Re: When animals die do you think they go to heaven?
Originally posted by Jackie Malfoy
I looked but did not see this anywhere so why not ask it!Anyway I think that they have a soul but don't go to heaven,
What are your thoughts on this?Any thoughts or anything you want to share?
See you around!JM 💃 💃 🤣
Animals don't have a soul. God created them so that we can eat them. Except the poisonus ones. 😉
Because Arch Bishop Van Frackenburg said it doesn't mean that that is the truth... he is human, he could easily be wrong. What about the dogs that are just meaner than shit? I've seen some mean dogs before... what about the dogs that kill kids? pit bulls bite, kill toddler
I think if there is a heaven that not all animals go there.
Originally posted by Mr Zero
Read a bible.
The Bible is outdated by like 2,000 years. And this is strickly my opinion, but also a fraud. The stories are taken from countless other civilizations well before Christianity. That's not to say there isn't a higher power. I just believe the Bible isn't the true word but a representation of human knowledge put into a pretty compensation and then flawnted for those who can't comprehend the meaning of what human thought really means.
Originally posted by Dreampanther
I don't agree. I have read numerous accounts of animals saving humans, when they could have turned away and hid and saved themselves.Dismissing this as mere instinct is too simplistic an argument. As for "man is also the only other animal that will give it's life willingly for another, or risk everything to help a fellow human being", that is patently false. Frequently there are accounts of of animals jumping into rivers to save human beings, or storming into a burning building to save a human being.
As for "giving it's life willingly for another", do yourself a favour and watch a documentary about mothers protecting their young. This might be described as "mere instinct", or giving it's life to save a human as "mere loyalty", but then, give me some more of this "mere loyalty" and a little less of "human mental capacity".
In the end, if there should be a "Christian God", I would expect Him or Her to judge us not on intellect, but on loyalty, courage and steadfastness.
All wild animals act on instict. There is no way around that. There is nothing anyone can say to disprove this fact. Yeah, i am sure there are accounts out there, where domesticated animals have done somthing to save their masters. Then again, is this instict or choice? When a gaurd dog protects it's owner, It is doing so from instict that has been impressed over years, and sometimes centuries of domesticated training. the point that matters though is that a wild animal acts on nothing but instinct. when a domesticated animal does somthing rash to protect it's owner, it is not using rationality, it is not weighing the pro's and cons of the situation. It does not know that it's life could possibly be on the line. Animals dont understand right from wrong, unless they are trained, even then it is only learning from repetition, and not by a conscious decesion.
As for animal mothers protecting it's young, yes this is instict. Yeah, there could be a bond between the two, but it is still instinct. an instinct that nature chose to give to the mother. The male counterpart does not protect it's young, atleast in many races of animals. What about the mother wolf who will sometimes eat it's young?
Originally posted by ragesRemorse
All wild animals act on instict. There is no way around that. There is nothing anyone can say to disprove this fact. Yeah, i am sure there are accounts out there, where domesticated animals have done somthing to save their masters. Then again, is this instict or choice? When a gaurd dog protects it's owner, It is doing so from instict that has been impressed over years, and sometimes centuries of domesticated training. the point that matters though is that a wild animal acts on nothing but instinct. when a domesticated animal does somthing rash to protect it's owner, it is not using rationality, it is not weighing the pro's and cons of the situation. It does not know that it's life could possibly be on the line. Animals dont understand right from wrong, unless they are trained, even then it is only learning from repetition, and not by a conscious decesion.As for animal mothers protecting it's young, yes this is instict. Yeah, there could be a bond between the two, but it is still instinct. an instinct that nature chose to give to the mother. The male counterpart does not protect it's young, atleast in many races of animals. What about the mother wolf who will sometimes eat it's young?
Two facts you must remember
1. We go on reflex too. I could be stopped from writing this piece, against all my conscious might, to get a galaxy out of the newsagents nearby if I see a wrapper. That's a sensory reflex. A way that "true love" is sparked, is when you smell another's biological signal and find they have an opposing immune system. If I put my life on the line to protect a person who's trapped in the middle of the road with a car approaching, I'm not "weighing the pro's and cons of the situation" but just acting on reflex that if a person's in danger, you protect them. Lucky too, or they'd have been hit by the car, due to the half second of thought required
2. There was an episode of Braniac where a scientist played a game of cards with a monkey, and cheated in an obvious way. The monkey went ballistic, and went even more ballistic when he did it again. That was a conscious decision. Just because humans train them, doesn't mean that animals cannot act on their minds. Wolfs, despite popular opinion, don't attack humans normally. Cats have a incredible capacity for manipulation that we don't train them in.
