Doggy heaven?

Naikon

Simple question. I understand the christian faith often mentions the fact
that humans are "gods children" and all that, but what about other organisms
which share their existence on this planet.

Why for example, does fido or my pet fish simply die and break down into mineral matter? Humans are only a blip in the history of life, so why do christians and
sources such as the bible state how wonderful we are, so much so that we get a special place in a sky box called heaven?
Surely if no other organism gets a sky box, we don't get one.

Is it not reasonable to believe humans are not absolutely distinct?
This relatively simple question still baffles me

Sherifu

I saw "all dogs go to heaven" when I was younger. Terribly sad film.

Naikon

Sherifu wrote: »

I saw "all dogs go to heaven" when I was younger. Terribly sad film.

echo " : '( "

BrianCalgary

Naikon wrote: »

Simple question. I understand the christian faith often mentions the fact
that humans are "gods children" and all that, but what about other organisms
which share their existence on this planet.

Why for example, does fido or my pet fish simply die and break down into mineral matter? Humans are only a blip in the history of life, so why do christians and
sources such as the bible state how wonderful we are, so much so that we get a special place in a sky box called heaven?
Surely if no other organism gets a sky box, we don't get one.

Is it not reasonable to believe humans are not absolutely distinct?
This relatively simple question still baffles me

Humans are distinct because we are the only creature 'made in the imge of God". That being the ability to discern right from wrong, action and consequence, to love and hate, etc.

The garden of Eden had animals, heaven will also. My pet dog when I was a kid is not accountable for her actions as she was not created in the image of God. I imagine that I will see her in Heaven.

Húrin

Dogs heaven is the same as our heaven. A heaven without animals and plants would be like hell.

The Bible is about humans because it is our species that needs God's help the most.

Dathai

What about dogs that bite or attack someone? Do they go to doggy hell?

BrianCalgary

Dathai wrote: »

What about dogs that bite or attack someone? Do they go to doggy hell?

No, because they aren't responsible for their actions.

Galvasean

Was it Family Guy or the Simpsons which had the 'Catholic version' of the movie titled No Dogs Go To heaven?

Sherifu

BrianCalgary wrote: »

No, because they aren't responsible for their actions.

Why not? Also, do dogs have souls?

kelly1

Sherifu wrote: »

Why not? Also, do dogs have souls?

My belief is that animals and indeed all living things have souls (the life principle) but only humans have spiritiual souls and only spirit is immortal.

BrianCalgary

Sherifu wrote: »

1) Why not? 2) Also, do dogs have souls?

1) Read the preceding posts, animals are not made in teh image of God.

2) Don't know.

Sherifu

kelly1 wrote: »

My belief is that animals and indeed all living things have souls (the life principle) but only humans have spiritiual souls and only spirit is immortal.

That went over my head, sorry.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

1) Read the preceding posts, animals are not made in teh image of God.

2) Don't know.

Dogs can be taught right from wrong; i.e. trained. Is that enough to make them responsible for biting someone?

PDN

My understanding of Scripture is that humans consist of a spirit, soul and body. The soul is the mind, will and emotions. In fact the Greek word for 'soul' in the New Testament is psyche - which gives you a fairly good clue as to its meaning.

At least some animals, it appears to me, possess a mind, a will and emotions - so that would indicate that they have souls. However, I see no indication that animals have spirits (the part of us that was created to share communion with God).

There may well be animals in heaven, but they could easily be newly created animals rather resurrected beasts. No-one knows, so all we have is speculation.

toiletduck

kelly1 wrote: »

My belief is that animals and indeed all living things have souls (the life principle) but only humans have spiritiual souls and only spirit is immortal.

What about all the other species of human that existed? I mean is going to heaven limited to homo sapiens or did Neanderthals and the like qualify?

BrianCalgary

Sherifu wrote: »

That went over my head, sorry.

Dogs can be taught right from wrong; i.e. trained. Is that enough to make them responsible for biting someone?

Dogs aren't taught right from wrong. They are shown that certain actions have certain consequences and they are limited to what their owners say and do.

Humans can research and stusy and learn for themselves independant of others.

Akrasia

this debate comes back to evolution (again)

Humans evolve from a common ancestor of modern day apes (yes they did, there is a very very comprehensive chain of biological evidence to support this, the 'missing link' claim is totally false and fraudulent)

Given that man evolved and is still evolving, when did we evolve a soul?

