Happy Atheist Forum

I was always kinda confused on that, it seems to be a little vague and unexplained.

Go to heaven?

Hell?

Just die?...

I saw a discussion about this on one of those rapture related forums...they came to the conclusion that the  bible doesn't say what happens to the animals.

some of them came to the personal conclusion that the animals go to heaven because it wouldn't be heaven without their beloved pets.

Theoretically...considering that animals can't be saved (i'm pretty sure the bible is clear that jesus came to save mankind and mentions nothing about saving the animals)...if they have souls they'd go to hell.  If they don't have souls then there would be nothing to go to heaven.

Quote from: "laetusatheos"Theoretically...considering that animals can't be saved (i'm pretty sure the bible is clear that jesus came to save mankind and mentions nothing about saving the animals)...if they have souls they'd go to hell. If they don't have souls then there would be nothing to go to heaven.

But animals didn't eat from the tree of knowledge or what have you. When Adam and Eve condemned mankind did they also condemn the rest of nature? Confusing topic.

It seems so [confusing]...

Maybe thats why religion is so quiet about specifics regarding it..typically anyhow.

I think you can take most aspects of Christian belief, ask questions on a level that requires a more detailed answer than the vague hammering decrees of the Bible and it gets them wound up in knots, throwing out whole platoons of straw men and giving handfuls of links to this bane of my existence:

Quote from: "Bloke from primarily creationist forum"Just do a simple search on http://www.creationontheweb.com instead of asking me.

I've seen that one come up hundreds of times. The website contains no answers (what a shock that must be for you) but a whole bunch of rhetoric and flim-flam that gives them lots of space for avoiding points. Some day I'm going to pick through the entire thing, refute every sentence & set that up as a website so I can link them to it for next time. Otherwise it's just a case of dealing with the specific article they send, which they would probably simply send a second time anyway or just link to more. Grr.

Interesting what the bible does have to say about this, or at least the book of Ecclesiastes:

Quote from: "The Holy Bible"Ecclesiastes 3:19 through 3:21:

3:19  For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.

3:20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.

3:21 Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?

This passage seems to imply that there is no difference between animals and men, and that both return to dust upon death.

Weird, right?  This particular book in the bible drives so many of the interesting contradictions.....

There is a verse about the worms in hell that won't die (Mark 9:44). Since there will be eternal flesh eating worms in Hell it's reasonable to assume there can be more pleasant animals in heaven. Also in Isaiah 11:6 there is a prophecy about wolves dwelling wih lambs, leopards laying with kids, and calves and lions being led by a child... but it's hard to say if "Isaiah" meant this literally or metaphorically. You can take it either way! That's what's so great about the Bible! It's as specific or as vague as your personal emotional needs desire!

Why would an animal be judged on morality?  I think we can all agree that, yes, their behavior is mostly out of line, but they do not know it.  If you don't know its wrong and you do it, then you have no case against you.  Same goes with mentally retarded people that unknowingly commit murder.  This hypothetical justice system would be subjective for it to be fair.

I think a Christian would argue that it's the knowledge of good and evil itself that enables us to sin... if an act is committed in innocence then it isn't sinful, therefore. It contradicts this, however, with the notion that babies - who have not had the opportunity to 'repent' - go to Hell despite having no knowledge of good and evil due to 'original sin' (something which animals don't have, presumably, since they never ate from the tree of knowledge). Mixed messages abound.

I can't seem to trouble myself with all of this kind of stuff.  There are so many mixed messages simply due to the fact that it is all bullshit to start with.  Thats the thing with religions; you can make up the rules as you go and change them around as you so see fit.

There are many commands in the Bible that are absurd and barbaric.  For example, the stoning to death of individuals for trivial things like not attending church (Numbers 15:32-36).

It is important to note that at the time these books were written, order was a huge priority as many people had already savage ways, so a government putting fear in people kept a lot of them at bay.  Not the best way of handling things, but even governments weren't sophisticated enough then.

It's important for us to recognize how immature civilizations were in those times, and the Bible captures the barbarism well, and rightly stirs up skepticism for our more modern philosophers.  Anyone with common sense knows that its illegal to take the law into your own hands, find some buddies and a rock garden and kill someone because they didn't attend mass.

Yeah, there are mixed messages, but I think anyone with a good sense of morality can discern which ones are nonsense.  However, saying that "it is all bullshit" is completely out of line.  There are ESSENTIAL lessons to be learned in the Bible on how to prevent yourself from hurting people and others from hurting you.

