Just having a small doubt dear friends/frihosters ??
If a human creates God - then he looks like almost human but with some difference.
(For Hindus -- Their god will have more hands, more than one head etc..,)
In the same way, If the Animals think of their gods, then they will also resemble ...?
Is GOD having any shape ?? THink once you pen down here...?
ALL your thoughts are most welcome...!
God created us, and He created animals for us. Animals, well most of them at least, don't know the difference between right and wrong, and most of the time (excepting primates and dolphins etc.) they don't have egos either.
As a result, they don't go to Hell and Heaven. Whatever happens to them after they die, we just don't know.
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
God created us, and He created animals for us. Animals, well most of them at least, don't know the difference between right and wrong, and most of the time (excepting primates and dolphins etc.) they don't have egos either.
As a result, they don't go to Hell and Heaven. Whatever happens to them after they die, we just don't know. |
Nor do we know what happens to us when we die. There is no guarantuee whatsoever.
Animals do not have gods as they do not think the way we do. We are more evolved then they are and have developped the ability to reason and think. True, some animals can do that too but not by far as sophisticated as we can. That is why we made up gods and animals haven't.of course animals have a god (or several or none)!!!
If an animal can have feelings then why not?
| Coen wrote: |
| Nor do we know what happens to us when we die. There is no guarantuee whatsoever. |
You don't. That doesn't mean I don't. | HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Coen wrote: | | Nor do we know what happens to us when we die. There is no guarantuee whatsoever. |
You don't. That doesn't mean I don't. |
Point taken - but - how can one be so sure? just curious, don't take it amiss... | HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Coen wrote: | | Nor do we know what happens to us when we die. There is no guarantuee whatsoever. |
You don't. That doesn't mean I don't. |
No, you really have no idea. If you haven't died and come back, you don't know. You can claim you know, have faith you know, theorize you know, but there's no proof backing your statement and to declare you know something that has been pondered upon since mankind's existence is a bit...arrogant. | HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| God created us, and He created animals for us. Animals, |
Animals created for Humans...? ... What this mean...? So Animals meant for only humans... they donot have their own life as there for us ?
I'll never agree with the above explanation ....!
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
As a result, they don't go to Hell and Heaven. Whatever happens to them after they die, we just don't know. |
So you will say that Hell and Heaven are created for humans only...! Give a good reason that the Hell and Heaven are there in truth...! 
If we are to say that human evolved from ape and we are intelligent therefore heaven is available to us then why can't any other animal species ever evolve beyond their unintelligent bodies into something that heaven would accept?
The distinction is meaningless. If one admits that primates have egos then surely primates would go to 'heaven'? Once one admits the possibility that primates have a 'heaven' then the rest is simply based on a humanly-decided scale.
The whole notion is rather silly.
Truth is we haven't proved there is heaven for mankind. We shouldn't attempt to delve into heaven for other species though I do not see why they would be excluded. As a child I watched All Dogs Go To Heaven and I would like to believe my dog will be with me in heaven as well as my people.
Animals don't theorise, they simply live in the here and now. They have inbuilt knowledge and they act on on their instincts they cannot think in the abstract. There is no way they can believe in a deity.
Different religions have different afterlife beliefs. Some people believe they may come back as an animal. The afterlife would be a very dull place if there were no animals there, and imagine waking up at dawn and there being no birds to welcome it in.
I'm not sure how true that is. Can we say that the higher primates, for example, do not theorise? I would be very wary of such a statement. We certainly observe some behaviours in primates that would seem to suggest some level of abstract reasoning.
i think that animal god is a polar bear
God does have a shape...
Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Do animals go to Heaven?
Genesis 2:7, 19
Both mankind and animals are formed from the ground.
Alright, so their physical bodies are similar. But this says little about their immortality.
Genesis 9:9-11
God’s covenant with Noah included both people and animals
Though the covenant with Noah was not one of eternal life, God did promise not to flood the world ever again, and included animals in his covenant.
In Deuteronomy 5:12-15, the forth commandment is given to both humans and animals (that is to keep holy the Sabbath)
Matthew 6:26 and Psalm 104—verses 14 and 27-30
[Paraphrased]
God takes care of both men and animals
Isaiah 11:1-9 describes a time of peace where all man and animals will be in harmony.
...
With the numerous equalities to humans throughout the Bible, I think the idea that animals make it to Heaven could be very plausible.
Disclaimer: I do not assert these beliefs to be true, but am only pointing out that at least one major religion leaves room for the possibility of animals going to Heaven. And since I have the most background experience with Christianity than I do with any other religion, the Bible seemed like a good place to turn!
animals have a god
ME!!!! FOR I AM THE BEASTMASTER
seriously thought if animals are not in heaven then there is no god.....they may not be able to think and act like we do but they are still alive and have rights....even thought they taste soooo good
| Bikerman wrote: |
| The distinction is meaningless. |
Can you validate your saying @Bikerman ??