Given that we share 99.9% of our DNA with other primates, why do we have a soul and they don't?
And given that gorillas have been taught how to communicate feelings and emotions through sign language, how do we know animals aren't capable of spirituality?

BrianCalgary

Akrasia wrote: »

this debate comes back to evolution (again)

And brought to that point by, not a Christian but an atheist. Methinks you guys are really hung up on the whole process.:p

Akrasia

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Dogs aren't taught right from wrong. They are shown that certain actions have certain consequences and they are limited to what their owners say and do.

Humans can research and stusy and learn for themselves independant of others.

thats very presumptious.

First of all, most humans are told what to do and live within boundaries imposed by society (or someone else)

Children are taught right from wrong through discipline, consequences and rewards. (not necessarily physical consequences, but then a good dog trainer uses positive re-enforcement to change a dogs behaviour rather than a choke chain.

In higher primates, there are clear personality differences between individuals with some being more 'moral' than others. Some trying to gain control using brute force and fear, with others trying to get obedience by protecting the family and defending the territory.

Akrasia

BrianCalgary wrote: »

And brought to that point by, not a Christian but an atheist. Methinks you guys are really hung up on the whole process.:p

you don't know the half of it :P you should see my masters thesis, and i'm studying sociology

BrianCalgary

Akrasia wrote: »

you don't know the half of it :P you should see my masters thesis, and i'm studying sociology

Wouldn't mind reading it when your done.

Havermeyer

BrianCalgary wrote: »

No, because they aren't responsible for their actions.

They are as responsible for their actions just as much as children are responsible. You can have a well behaved dog, and a not so well behaved dog. The same goes with children. It's how you bring them up. I think you need to back yourself up with some evidence before you start preaching what creatures get in to heaven, and what creatures don't. Where did you pick up that rubbish about some animals having emotions? Do you have experience/knowledge in this field, or is it just another assumption?

BrianCalgary

nummnutts wrote: »

They are as responsible for their actions just as much as children are responsible. You can have a well behaved dog, and a not so well behaved dog.?

So far you rright.

nummnutts wrote: »

The same goes with children. It's how you bring them up.?

Even here.

nummnutts wrote: »

I think you need to back yourself up with some evidence before you start preaching what creatures get in to heaven, and what creatures don't.

Now you're off base. Then why dont you tell us which creatures do and don't get into heaven. And since you insist on it. Please offer proofs from research undertaken by yourself or citations by others.

nummnutts wrote: »

Where did you pick up that rubbish about some animals having emotions? Do you have experience/knowledge in this field, or is it just another assumption?

Where do you get this rubbish that I said that some creatures have emotions and others don't?

PDN

nummnutts wrote: »

They are as responsible for their actions just as much as children are responsible. You can have a well behaved dog, and a not so well behaved dog. The same goes with children. It's how you bring them up. I think you need to back yourself up with some evidence before you start preaching what creatures get in to heaven, and what creatures don't. Where did you pick up that rubbish about some animals having emotions? Do you have experience/knowledge in this field, or is it just another assumption?

Are you sure it's not your brain that is numb?

First off it was me that posted about animals having emotions, not Brian.

Secondly, what I posted was "at least some animals" possess emotions. If English is your first language then you should be able to understand that means that I believe some animals do possess emotions, but when it comes to some other animals (such as earwigs) I am not prepared to venture an opinion one way or another.

Experience/knowledge in this field? If you are talking about the going to heaven bit and the Scriptural bit - theological issues - then, yes, I do have some knowledge as a theologian. If you are talking about the animals having emotions bit - then I have the experience of owning a border collie for the last 10 years in whom I have observed fear, anger, anxiety and what certainly looks like guilt.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Are you sure it's not your brain that is numb?

First off it was me that posted about animals having emotions, not Brian.

Secondly, what I posted was "at least some animals" possess emotions. If English is your first language then you should be able to understand that means that I believe some animals do possess emotions, but when it comes to some other animals (such as earwigs) I am not prepared to venture an opinion one way or another.

Experience/knowledge in this field? If you are talking about the going to heaven bit and the Scriptural bit - theological issues - then, yes, I do have some knowledge as a theologian. If you are talking about the animals having emotions bit - then I have the experience of owning a border collie for the last 10 years in whom I have observed fear, anger, anxiety and what certainly looks like guilt.

Well coming from an atheist and Darwinian perspective, this hole thing can be turned on its head. Christians think God made us in his image and we must love, honour and worship him.

