A question to all non-Christians

I've already explained why not having animals in heaven and heaven being perfect is contradictory. About your example, if you like tomato sauce with your chips, then, even though the chips themselves might be perfect, the meal as a whole is not. Basically, being with god himself might be perfect, but heaven as a whole could not be.
If animals don't have souls, but there are still animals in heaven, then those animals wouldn't be the same as the ones who lived on Earth, so it would be impossible to reunite with old pets, companions, etc.
If no-one has a clue what heaven is like, why do they say that animals don't have souls, or won't be there?

 

who said they won't be there?

 

You guys. If they are going to be there, then why are you arguing against me?

 

I only said we don't know what is or isn't in Heaven

 

So it's possible for something without a soul to get into heaven?

 

First heaven is an extension of God, so if God is perfect so is heaven.

Second, to get to heaven requires a few things to happen. The first of which is to talk to Peter who goes over your life with you points out the bad and good and depending on the results you can go three different ways hell, purgatory, or heaven.

Anyway I won't bore you with the rest I am just trying to make the point that to get to heaven you need to be man. When an animal dies Peter doesn't say "Well you scratched up those couches really bad I think you need a few years in purgatory." That would be kind of ridiculous since for a cat scratching is an instinctive action, they don't have a moral center that can let them decide what is right and wrong. We do, which is why we can go to heaven.

Anyway for something that is soulless to get to heaven I guess God would have to put it there.

 

This is what I don't get... Heaven is supposed to be perfect, right? Perfect means that it is flawless and cannot be better, right? Allowing pets and other animals into heaven could only make this better. It's impossible for them to harm anyone, so it would wouldn't be a negative thing. Heaven wouldn't be exactly the same as if they weren't there, so something has to have changed. Seeing as they can't make it worse, and it cannot remain the same, they can only make it better. If animals are not in heaven, then it cannot be perfect.

Who's to say that animals cannot communicate with Saint Peter? You believe that when we die we're beamed to a place where unhappiness does not exist and everyone will live forever, but you don't think Saint Peter can review animal's lives and communicate with them?

First off all, I just wanted to ask one thing, have you ever had a pet? Secondly, pets do much more than sit around, scratch furniture and yell at passers-by. There are stories of owners dying on the battlefield and their dogs stand dutifully and loyally by their side, mourning their loss. There are stories of animals rescuing children, finding lost people, hunting down criminals, defending their families, etc, not to mention how much joy, love, companionship, friendship and comfort they offer their owners. If animals believed in a god, they'd probably think "As if humans would get into our heaven. All they do each day is eat three times and go to work. It's not like Saint Rex would tell them "Well you mucked around as a child and sat of the couch as an adult, so I think you need a few years in Purgatory." That would be ridiculous."

Why would he refuse to give them a soul but allow them into heaven? Lastly, I don't believe for a second that dogs (and all other animals, but mainly dogs) are soulless. They have more morals than humans, I can tell you that. If the average person were to see a homeless vagrant on the side of the road, they'll think of him/her as one of the lowest forms of human. However, if that same vagrant were to love and care for a stray dog, then that dog would absolutely think the world of him/her. The dog wouldn't care that they're dirty, jobless, homeless, etc, unlike we do. The dog would love them regardless, and the only thing that it would care about would be being loved in return. To quote Robert Louis Stevenson (1850-1894) "You think dogs will not be in heaven? I tell you, they will be there long before any of us."

 

I am going to take a guess that you are a very adamant dog lover. Ok I suppose it would be hard to understand if you didn't believe in God. You see when I say perfect I am talking about being in full and absolute communion with God, that is what makes heaven perfect. Heaven isn't a place for us to hang out at for all eternity and have a few laughs and a lot of fun. Heaven is were God is, in all his glory, to me that is perfect.

So as I said it would be hard to understand if you don't believe. J.O.Y: Jesus, Others, Yourself.

Well considering that Peter doesn't speak dog I don't see how that would work . And besides as I have already said man was made in God's image.... Man not animal or anything else just man. If all creatures of the earth were made in God's likeness and image then I believe yes they would go before Peter and everything else. But as I said man dominates all creatures of the earth and cares for them, because God made all of them so we would have nourishment, not only by food but by companionship and so on.