I'm an agnostic theist by the way.

QuoteYeah, there are mixed messages, but I think anyone with a good sense of morality can discern which ones are nonsense. However, saying that "it is all bullshit" is completely out of line. There are ESSENTIAL lessons to be learned in the Bible on how to prevent yourself from hurting people and others from hurting you.

When you use the word 'essential' there do you imply that the Bible was the originator of our moral state of mind? Similar messages can be found in other religious books. Also, I, as a single example amongst countless millions, have never even read the Bible (tried to once but only reached 3/4 of the way through Genesis before getting bored). Is there some spiritual truth that people like me have missed out on?

Quote from: "HappyBigPicture"However, saying that "it is all bullshit" is completely out of line.  There are ESSENTIAL lessons to be learned in the Bible on how to prevent yourself from hurting people and others from hurting you.

Honestly, I don't think that I'm out of line in saying this.  If you're a decent person at all, you don't need the Bible to teach these "essential lessons".  This statement would imply that those who have not read the Bible - a large part of the worlds population - have no idea how to prevent themselves from hurting others or from being hurt by others.  I find such an implication absurd at best.

QuoteThere are ESSENTIAL lessons to be learned in the Bible on how to prevent yourself from hurting people and others from hurting you.

I think that there are lessons to be learned in the Bible, but they are mixed up with a bunch of myths about burning bushes, hallucinagenic fascinations, talking snakes, adulterous kings, not to mention incidences of blood sacrifice of animals, humans, and godmen. I love myths, but not for their moral lessons. I like them because they are historical and interesting. If you're looking for moral teachings I think a Dr. Phil book would be more relevant and to the point than the Bible. You have to wade through a lot of shit in the Bible to find a gem.

There are many lessons in the bible but many of them are contradicted in the next verse or chapter. As far as animals go I am not sure what the bible says because I am sure it says many different things. I was taught as a child that animals have no soul and are not allowed into heaven. So I would think that since they don't go to heaven they can't go to hell either.

I have sought, and I find any valuable lesson in the Bible to be less than unique to it, if not universal.

Soul (immutable) is a confusing term for Mind (changeable.) The Soul is indivisible; the mind may be deconstructed. If the Soul is immutable, our corporeal existence is meaningless, for within it, we can neither improve nor degrade our Souls.

It is interesting to note that the ancient Greek theory of the Soul assumes that the Soul may be degraded or improved - and ceases to exist upon death.

I've had a thousand pets, but in particular - my elder sister taught a Dalmatian (a particularly stupid breed) to speak several phrases at appropriate moments, such as "I love you" when it wanted attention, or chillingly, "don't hit me" when threatened. Generally, anyone who threatened the dog didn't hit it - and sometimes dashed away in terror (VERY amusing!) This, of course, reinforced the behavior.

Don't tell me it doesn't have a Mind - it can be Taught!

When approached by my proselytizing great aunt regarding this question - where my pets would go upon demise - she proudly stated they were merely animals, and did not go to heaven.

I countered that I would be unhappy in heaven, if my beloved pets were not there.

She countered that there are no bad memories in heaven.

I countered that I am composed of memories, and if they were removed, my soul would be diminished - and the discarded part would be my Mortal Soul.

And to this, they merely counter - You are simply incapable of understanding (as I do.)

To which I finally respond - because you seem incapable of explaining it.

At which point, violence generally ensues. You will find that this opinion regarding the immortality of animals is a personal one, regardless of sect, to a large degree. The Bible, being contradictory on this point, provides excuse for either opinion.

Ever notice that? It's a Big Book of HalfAssed Excuses, one size fits all.    

QuoteHonestly, I don't think that I'm out of line in saying this. If you're a decent person at all, you don't need the Bible to teach these "essential lessons". This statement would imply that those who have not read the Bible - a large part of the worlds population - have no idea how to prevent themselves from hurting others or from being hurt by others. I find such an implication absurd at best.
   

Just because I said a doctrine has essential lessons in it, doesn't mean I claim it is the only one with essential lessons.  Of course there are other texts of morality that are effective in getting basic principles human decency across.

There are people that need to be taught how to be good, and there are people that don't.  I could take all the important lessons from the Bible and raise children on those values, without ever making them read the book, or go to church.  Just being a role model may be adequate enough.

