to ride a motorcycle, and spend evenings riding towards the setting sun. I want to just keep riding and keep running and not stop til I find that elusive place that feels like a haven.

I would still be a Christian.

Sometimes I want to climb onto the rooftops of buildings wearing a pair of angel wings, white jeans, and an Irish sweater, and sit there with the sun against my face, smiling at anyone that walks past encouraging them or complimenting them.

I would still be a Christian.

Sometimes I want to get dressed up in a green-and-gold floor-length dress with a tulle skirt, blare Celtic reels out in the woods, and dance and sing without anyone there to laugh at me.

I would still be a Christian.

None of my hairstyles or outfits or even lifestyle choices can take away from me what God has given me - His love, His grace, and His forgiveness. I could dress in all black grunge-style clothing, get a lip piercing, cover my arms in tattoos, and style my hair into a purple mohawk... and I would still be His daughter. Perhaps I wouldn't be making the best of decisions in my style choices - but I would be breaking no laws and I would not automatically become an atheist.

I am me. Nothing I wear will change that.

And just because someone doesn't dress neatly and by your standards of modesty does not mean they can't be a Christian. Because what matters most is their heart... and even if you claim to be able to, you cannot see a person's heart as well as God can.

God bless,

Theodora Ashcraft

"You're Going To Go To Hell!"

If you don't stop thinking like that, you're going to go to Hell. I'm sorry. It's just... well, you're wrong. You have to fall to your knees on the floor and beg God to change your mind, because if you don't, you will end up in eternal fire. Repent and be changed. Because as an afterthought, I wouldn't want you to end up burning in Hell, after all.

If I know people like I think I do, then many of them just became quite offended. And many of you also had your curiosity piqued as to why I'm making such a claim to my dear readers.

I'm not. So take a few minutes to calm down, slow your heartbeat, and get rid of the anger.

Calmed down now? Good. I'll get on with the actual point of this blog article now.

I'm sure there are a few of you who caught my sarcasm. But those of you who were offended and took it seriously, or can possibly put yourself in another's shoes - how did that make you feel?

I'm not going to tell you how you feel, but I'll list a few emotions that go through a person's mind when they're told out of the blue from someone they hardly know that they're going to go to Hell for whatever reason if they don't change:

• Resentment.
• Fear.
• Anger.
• Offensement.
• Bitterness.
• Annoyance.
• Shock.
• Hopelessness.
• Disgust with either themselves or the person condemning them.
• Confusion. 

I know that those are all valid and possible emotions, because they're the emotions I've felt - all of them - when people have told me I'm going to go to Hell for feeling a certain way or doing a certain thing, or that I will go to Hell if I commit suicide, or do whatever else.

I rarely felt repentance. I just got a bombardment of negative emotions, towards myself, towards whoever was talking to me, and towards God.

One reason is because that, as always, a person was condemning me without stepping into my shoes, and without showing love, gentleness, and respect. They were most likely in my face, matter-of-fact, blunt, and cold.

If a person is to judge another person, they should do it kindly, right?

Actually, no. A person should not judge at all. At least, not in the sense of what the word means now - the sense of that word now basically means acting superior, telling people point-blank they're going to go to Hell, belittling them because of their feelings/their beliefs/their life in general, and other such things like that.

Lovingly pointing out things that you believe are wrong, and expressing concern over a behaviour that is harmful, is what one should be doing. But I'll go into that in a second.

There are numerous Bible verses that speak out against judging others.

"Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."

- Matthew 7:1-5 (NASB)

A favourite explanation people like to use is, "Well, it says if you do judge, you will be judged by the same standards."

Don't ask me how that's an explanation against its command not to judge, because I don't know. I don't understand the logic in that explanation.

But they neglect to pay attention to the next verses - the ones about the speck in your brother's eye, and the log in your own ('your' being in the metaphorical sense here).

Sawdust. Or... specks. Heh.

What I'm gathering from that passage - and I specifically said 'what I'm gathering', because I don't claim to know everything and certainly not what Bible passages mean - is that you shouldn't judge at all, because we all have our own problems that we should try to fix, instead of trying to fix everyone else.

Those verses to me are saying three things:

1. Don't judge others.

2. But if you do judge them, expect to be judged in the same way and by the same standards.

3. However, if you decide to judge others, you are a hypocrite for paying attention to their faults rather than your own.