If Heaven is there for Human life...! then this distinction is so meaningful...!
| Yantaal wrote: |
| i think that animal god is a polar bear |
Why so ?? I didn't get...! Its for Fun or like that you say...? | tempdbs wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | The distinction is meaningless. |
Can you validate your saying @Bikerman ??
If Heaven is there for Human life...! then this distinction is so meaningful...!
|
OK, I'll try.
How do we differentiate human from non-human? Is it simply a case of biological taxonomy? If so then at what point in our evolutionary past did we become human enough to go to heaven? Why would our particular branch of the primate tree be the one to go to heaven and non of the others? Simply because we thought-up the concept? Would Homo-habilis go to heaven? How about Homo-neanderthalensis ? Is it just Homo-Sapiens that qualifies? Why ?
If our definition relies more on concepts such as self-awareness, thought, intelligence etc then is a brain damaged human more deserving of heaven than a normal chimp? At what point of intelligence would a human no longer qualify? An IQ of 80? 70? 50? Why ?
Both species and intelligence/consciousness are not clear unambiguous dividing lines. A new species, for example, is often defined as a group which cannot interbreed with the parent population, but this is not set in stone. There is evidence, for example, that Homo-neanderthalensis (Neanderthals) could and did interbreed with Homo-sapiens. Does that mean that Neanderthals would or would not go to heaven? How about the child of a Homo-sapiens/Homo-neanderthalis? Do you have to have a certain particular genetic makeup before you qualify? Why ? | Bikerman wrote: |
| I'm not sure how true that is. Can we say that the higher primates, for example, do not theorise? I would be very wary of such a statement. We certainly observe some behaviours in primates that would seem to suggest some level of abstract reasoning. |
Abstract reasoning: dealing with a subject in the abstract without practical purpose or intention; acording to the this definition, I don't think that primates in the wild do have abstract reasoning.
I'm going to have to finish this later as my dog is letting me know it's time I got dinner ready. 
What behaviours are you aluding to? We know chimps will put a huge leaf over their head in the rain but that has a practical purpose. We know they use tools where food is concerned but that again has a practical purpose. What is interesting though is a chimp needs to learn how to use tools - sticks, stones - when young. It's been noted that chimps who are taken away from their mother as babies and are later re-introduced to a group of chimps seem unable to learn how to use tools.
| Quote: |
| Would Homo-habilis go to heaven? How about Homo-neanderthalensis ? |
If there is such a place as heaven why should they not go? Homo-neanderthalenis had burial rituals which indicate a belief in the continuation of life after this one. | woundedhealer wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | I'm not sure how true that is. Can we say that the higher primates, for example, do not theorise? I would be very wary of such a statement. We certainly observe some behaviours in primates that would seem to suggest some level of abstract reasoning. |
Abstract reasoning: dealing with a subject in the abstract without practical purpose or intention; acording to the this definition, I don't think that primates in the wild do have abstract reasoning. |
Well I'm fairly sure you are wrong here. Here, for example, is an article on abstract reasoning in Baboons;
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/baboons-trained-on-computers-show-they-are-capable-of-abstract-reasoning-631404.html
(I don't, btw, accept your definition of abstract reasoning. There can certainly be practical purpose or intent involved in abstract reasoning. Here is a reasonable (IMHO) definition:
| Quote: |
The ability to analyze information and solve problems on a complex, thought-based level. Abstract reasoning tasks involve skills such as:- Forming theories about the nature of objects, ideas, processes, and problem solving;
- Understanding subjects on a complex level through complex analysis and evaluation; and
- Ability to apply knowledge in problem-solving using theory, metaphor, or complex analogy.