I like your style, Ytaker.
As for you ragesRemorse, so can I take it that your reasoning run as follows:
Animals act from instinct.
People act from rationality.
Therefore only people go to Heaven.
So, in essence, according to you, God created animals to be without thought, without reasoning, in fact, without a SINGLE redeeming feature that would allow them to go to heaven, because, according to you, they don't have courage, loyalty, or, in fact, love. Only instinct.
Man, that's a lot of effort to spend to create something that will just die and end, never to be heard of again. You'd think after He (or She) went to all that effort to save them from extinction, by making Noah build an ark and getting two from every species in order to keep them alive, S/He would allow at least SOME of them into Heaven. Or is S/He scared that S/He runs out of space in Heaven?
Since S/He is so all powerful and all mighty, and S/He didn't plan on letting them into heaven anyway, why didn't S/He just let them die out in the flood and create some new ones? Or something totally different?
Why go through all that effort to save them?
I wouldn't say that it would be a pointless effort. If the biological balance of the earth collapses, we're dead meat. You need animals like you need the sun. Not that my previous words are false. Just that If God created the earth, then he'd need animals for life.
Another detail I recall is that, allowing for two thirds of heaven to be filled by vital heavenly services, someone calculated that every human in history would still have 1,000,000 square metres of space each (there’s a measurement somewhere in the bible). This suggests either that aliens are allowed in, or, a happy thought, that pets are included.
I never said that animals dont have characteristics such as loyalty, courage and so on. I am just saying they act on insticnt rather than a conscious decesion of the world around them.
If you want to bring the Bible into your argument, the Bible says that animals do not have souls. Not that i bank on that statment. Infact i have said in previous posts, that i dont know if animals go to heaven, and infact i do not see why the wouldnt. I just dont see why an animal would get to heaven over a human being.
Originally posted by ragesRemorse
I never said that animals dont have characteristics such as loyalty, courage and so on. I am just saying they act on insticnt rather than a conscious decesion of the world around them.If you want to bring the Bible into your argument, the Bible says that animals do not have souls. Not that i bank on that statment. Infact i have said in previous posts, that i dont know if animals go to heaven, and infact i do not see why the wouldnt. I just dont see why an animal would get to heaven over a human being.
I never said that animals dont have characteristics such as loyalty, courage... a sense of justice (with the blackjack monkey), a recognition of greatness (or whatever reason the wolf doesn't attack us but does a bear), manipulativly evil but cute reactions to a new enviroment that their DNA didn't allow for...
I don't, it was a joke. But if we are going along that avenue, remember that there's more than enough space for animals. If a human needs one, then there's going to be no problems with any aspect of it. You've got the angels for cleaning up the mess, the cerubs for meat (the little tubs of lard) and fire swords for shaving. What's the problem with an animal going into heaven?
Look, I'm biased. I love animals (and please don't get all kinds of dirty thoughts). When I was a kid, I had three cats and two dogs and they all slept on my bed with me. When I was sad, they would listen without judging, When they thought we were threatened, they were ready to lay down their lives for us. When I was happy, they were more than ready to share in my joy.
I wish more people were like that.
Yeah, but there are people who devote and dedicate their lives to animals, and nature. Not a few, but many. Just becuase some humans are blinded by the power they are given doesnt mean you can black ball the entire race as being a dominant power driven tyrant. How can we say what animals would be like if they held the same kind of mental capacity of humans. I believe some animals can remind us of what is really important about living. There is no reaosn to stigmatize the entire human race on how some people treat animals though. We as humans have been given great power when compared to all other living creatures. This power can be used righteously or terribly.
Originally posted by Scarpa
Hunting is not inmoral because it is a natural part of life if it is all preadators such as Lions and wolves are evil.
Humans are naturally immoral though. They turn natural things into evil things, like germs into plague bombs, arsenic into a posionous compound, and hunting into mass slaughters like with the dodo.