Overall, I still get the 'do not judge others' vibe from this, regardless of the whole thing about the same standards. But let's take a look at another Bible verse on the subject:

"Do not speak against one another, brethren. He who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks against the law and judges the law; but if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge of it. There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and to destroy; but who are you who judge your neighbor?"

- James 4:11-12 (NASB)

That one seems fairly clear to me - there is only one Lawgiver and Judge. And He is not any one of us. So who are we to judge others? 

One more verse before I move on:

"Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men's hearts; and then each man's praise will come to him from God."

- 1 Corinthians 4:5 (NASB)

That one is basically saying not to judge until the Lord returns. Again, fairly clear and there really isn't all that much more I can say on those verses. So I'll move on to talking about just how to point out what someone is doing wrong.

Should we just ignore people who are doing something to harm themselves or others, or doing something that we perceive is wrong? No. But there is a right way and a wrong way to do that.

First of all, let's just halt all notions of waltzing up to complete strangers or acquaintances and telling them that they're sinners, that what they think or beileve is wrong, etc. Even in a loving way. Seriously, just stop. 

Why? Because you haven't even shown them you care about them yet. You have no right to go around telling people you hardly know things like that, because... well, you hardly know them. You have no idea what they're going through, you have no idea what their past is like, you have no idea who they are.

If you're going to go around pointing out what you perceive someone is doing or believing that is wrong, you should only do it with someone you love and care about. And I mean genuinely, not pretending you do just to gain their trust.

Because, if it makes you feel any better about yourself, they'll be more likely to listen to you if you both have a good relationship before you start pointing out wrongdoings.

And also, it's just not generally considered kind or loving to go and point fingers at the beliefs and lives of people you don't know very well, for reasons I've already mentioned.

So how to go about it? Lovingly, gently, and kindly to someone you know well already. And make sure you're not acting like you know everything there is to know ever about the Bible, because let's face the cold, hard truth - you don't. And your denomination of Christianity isn't 'the only right' denomination. So make sure you explain to them why you think something is wrong; don't just tell them that it's wrong because you say so. And again, I cannot stress this enough: be respectful!

Seriously. You don't want to end up like these people. Cruel, hateful, disrespectful - the definition of 'unkind' incarnate, I tell you.

That's how you go about it. Consider this verse:

"Do to others as you would have them do to you."

- Luke 6:31 (NIV)

If you're going to tell someone that you think what they're doing is wrong, tell them in a way that you would want them to tell you. Which I would imagine means gently and respectfully. 

Now, if someone is doing something that you know is harmful to themselves, you should most certainly tell them it's wrong. But again, don't beat them over the head with a medical guide and go crazy shouting at them that they're hurting themselves and they have to stop. That won't get you anywhere.

Take it the same way as I suggested earlier. Kindly and gently, and informing them what is wrong with their behaviour and why it's harmful; drinking, smoking, etc. 

(Now if you know someone murdering other people or abusing other people physically, thaaat is a whole other kettle of fish that I'm not going into. Obviously, the whole gentle-and-loving approach will most likely not work out with that.)

I think that's all I have to say. I'll leave you with this passage:

 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

- 1 Corinthians 13:4-7

"It keeps no record of wrongs". That's one part of that passage that is key to this article. But the entire thing is relevant - treat others with that sort of love, no matter what. Because that's what one is meant to do - not harshly judging others for differences of opinions.

That's two hearts and a cross in the middle, in case it's hard for anyone to see.

God bless,

Theodora Ashcraft

Physical Touch - The Five Love Languages: Part 1

(Before we start, a big thank-you to my sister Snow for 'donating' the last photograph, and for seeking permission from those involved, so that I could use a 'real-life' picture for an example. <3)

This series of blog articles has been long in coming - I've been planning them out for months, as well as writing and rewriting, then deleting and starting all over again. I don't think I'll ever get them perfect, so what I have come up with shall just have to do.

The next six posts will be on the Five Love Languages. The first five will be in-depth opinions on each of the languages, and the sixth will be a sort of epilogue explaining them as a whole. I will add that I have no particular organization for the posts, so I may address different aspects or opinions for one love language than I do for another - there aren't any bullet-point subjects I'm going to address in every single article.

With that out of the way, let's get started.

~

I'm starting with physical touch because it's my own love language. And it is the most misunderstood among Christians (mainly very conservative ones and/or legalists), I've noticed. Words of affirmation also gets a lot of hate in such circles, but I won't be going into that one today.