|
source; http://learningdisabilities.about.com/od/glossar1/g/abstractreason.htm )
| Quote: |
| I'm going to have to finish this later as my dog is letting me know it's time I got dinner ready. |
Yes - my three are very good at that level of practical reasoning too | Quote: |
What behaviours are you aluding to? We know chimps will put a huge leaf over their head in the rain but that has a practical purpose. We know they use tools where food is concerned but that again has a practical purpose. What is interesting though is a chimp needs to learn how to use tools - sticks, stones - when young. It's been noted that chimps who are taken away from their mother as babies and are later re-introduced to a group of chimps seem unable to learn how to use tools. |
But it's also been observed that chimps can use a non-iconic symbolic language (ie one in which the symbols to not look like the thing being represented). This involves abstraction. We could debate what level of abstraction primates are capable of but I do not think there is any doubt that they are capable of abstract reasoning at some levels. | Quote: |
| If there is such a place as heaven why should they not go? Homo-neanderthalenis had burial rituals which indicate a belief in the continuation of life after this one. |
So are we now changing the definition of what is needed to go to heaven? At first it was stated that only humans could go. Then someone tried to link intelligence/awareness to heaven. Now we have the suggestion that belief in continuation of life is necessary. It seems to me that the terms and conditions are getting a bit messy. The point I was making with the different species is that there is no sharp cutoff point between species. Homo-sapiens (or homo-neanderthalis) did not suddenly 'happen' with the birth of one child. Evolution works by accreting genetic mutations over time so there would have been a gradual transition. At what point, therefore, would the first 'person' qualify to go to heaven and their parents not qualify? Which particular gene is the 'heaven' gene? | Quote: |
Quote:
If there is such a place as heaven why should they not go? Homo-neanderthalenis had burial rituals which indicate a belief in the continuation of life after this one.
So are we now changing the definition of what is needed to go to heaven? At first it was stated that only humans could go. Then someone tried to link intelligence/awareness to heaven. Now we have the suggestion that belief in continuation of life is necessary. It seems to me that the terms and conditions are getting a bit messy. The point I was making with the different species is that there is no sharp cutoff point between species. Homo-sapiens (or homo-neanderthalis) did not suddenly 'happen' with the birth of one child. Evolution works by accreting genetic mutations over time so there would have been a gradual transition. At what point, therefore, would the first 'person' qualify to go to heaven and their parents not qualify? Which particular gene is the 'heaven' gene?
|
I don't believe their is a 'heaven' gene. If there were then parents who believe in heaven would have children who also believe in it.
The scientists have proved that the baboons can take in more information than was expected. Just last week a memory man was out-remembered by a chimp. Each were shown lists or cards, can't remember which, of numbers, and the chimp was 98% accurate. These scientists what has happened in the past and they don't fret about the future so I don't believe they have a need for gods.
need to get out more. They need to try living with nature the way an animal does. An animals survival may depend on the tiniest scrap of information. I think the problem is the scientists are viewing things as human, not animal. In many respects animals are far superior to us. We used to have their kind of knowledge but apart from those who still live as part of nature we have lost it.
Animals live in the moment, they don't worry about
| Quote: |
I'm going to have to finish this later as my dog is letting me know it's time I got dinner ready.
Yes - my three are very good at that level of practical reasoning too |
They're also too good at telling the time. Mine knows that it's her time now, grooming then excersizing to tire her out before bed.All well and good but we are getting away from the point. Do animals go to heaven? If not then what is the deciding criteria (ie at what point does an animal become a human and therefore eligable for heaven) ?
"Quote:
Quote:
If there is such a place as heaven why should they not go? Homo-neanderthalenis had burial rituals which indicate a belief in the continuation of life after this one.
So are we now changing the definition of what is needed to go to heaven? At first it was stated that only humans could go. Then someone tried to link intelligence/awareness to heaven. Now we have the suggestion that belief in continuation of life is necessary. It seems to me that the terms and conditions are getting a bit messy. The point I was making with the different species is that there is no sharp cutoff point between species. Homo-sapiens (or homo-neanderthalis) did not suddenly 'happen' with the birth of one child. Evolution works by accreting genetic mutations over time so there would have been a gradual transition. At what point, therefore, would the first 'person' qualify to go to heaven and their parents not qualify? Which particular gene is the 'heaven' gene?
I don't believe their is a 'heaven' gene. If there were then parents who believe in heaven would have children who also believe in it.
The scientists have proved that the baboons can take in more information than was expected. Just last week a memory man was out-remembered by a chimp. Each were shown lists or cards, can't remember which, of numbers, and the chimp was 98% accurate. These scientists what has happened in the past and they don't fret about the future so I don't believe they have a need for gods.
need to get out more. They need to try living with nature the way an animal does. An animals survival may depend on the tiniest scrap of information. I think the problem is the scientists are viewing things as human, not animal. In many respects animals are far superior to us. We used to have their kind of knowledge but apart from those who still live as part of nature we have lost it.
Animals live in the moment, they don't worry about
Quote:
I'm going to have to finish this later as my dog is letting me know it's time I got dinner ready.
Yes - my three are very good at that level of practical reasoning too
They're also too good at telling the time. Mine knows that it's her time now, grooming then excersizing to tire her out before bed."
nobody goes to heaven. neither people nor animals nor anything else. Heaven is a human creation to appeal to our fear of death.
I remember a quote that said: roughly
if horses had gods, they would resemble horses
Quick point - if you want to include a quote then stick the word quote in square brackets at the start and /quote in square brackets at the end. It makes it much more readable...