Pet dogs were created by man using artificial selection, to have characteristics we wanted. They are extremly dependent on our species and really must therefore love and obey us or else go extinct.

Just like humans cannot understand God, dogs cannot understand their so-called creator.

If God exists and offers externity to us, would he be reasonable to extend the offer to one of our creations?

MooseJam

so where is the soul located and what is it made of, human anatomy is well known at this stage and no soul has ever been found, where is it hiding ?

kelly1

toiletduck wrote: »

What about all the other species of human that existed? I mean is going to heaven limited to homo sapiens or did Neanderthals and the like qualify?

Adam was the first human to be given a spiritual soul by God so those before him would only have had mortal souls. All Adam's descendants would have spiritual and immortal souls.

Akrasia wrote: »

Given that man evolved and is still evolving, when did we evolve a soul?

Given that we share 99.9% of our DNA with other primates, why do we have a soul and they don't?

Evolution doesn't apply to souls, only physical bodies. The soul was created and anyway spirit can't evolve from material.

iUseVi

Interesting debate, however:

PDN wrote: »

No-one knows, so all we have is speculation.

Sums up the entire debate nicely.

toiletduck

kelly1 wrote: »

Adam was the first human to be given a spiritual soul by God so those before him would only have had mortal souls. All Adam's descendants would have spiritual and immortal souls.

So do you believe in creationism or that Adam was the first homo-sapien? very curious since I've had an interest in Human evolution for ages and am just after watching Robert Winston's "Walking with cavemen". SO Neanderthals don't qualify even though they were so similar to us?

Akrasia

toiletduck wrote: »

So do you believe in creationism or that Adam was the first homo-sapien? very curious since I've had an interest in Human evolution for ages and am just after watching Robert Winston's "Walking with cavemen". SO Neanderthals don't qualify even though they were so similar to us?

either way he's wrong. There was no 'first homo-sapien'
It doesn't work that way.

There were specific genes that had an originator, but no one individual originated all the genetic 'advancements' that had all of the defining characteristics that separated homo-sapiens from homo-heidelbergenesis the common ancestor of homo-sapien or homo-neanderthalensis (in fact, our current classification is 'homo sapiens sapiens', an advancement from a more generalised 'homo sapiens'

Looking at it biblically, it could be possibly interpreted that when god destroyed the earth during the 'great flood' it could have been symbolism for the extinction of the neanderthal species (who were adapted to cold temperatures and died out at the end of a great ice age which presumably came accompanied with rising sea levels) and noah could represent the homo-sapiens as his new chosen species.

One of the reasons why we have so many neanderthal fossils compared with the other stages of the evolutionary tree is that they used to purposefully bury their dead.
http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/neand.htm

Sherifu

PDN wrote: »

No-one knows, so all we have is speculation.

Agreed.

nozzferrahhtoo

Naikon wrote: »

Simple question.

Im afraid I dont beleive the tales or in any gods so I cant speak from authority but maybe I can answer based on something most beleivers say to me personally. When confronted with anything they dont like in religion I invariably get the response "Oh but thats not what MY religion says" or "Thats not the god I worship".

It seems to me that with doctrine you get a subjective interpretation. Take for example the user on this thread who said Heaven without animals is hell. This is his subjective opinion. Many people dont like animals so heaven WITH animals would be hell.

So if all religion is reducable to the religion or the god each person personally follows then if you want your dog to go to heaven then of course he will. This can be the god YOU worship.

This can also apply to the concept of hell. If someone is a sinner that person is going to hell. However a good person will be going to heaven. What if the sinner is the most important person EVER to the good person? Surely heaven couldnt be all that good when you live in eternity knowing that the sinner has gone to hell. So by very definition of eternal paradise the sinner must also make it to heaven or the paradise wont be paradise to the good person.

If paradise for you is that your dog will get in, then it will be so.

toiletduck

Akrasia wrote: »

either way he's wrong. There was no 'first homo-sapien'
It doesn't work that way.

I know that, should have put it in quotation marks.

Still would like to hear a Christian view on it all, assuming they accept that there has been lots of human species and all that *cough*

Galvasean

Actually I think you'll find most Christians have no problem with the theory of evolution and the rise of man from apes.

Akrasia

Galvasean wrote: »

Actually I think you'll find most Christians have no problem with the theory of evolution and the rise of man from apes.

Excellent!