The love language of physical touch is basically when you show someone you care about - family member, spouse, friend, acquaintance, a stranger who needs comfort, anyone at all - love and comfort by touching them in some way. This is the description for physical touch from the Five Love Languages website:

A person whose primary language is Physical Touch is, not surprisingly, very touchy. Hugs, pats on the back, and thoughtful touches on the arm—they can all be ways to show excitement, concern, care, and love. Physical presence and accessibility are crucial, while neglect or abuse can be unforgivable and destructive. Appropriate and timely touches communicate warmth, safety, and love to you.


I can hear the ones unaccustomed to such a love language exclaiming in wide-eyed horror, "Physical touch?!"

Physical touch doesn't have to be intimate in the way it is between a husband and wife, you know.

Here's a question for all of you. Ignoring the fact this is a drawing and not a real photograph - this depicts Jesus hugging a girl. Christians often talk about Christ 'holding us in His arms'. Does that mean they love each other romantically or are dating? Erm... no.  So why does physical touch = romantic thoughts/intimacy with our brothers and sisters in Christ?

Hugs, holding hands, a pat on the back or shoulder, a handshake that goes on for a few seconds longer than normal, dancing, playing with someone's hair (usually in the case of girls, but it doesn't have to be; close friends can too without a problem), high-fives... the possibilities are endless.

The 'love tank' is a concept talked about often when it comes to the Five Love Languages. In order to completely fill a person's love tank (i.e., make them feel completely loved), you need to at least try to figure out what their primary love languages are and attempt to love them in that way.

If their love language is Words of Affirmation, compliment and encourage them a lot. If their love language is Gifts, try to give them a special gift every so often, even if it's something small. If their love language is Physical Touch, give them more hugs and touch them on the shoulder or what-not more often. They will come away feeling totally and completely loved, whereas if you try to show them love in a different way... well, they'll still feel loved, but not as much as if you had shown them you love them (as a friend or otherwise) in the way their love language calls for.

Me, physical touch is my love language through and through. If you want me to feel safe or comforted or loved, hug me or play with my hair or put an arm around me - stuff like that.

There is one misconception about physical touch that I have heard so often it angers me. Yes, angers me.

And that is the lie that physical touch between anyone but a family member means you love someone romantically, or means you will end up loving them romantically, or means that you and whoever it is are a couple.

THAT IS JUST NOT TRUE. I'm sorry for the caps, but like I said, this infuriates me.



Hugging a friend or a person of the opposite gender frequently or even once doesn't mean you'll all of a sudden, one day, have a burst of fireworks explode over your head, hear an angelic chorus playing in the background, and think, "I am in love with this person, and I am going to date them because I will die without them".

Sorry, but no. That's not true. And by the way, dancing with a person of the opposite gender or holding hands with them won't have the same effect all the time either. Just so you know. Neither do kisses on the cheek or the forehead, believe it or not.

Oh, and treating friends of the same gender in that way does not make you gay. (Not that being gay is a horrible and bad thing either, by the way. It is in no way an insult. Go ahead and send the hate mail at me for saying that now. :P)

One aspect of physical touch beyond people who feel romantically to each other, and beyond friends and family who love each other, is comfort.

Do these two people look like they're in love? They might be, but what does it look like they're doing? To me, it looks like he's comforting her.

Just face the facts, people - physical touch is comforting to most people. Take, for example, this video of me:

(Don't laugh. I know I'm bad at dancing. At that point in my life, I had taken exactly two dancing lessons, and danced with another person exactly once.)

Oh my gosh! I'm dancing with a man who isn't a blood relative! And he's touching me! He has my hand in his, and he had an arm around me, and everything! I must be dating him, and we must love each other, and we must be planning to get married (until we break up in a few months' time and call the wedding off).

No, sorry. He's from Ireland, and I asked him to dance with me so I could get a video of it for my friends. (Not to mention he was a very gentlemanly adult and wouldn't feel romantically towards me in the first place). This was the second time after my camera had blinked out on me the first time and not gotten the video. So I danced with an adult man twice.

I am not in love with him. I didn't feel romantically towards him. I was having fun. 

Now, anyone who knows me well knows one thing - I am easily scared. When I got up in front of all those people to dance, I was surprised (I had thought we would dance in the back of the room) and scared out of my mind.