Yet, morality doesn't just come out of thin air.  Even just being a good role model, I have to have a model to work off of myself.  There has to be a source, and the Bible is a pretty big one.  I could practice being harmless with Buddha's teachings as well.

But if you think ALL of the Bible is bullshit, then you must think that kindness is bullshit, because that definitely falls under the "ALL".

Ok, so you're saying that the bible is a major source of our morality whether passed down through 'role modelling' or otherwise. However, you also observed that we pick and choose from it based on our own set of moral understandings (ie. "love thy neighbour" is good but "kill your rebellious adolescent offspring" is bad). Even most Christians make these distinctions. I would think that this suggests an independent moral code within our society which surpasses and precedes the influence that the bible may have had.

Here's what confuses me - Fundamentalism. Catholics actually dispense one helluvafine classical education.

All fundamentalism is based within five shared doctrines - one of which is that the Bible is inerrant - IN ITS ENTIRETY, of course.

The argument over the Ten Commandments confuses me for this reason - if all is true, why are these PARTICULARLY true, beyond all the other imperatives too numerous to mention?

Because the others are damned embarrassing, that's why. If we actually thought they believed these, and thus might act upon them, we'd drag 'em out and dangle 'em from lamp posts.

Then we push the Ten Commandments, and place them in the Courthouse. There is great hubub, of course, but no one seems to notice - these Courthouse Ten Commandments are taken from - none of the 52 completely different versions of the Protestant Bible I could find.

They are dumbed down - they were too embarrassing. All references to the evil eye, "servants" and such have been removed. I believe it, you should too - but begin with the Dick and Jane version, please. Half-Truth is best for a beginner, apparently.

Ten are simply not required. All the Ten that are in use - graven images seem to proliferate unopposed in the homes of the Fundie Christians, without remorse, the prohibition is ignored, this one does not count - can be derived from one simple commandment -

WASTE NOT

Does the job, every time, guaranteed. Same for Quran (better Commandments tho, in a logical order), and Book of Mormon.

WASTE NOT thy neighbor - he may be useful later.
WASTE NOT thy time coveting, it can only lead to Wasteful conflicts - get your own, Create Wealth.

And so forth.

Try it - you'll like it.

Quote from: "Mister Joy"Ok, so you're saying that the bible is a major source of our morality whether passed down through 'role modelling' or otherwise. However, you also observed that we pick and choose from it based on our own set of moral understandings (ie. "love thy neighbour" is good but "kill your rebellious adolescent offspring" is bad). Even most Christians make these distinctions. I would think that this suggests an independent moral code within our society which surpasses and precedes the influence that the bible may have had.

This was a particularly lucid thought.  If we are using our own internal values to distinguish which parts of the bible are good and which are bad, then we're already equipped with what we need before we even crack the book open.  So --- what were we learning from it again?

Quote from: "HappyBigPicture"But if you think ALL of the Bible is bullshit, then you must think that kindness is bullshit, because that definitely falls under the "ALL".

Yeah, because the Bible contains the first mentions, and acts, of kindness ever in the history of the world.  All 6,000 or so years of it.

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"Yeah, because the Bible contains the first mentions, and acts, of kindness ever in the history of the world.  All 6,000 or so years of it.

 :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :stupid:

heh heh


Nice post Promethium.

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"

Quote from: "HappyBigPicture"But if you think ALL of the Bible is bullshit, then you must think that kindness is bullshit, because that definitely falls under the "ALL".

Yeah, because the Bible contains the first mentions, and acts, of kindness ever in the history of the world.  All 6,000 or so years of it.

Zing!

Quote from: "SteveS"

Quote from: "Mister Joy"Ok, so you're saying that the bible is a major source of our morality whether passed down through 'role modelling' or otherwise. However, you also observed that we pick and choose from it based on our own set of moral understandings (ie. "love thy neighbour" is good but "kill your rebellious adolescent offspring" is bad). Even most Christians make these distinctions. I would think that this suggests an independent moral code within our society which surpasses and precedes the influence that the bible may have had.

This was a particularly lucid thought.  If we are using our own internal values to distinguish which parts of the bible are good and which are bad, then we're already equipped with what we need before we even crack the book open.  So --- what were we learning from it again?

We are learning from our elders and evolving morality, so, no we aren't already equipped with it, because we have to be taught things, and yes, there is an independent moral code within our society, but more independent of the Old Testament, like amphibians becoming independent of the sea.