But this raises the problem of the soul. There is no giant leap between the different levels of organisms (in terms of intelligence and complexity)

Homo Sapiens are only a slight degree different from neanderthals and homo-heidelbergenesis who themselves are only slightly different from their ancestors, right down to the common ancestors between us and chimpanzees, it's only differences by degree, so where on that point did we evolve a soul?

A christian would probably say that a soul didn't evolve, it was a gift from god specifically to us as modern humans, but this is unsatisfactory because the only reason we assume that we have a soul at all is because we have a mind that is capable of abstract thought and 'free will' (outside of dogmatic theology). We had assumed that there was this enormous gulf between us and lesser animals (who are still described as robots by many catholic theologens, incapable of free will or emotions) but the more we discover about animal behaviour the more it becomes apparent that they are much more complex and intelligent than we gave them credit for.

The soul and the mind are inter-changable words in philosophy. If it can be demonstrated that animals can have a mind (and i believe it already has) then they must also have a 'soul' even if it is a lesser kind of soul.

The case for god is lessened if animals can share the characteristics that we believed made humans unique in nature.

You can still believe in it of course, but you're going further down the line of rationalising your existing beliefs rather than holding beliefs based on the best available evidence

toiletduck

Galvasean wrote: »

Actually I think you'll find most Christians have no problem with the theory of evolution and the rise of man from apes.

I'm not unfamiliar with this forum :pac:

nozzferrahhtoo

Galvasean wrote: »

Actually I think you'll find most Christians have no problem with the theory of evolution and the rise of man from apes.

Im not aware of any evolutionary theory which suggests man arose FROM apes? Can you point me at this?

MooseJam

Galvasean wrote: »

Actually I think you'll find most Christians have no problem with the theory of evolution and the rise of man from apes.

I don't see how this could be, if you believe in evolution then theres no Adam and Eve, wasn't the whole point of Jesus dying on the cross supposed to be in atonement for their sins ?

PDN

MooseJam wrote: »

I don't see how this could be, if you believe in evolution then theres no Adam and Eve, wasn't the whole point of Jesus dying on the cross supposed to be in atonement for their sins ?

No, the whole point of Jesus dying on the Cross was in atonement for your sins and my sins.

Galvasean

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Im not aware of any evolutionary theory which suggests man arose FROM apes? Can you point me at this?

Certainly not any currently living apes, but extinct forms of ape, possibly Australopithecus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus#Evolutionary_role

Evolutionary scientists often argue which ape we evolved from but the consensus is humans evolved from apes. Here's a recent discovery
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/aug/23/evolution

edit:
I was wondering if the Mods don't mind could I start a poll asking the Christians here if they believe in evolution? I'd make it one of those polls where you can see who voted what so the atheists don't come in and skew the results.
Options could be:
a) I believe in evolution.
b) I believe in evolution, but also that human evolution in particular has been guided specifically by God
c) I do not believe in evolution at all.

Sound like a plan?

Splendour

PDN wrote: »

There may well be animals in heaven, but they could easily be newly created animals rather resurrected beasts. No-one knows, so all we have is speculation.

They will most definitely have to be newly created. Heaven wouldn't be paradise with cats chasing mice and slugs eating plants-wish Noah had turned those darned slugs and snails away

We're told in Isaiah 'The wolf will live with the lamb etc...' so presumably there will be animals in Heaven.

Naikon

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If paradise for you is that your dog will get in, then it will be so.

I am an Atheist:eek:
You make a valid point about the personal heaven/god concept though.

PDN

Galvasean wrote: »

Certainly not any currently living apes, but extinct forms of ape, possibly Australopithecus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus#Evolutionary_role

Evolutionary scientists often argue which ape we evolved from but the consensus is humans evolved from apes. Here's a recent discovery
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/aug/23/evolution

edit:
I was wondering if the Mods don't mind could I start a poll asking the Christians here if they believe in evolution? I'd make it one of those polls where you can see who voted what so the atheists don't come in and skew the results.
Options could be:
a) I believe in evolution.
b) I believe in evolution, but also that human evolution in particular has been guided specifically by God
c) I do not believe in evolution at all.

Sound like a plan?

A poll would be fine. You might also want to create an option for the "don't knows".

nozzferrahhtoo

Galvasean wrote: »

Certainly not any currently living apes, but extinct forms of ape, possibly Australopithecus

Your clarification makes it more clear thanks. Its wise to pull up anyone who makes the claim we evolved from apes as its not entirely accurate. Its always good to ensure people know what they mean when they say this as the misconceptions bourne of that simple statement have been damaging.