His touches - not inappropriate, just simply holding my hand and putting an arm around me when we twirled - calmed me down. They comforted me. His hug and the kiss on the cheek at the end helped me to stop shaking. And then when it was my turn to sing karaoke (something I was point-blank terrified about) came around, it was him who stood by my side and reassured me in the same way he did while we were dancing - putting a hand on my shoulder, giving me a hug or two, etc.

Yes, his dance moves got a bit goofy in the beginning. He was a pretty silly and loves-to-make-people-laugh guy. There was nothing inherently wrong with it.

He wasn't being inappropriate. Trust me, he wouldn't have been with dozens of adults, my brother, and my mom standing right in front of him filming. He was just being a friendly guy who was perceptive enough to notice that when he hugged me or patted my shoulder, I stopped shaking. Nothing more, nothing less. He is from Ireland, a place that - from all the Irish people I've met in person - is unafraid of physical touch among friends.

As for me, I never fell in love with him, I never thought he had any ulterior motives, I never wanted to date him - none of those things. I simply was comforted and having fun. All I was thinking was "I've never danced before and he's so friendly, maybe he'll dance with me; it would be a new experience and I'd like to try dancing at least once in my life" and "I told my sisters I'd get a video of me dancing on this trip".

Physical touch is comforting. There is a reason people hug each other and hold each other after a love one dies. There is a reason children cling to their mothers. There is a reason children in orphanages in impoverished areas who don't get touched or held by anyone grow up to have mental and emotional problems. There is a reason friends and family hug one another when they say goodbye.

Physical touch - being hugged, being held, an arm around your shoulder, and all those things - is one of the main ways of showing comfort. The feeling of someone hugging you lets you know that you are not alone and that there is someone who is going to support you - mentally, emotionally, and physically if need be - in your struggles.

We are all family in Christ. Biological brothers hug biological sisters all the time; fathers hug their daughters and mothers hug their sons. Romans 16:16 even states:

"Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ greet you." (NASB)

Now, that probably - judging by how kisses on the cheek are apparently a somewhat common greeting in Italy - means a kiss on the cheek. I'm not telling all of you to greet everyone with a kiss. That is a bit overboard.

What I am saying is that back in the times of Jesus, things like that were normal. Usually between people of the same gender, from what I can tell (but I am not extremely knowledgeable about the Bible yet, so feel free to correct me), but the principal stands, considering so many people can't even hug someone of the same gender without being called 'gay'.

Most Christians are big on the idea that 'we are all brothers and sisters/family in Christ!'. And you know what? I agree.

And it is because I agree that I say we should stop treating each other like strangers and potential wives or husbands, and start treating each other, first and foremost, as siblings. 

Give each other a hug without worrying about what people will think (unless, of course, the person you are thinking of hugging doesn't like hugs; then show respect, as you would to a sibling). Don't be afraid to hold hands with your best friend, whether they're of the opposite gender or not. Hold someone who is crying, whether they're the same gender or not. Comfort each other with hugs when you're sad or hurting or crying because you have to say goodbye to your friends.

Thank you to Sarah Millz for taking this photograph, and to those involved for allowing me to use it!

Just don't be afraid to hug someone because you 'might develop romantic feelings for them'. The world won't end if you do; unless you have no confidence in your ability to handle such things in a mature, kind, and gentlemanly/ladylike way. And if you're afraid of the fact that 'loving someone like that is dangerous and it hurts'... well... all relationships cause pain. Families cause pain, friends cause pain, significant others cause pain.

Love hurts. It wouldn't be true love - Biblical love - if it didn't hurt. If it was completely painless, where would the preciousness in it be? It would not be as special, because there would be no effort needed. No risk. It would show you only care about a person as long as it doesn't hurt you. You don't care enough about them to love them no matter what. Just a thought.

I think that's all for this post. Keep an eye out for the next post in this series - Words of Affirmation.

God bless,

Theodora Ashcraft

All God's Creatures

If you have ever owned a pet, you know the feeling when they're alive. They're always there for you, without fail. Dogs, cats, birds, and horses show excitement at seeing you, and want attention as soon as you reach them. Quieter animals such as turtles, fish, and snakes aren't quite as able to show excitement, but they do sit and listen to you if you need to rant to someone - someone who can't talk back, or argue, or hurt (whether intentionally or not).

Sela, my best friend and big sister of eleven years; she passed away in February of 2012.