There is a paradigm shift from the Old to the New, depicting (perhaps not intentionally) the evolution of morality.  A lot of the "laws" in the Old Testament have been thrown out by our current legal system.  You get arrested for assault if you stone someone.  

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Earth is 6,000 years old.  Billions of years pass between the first verse of Genesis and the second.  It is also safe to say that the creator was not a man in a beard assembling solar systems in a universe factory, but rather TRUTH in its purest forms as mathematics and physical laws after the big bang.  Since then, I believe God has evolved into righteous consciousness on Earth.

The sophistication of society always gets closer to the common characteristics of God, an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolence entity. Sure, some civilizations collapse, but things can be learned from those collapses, and the Bible presents these as warnings in the metaphors of Revelations.

Humanity here is growing up.

Well this thread has kind of turned a corner, but here's my thought on good stuff in the bible.

I was a Baptist preacher for 15 years. I am now an atheist. The good stuff that's in the bible is in there because it's good. It's not good because it's in there.

As to "the animal question," every child with a beloved pet wants to think the pet is going to be in heaven with them, but it just ain't so. The Bible places no value in animal life except as it is to be used by man.

Quote from: "Christ Johnston"The good stuff that's in the bible is in there because it's good. It's not good because it's in there.

That is music to my ears! Welcome to the forum, Chris.

Eh, I find myself lured around the corner that this thread turned.  Forgive me for following the curve, but I feel compelled.

Quote from: "HappyBigPicture"We are learning from our elders and evolving morality, so, no we aren't already equipped with it, because we have to be taught things, and yes, there is an independent moral code within our society, but more independent of the Old Testament, like amphibians becoming independent of the sea.

I guess I'm a tad confused: if I learned my morality from my elders, then I would already be equipped with morality before I read the Bible.  I think a lot of us learn, primarily from our parents, a lot of morality before we can even read.  Sure, Biblical stories might be a part of our parent's morality, even if they are not religious, because they could be a part of our shared cultural morality.  But --- since we agree that morality evolves and that some of the Biblical morality is outdated, then why would I believe the Bible is the essential basis for current (admittedly evolved) human morality?  Why would I not, instead, simply believe that the Bible represents an historical snap-shot of the continually evolving human morality as it was during the time the Bible was written?

In other words, surely human beings had morality before the Bible was written, and surely it was evolving such that it had changed from the time "before the Bible" to the time "of the Bible".  Doesn't this seem reasonable?

Quote from: "BigHappyPicture"Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Billions of years pass between the first verse of Genesis and the second.

Okay - I can agree with the statement that the Bible doesn't specifically say the world is 6000 years old.  This has been inferred by readers of the Bible (obviously this was "mistakenly inferred").  But, it also seems safe to say that nowhere in the Bible does it say that "Billions of years pass between the first verse of Genesis and the second".  Unless you can point me to the part where it does say this.....  If not, then this is also an inference.  In this case made based on scientifically acquired knowledge about the age of the world, and made for the purpose of rationalizing the words of the Bible to reconcile with observable physical knowledge.  But - why would we feel compelled to do that?  For what purpose?

Quote from: "HappyBigPicture"It is also safe to say that the creator was not a man in a beard assembling solar systems in a universe factory, but rather TRUTH in its purest forms as mathematics and physical laws after the big bang.

If the creator is synonymous with "truth", then I don't understand how "truth" can be reconciled with properties like omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.  If a statement or idea is "true" it just means that statement or idea is accurate to reality.  "Truth" is just a property of a thought or an idea.  So saying that the creator is "truth" seems to me like saying that reality is the creator.  In other words, "Reality is God".  This is very different from saying "God is real".  This is just a back-door attempt to make "God" real by redefined whatever is real to be "God".

Likewise, if "God has evolved into righteous consciousness on Earth", why is this not simply "righteous consciousness"?  Why is it "God"?  Why reuse a word when we already have one?  Why redefine a word to mean something new so that we still get to use it?

If "God" is different things at different times, and "God" is sometimes this and sometimes that, then how is the word "God" anything other than another way of expressing other ideas that I already have words for?  What value is added by calling these other ideas "God" in addition to the other words we already call them by?  It just seems to me that the way you use the word "God" it is nothing more than a redefinition or aggregation of other ideas.....