Bring on the poll, good plan.

Galvasean

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Your clarification makes it more clear thanks. Its wise to pull up anyone who makes the claim we evolved from apes as its not entirely accurate. Its always good to ensure people know what they mean when they say this as the misconceptions bourne of that simple statement have been damaging.

Bring on the poll, good plan.

Well the whole ape thing depends on your POV. To me saying we evolved from apes is fine. People like me automatically make the leap that it was an extinct type of ape. Although I can see why people might think I was referring to currently living apes. I'll make sure I make the distinction in future.

I'll put up the poll tonight when I get back from work. I'm thinking of putting in two more options:
d) don't know
e) don't care to be honest

nozzferrahhtoo

Galvasean wrote: »

Well the whole ape thing depends on your POV. To me saying we evolved from apes is fine. People like me automatically make the leap that it was an extinct type of ape. Although I can see why people might think I was referring to currently living apes. I'll make sure I make the distinction in future.

Actually I find replacing the word ape with "common ancestor" is not only clear enough but inspries people who dont know what you mean to go read up on it themselves. Its one of the better phrases out there in evolution. A lot better than the awful "survival of the fittest" which has RIDDLED the media world with false conceptions of evolution. Amazing the damage a soundbite can cause

PDN

Galvasean wrote: »

Well the whole ape thing depends on your POV. To me saying we evolved from apes is fine. People like me automatically make the leap that it was an extinct type of ape. Although I can see why people might think I was referring to currently living apes.

If we were descended from currently living apes, then wouldn't those apes be pretty old by now?

MooseJam

We evolved from apes and we still are apes, we are one of the great apes

PDN

MooseJam wrote: »

We evolved from apes and we still are apes, we are one of the great apes

Speak for yourself'

1. any of a group of anthropoid primates characterized by long arms, a broad chest, and the absence of a tail, comprising the family Pongidae (great ape), which includes the chimpanzee, gorilla, and orangutan, and the family Hylobatidae (lesser ape), which includes the gibbon and siamang.
2. (loosely) any primate except humans.
3. an imitator; mimic.
4. Informal. a big, ugly, clumsy person. (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

–noun
1. any of a group of anthropoid primates characterized by long arms, a broad chest, and the absence of a tail, comprising the family Pongidae (great ape), which includes the chimpanzee, gorilla, and orangutan, and the family Hylobatidae (lesser ape), which includes the gibbon and siamang.
2. (loosely) any primate except humans.
3. an imitator; mimic.
4. Informal. a big, ugly, clumsy person. (dictionary.com)

• noun 1 a large tailless primate of a group including gorillas, chimpanzees, and gibbons. 2 informal an unintelligent or clumsy (Compact Oxford Dictionary)

iUseVi

These definitions are out of date. The family Pongidae has not existed for quite some years.

Currently the following are considered "great apes":

[HTML] * Family Hominidae: humans and other great apes; extinct genera
and species excluded.[1]
o Subfamily Ponginae
+ Genus Pongo
# Bornean Orangutan, Pongo pygmaeus
* Pongo pygmaeus pygmaeus
* Pongo pygmaeus morio
* Pongo pygmaeus wurmbii
# Sumatran Orangutan, Pongo abelii
o Subfamily Homininae
+ Tribe Gorillini
# Genus Gorilla
* Western Gorilla, Gorilla gorilla
o Western Lowland Gorilla, Gorilla gorilla gorilla
o Cross River Gorilla, Gorilla gorilla diehli
* Eastern Gorilla, Gorilla beringei
o Mountain Gorilla, Gorilla beringei beringei
o Eastern Lowland Gorilla, Gorilla beringei graueri
+ Tribe Hominini
# Genus Pan
* Common Chimpanzee, Pan troglodytes
o Central Chimpanzee, Pan troglodytes troglodytes
o West African Chimpanzee, Pan troglodytes verus
o Nigerian Chimpanzee, Pan troglodytes vellerosus
o Eastern Chimpanze, Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii
* Bonobo (Pygmy Chimpanzee), Pan paniscus
# Genus Homo
* Human, Homo sapiens sapiens[/HTML]

MooseJam

PDN wrote: »

Speak for yourself'

The great apes are the members of the biological family Hominidae which includes humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae

MooseJam

PDN wrote: »

No, the whole point of Jesus dying on the Cross was in atonement for your sins and my sins.

don't really get it tbh, what changed because of the crucifiction, what was the difference between before and after ?