If there are going to be animals in Heaven (unless someone wants to dispute what this verse is saying?), why should our pets not be there as well? Does it matter whether they have souls or not? I don't think so - because there will clearly be animals in Heaven regardless, according to that verse. Why would God have regular, normal animals in Heaven, but not our pets whom we loved and whom - if He truly does have a hand in everything that happens, as so many people say - He gave us in the first place?

When they pass away it feels like, at the very least, you've lost a friend. With some who have no one else, it's as though they've lost their soulmate, their sister or brother. Before you tell me that's ridiculous, you can just stop. I've experienced it firsthand, as has my mom. We know our emotions, and anyone who tells me that the loss of an animal cannot hurt as much as losing a beloved family member doesn't understand my emotional structure or my mother's.

That said, when such a thing happens, many often wonder - will we see our pets again, in Heaven someday?

I believe we will. I believe they do go to Heaven.

I will be giving a Bible passage or two in order to back up my claims, and discuss each passage accordingly. I hope that it will be an encouragement to those missing the animals they love, and something to think about for people who believe pets will not be in Heaven.

One passage in the Bible is Isaiah 65:25:

The wolf and the lamb will feed together,

    and the lion will eat straw like the ox,

    and dust will be the serpent’s food.

They will neither harm nor destroy

    on all my holy mountain,”

says the Lord. (NASB)

Let's take a look at that verse for a few moments, shall we? There will be animals in the afterlife, whether it's Heaven or the New Earth (or both, if you're one of the people who consider them one and the same; I know some who think of them as different places).

Some people have said to me, "Your pets won't be in Heaven. Jesus did not die for rats, dogs, and other animals; they don't have souls!"

If animals don't have souls, then why do they have to be held to the law that says Jesus needed to die for you? Animals, since they are - as many people like to remind me - 'soulless and not human', should be held to different standards, should they not? Just something to think about. Also, since they cannot know 'what is right', as people say, then they also cannot know 'what is wrong'. Going off of this, I would imagine that this is somewhat (not totally) similar to an infant dying - it is too young to know right from wrong, so it must not be going to Heaven, right? Wrong.

(Please note that I am only comparing the concept of right and wrong between animals and infants, not the presence of a soul, before you rebuke me for comparing humans and animals [which I will continue to do in my own life, but shall keep out of this blog article].)

Another argument people use (though considerably less often) is that God does not love animals, and thus, they will not be in Heaven (or something like that). In response to that, I share this verse - Matthew 10:29:

Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care. (NASB)

And then there is this verse, Matthew 6:26: 

Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? (NASB)

From those verses, I basically take away that God clearly cares enough about birds (and most likely other animals) to feed them, and take the time to see when one of them falls to the ground. 

So anyone who says that God doesn't care about animals or love them should re-think that idea. He clearly does care, otherwise He would leave them to die without watching them or feeding them. Not only that, but if He didn't care about them, why would He put them on Earth in the first place? Something to think about.

I have a few more Bible passages to share with you before you go. Take a look at Ecclesiastes 3:19-21:

 For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same. As one dies so dies the other; indeed, they all have the same breath and there is no advantage for man over beast, for all is vanity. 20 All go to the same place. All came from the dust and all return to the dust. 21 Who knows that the breath of man ascends upward and the breath of the beast descends downward to the earth? (NASB)

Looking at those verses, they seem to be telling us that we do not know whether animals will go to Heaven or not. The first part mentions that 'all have the same breath'. According to an article I've read, 'breath of life' has been translated to 'soul' before; just an interesting tidbit. And it says quite clearly - "There is no advantage for man over beast, for all is vanity. All go to the same place."

Is that same place Heaven? Most of my mind believes that it is. Though that is disregarding Hell, so I am still considering the meaning of 'the same place' and whether it means the afterlife in general, Heaven, or just 'the dust'.

In that vein, Revelation 21:5 states:

 And He who sits on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” And He said, “Write, for these words are faithful and true. (NASB)

"Behold, I am making all things new". All things would also include animals, would it not? I don't see why it wouldn't. What does 'all things' entail, if you believe that animals are not included?

And then there is Romans 8:20-21:

20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. (NASB)

"...that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God." Are animals a part of the creation or aren't they? You can't honestly believe that humans are the only part of Creation - and thus the only things, living or not, who will be set free from corruption.

I do believe that's all I have to say on the matter. I hope I made you think about the subject more than you normally would, whether you believe animals will be in Heaven or not. If you have any questions or comments, feel free to leave them in the comment section below!

Until next time,

Theodora Ashcraft