so whats the god response to animals?

[Promethium147]

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.    

[HappyBigPicture]

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.
   

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".

[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.

[Promethium147]

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.

[SteveS]

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?

[donkeyhoty]

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.

[ryanvc76]

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.

       :stupid:

[tacoma_kyle]

heh heh


Nice post Promethium.

[Steve Reason]

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!

[HappyBigPicture]

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.

[Chris Johnston]

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.

[Mister Joy]

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.

[SteveS]

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

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?

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?

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.....