Yes I had 2 dogs now I have one, this happened very recently in fact, and I have two cats. I know all these things that dogs and animals have done, and I dearly adore my pets but so far nothing in my life has convinced me that any animal at all has some kind of conscious or complete understanding of whats going on. Yes some dogs have saved lives and loved their owners, but that doesn't mean they'll go to heaven. A dog is a dog, not a human, not of man. Humans go to heaven thats just how God made it.

A soul of sorts but not the soul of a human.

 

My logic is difficult to understand? Well, I did try to make it as easy as possible with those strategically placed horizontal lines...

Human soul is basically the human conscience and intellect, what animals do not have. That's all to it. Animals might have or seem to have some of it sometimes.

Your posts, ah, all I saw was some Bible extracts which all too well seem to lack that ^ human factor.

 

Depending on your definition sure why not.

Really? But you just said that humans are animals. I'm Human so by your definition I'm an animal and oh would you look at that I have beliefs and I believe in an afterlife. Huh I think your logic just failed.

If Religion is only human imagination, then I must have been imagining myself going to church every Sunday for the last 3 years. And I must have been imagining this topic in this forum. Because if Religion is imagination then what the hell have we been discussing for the last couple weeks?

Sorry if I seem rude. I really have nothing against you.

 

I'd just like you to clarify one thing for me. Write out your definition of the word 'perfect'. Don't just say what you think 'perfect' is, write out a definition that you'd be able to substitute into your posts instead of using the word. Kinda like a dictionary definition rather than an explanation.

No offense, but you believe that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so that he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree, (as you can probably tell I didn't come up with that myself) but you don't believe that Saint Peter can judge an animal's lives.

Why is it only the ones made in god's likeness that are accepted? Isn't god supposed to teach us to not be prejudice? Why would god then exclude all animals apart from humans?
Also, what about the dinosaurs? There is definitive evidence that they dominated over all creatures of the earth for over a hundred and sixty million years. Mankind has only been dominating for about two hundred thousand years.

You say "some dogs have saved lives" as if it's been a one off occasion. It hasn't. You also say that some others "loved their owners" as if it's a rare occasion. It isn't. Just believing that there is a god shouldn't be the only thing that alters your chances of getting into heaven.
Assuming for a moment that the Christian god is the correct god, someone who hasn't ever heard, or ever been given the chance to hear, of the Christian god, yet still contributes to society, by saving lives, caring and supporting others or just generally having an uplifting aura, should have a better chance of getting into heaven than a Christian who sits on the couch all day has.
Also, I cannot see how you cannot see that dogs have a conscience. They know what's right and wrong. If you've caught your dog doing something that it knows it shouldn't be doing, you'll see that it's submissive. They will do stuff that they know is correct, and will be proud because of it. If you're depressed, they can sense that and will come over to comfort you. Dogs most definitely do have a conscience and do understand what is going on. They might not have a complete understanding, but neither do we.
I know that only humans are allowing into heaven and I obviously know that a dog is not a human. That is what I am arguing about. Humans shouldn't have a special right to heaven just because we're humans. Besides, you could use that logic for anything. You could say that dogs have more of a right to heaven than we do, because we aren't dogs. Or cats do, because we're not cats. Or anything does, because we're just humans.

I'd also like you to write out your definition of 'soul' just as you did for 'perfect'.

How are humans not animals?

Animals as a whole do not believe in an afterlife. You're an animal, yes, and yes you do believe in the afterlife, but animals as a whole do not. It's like saying that mammals don't lay eggs. Mammals as a whole don't lay eggs, but monotremes do. Plants as a whole are green, but there are plants that red or yellow. The sky as a whole is blue, but at certain times it is black, orange, red, purple and yellow. The logic isn't flawed, it's just talking as a whole rather than as individual species.

Going to church isn't religion, and this topic isn't religion. Religion is the existence of a deity or deities, as well as an afterlife, etc, etc. There isn't any definitive proof that religion isn't just a construct of human imagination, and, as it turns out, in the best case scenario, all but one of them has to be.

 

hahaha OWNED
sorry, had to

 

I can send you that picture if you want. It's one of those demotivators.

 

God

Haha thats kinda funny, horribly out of perspective but funny. Its not that I believe that Peter can't judge an animals life, its just that he would never get a chance to.

I never said that just believing is the only way to heaven if you recall from the earlier stuff.

That is exactly true.

If you catch your dog doing something wrong and it becomes submissive it is because it remembers that doing whatever it just did wrong has a consequence. Same for something a dog might do right. Why don't you define conscience for me just to clarify.

Humans aren't allowed into heaven because they are just humans, humans are allowed into heaven because God made man in his likeness and image for the purpose of someday being in eternal communion with him in heaven.
I have said that many times already. If dogs were made in God's likeness and image then they would go to heaven and not us.

Tough definition, I'm not sure if I can think of another one like the one I got for perfect.

Personally I can't put it to words but if you want an interesting read on the Catholic view on a soul this is a good site:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm

It also talks about ancient philosophies and modern day thoughts about what the soul is. Anyway it is good you would like it.

Unfortunately the fact that is it considering the whole does make it flawed actually it makes it especially flawed. Heres a breakdown of his logic:

A(x) (Hx -> Ax) (This reads: for all x, if x is a human then x is an Animal)

A(x) (Ax -> ~Bx) (for all x if x is an animal then it is not the case that x believes in the afterlife)

Therefore

Ir (religion is imaginary)

That is his logic breakdown, now considering as you said how he is referring to all animals and I am an animal, by his first proposition, then the input for me would go:

Aj -> ~Bj (reading: if joe is an Animal then Joe does not believe in the afterlife

but I do believe in the afterlife so:

~~Bj (it is not the case that it is not the case that joe believes in the afterlife)

which contradicts All animals not believing in the afterlife.

so his second proposition should have been:

E(x) (Ax -> Bx) (the E should be backwards, anyway it reads: There is at least one x where x is an Animal and x Believes in the Afterlife.)

Either way neither of them prove Ir
that just came out of nowhere and so far has no basis in truth whatsoever.

My point was that whether you believe in a religion or not it does exist, the very fact that we are talking about religion proves that religion exits. Now I am not saying that this proves that religion is correct or what not (even if I believe it is). i am just saying that it is not an imagination. Which is what he said it was.

 

If 'God' is your definition of 'perfect', then of course being with god is perfect. It doesn't mean that it's flawless.
How can you say that Saint Peter'll never get a chance to judge a dog? You have no proof that dogs don't have souls. Just because god only gave his image to humans and we're dominate over other animals, it doesn't mean that others can't have souls.
You say it's true that someone who hasn't ever heard, or ever been given the chance to hear, of the Christian god, yet still contributes to society, by saving lives, caring and supporting others or just generally having an uplifting aura, should have a better chance of getting into heaven than a Christian who sits on the couch all day has. I don't think you realize that the someone I was referring to was a dog or other animal. From what I can gather, you've just agreed that dogs should have a greater chance of getting into heaven than lazy Christians.
Seeing as the only religious texts we know have been made by humans, then of course they're going to say that it is us that have been made in the likeness of god. I doubt a religion that says that dogs have been made in the likeness of god would be as popular.
Again, your proof focuses on specifications. GM_k was talking generally, as a whole, overall, on average, en masse, etc.
Just because we're talking about it, it doesn't mean that it hasn't been made up. People talk about Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, etc, it doesn't mean that they're real. They're made up regardless of whether we talk about them or not.

 

You gathered incorrectly as I was referring to humans. Ok lets back up a bit, animals if at all having the ability to go to heaven would not need to be Judged by Peter is what I was trying to say. Because the reason we as humans need to be judged is because we sin, animals can't sin because they never ate of the tree of knowledge. So even if dogs cats and whatever else animal went to heaven there would be no reason for them to see Peter.

Anyway as a whole on average and en mass I believe there is quite a large portion of people who believe in the afterlife which still makes GM_Ks argument faulty.

But Harry Potter, Lord of The Rings, and all that other stuff still exits even if it is not real they still exist. Which is why religion exists and is not imaginary.

 

I didn't gather incorrectly, because I made the initial statement. I was referring to other animals, and you agreed. If a dog contributes to society, saves lives, cares and supports others or just generally has an uplifting aura, it should have a greater chance of getting into heaven than a lazy Christian should.
So if humans never ate the forbidden fruit, would it be possible for them to sin? If someone murders their spouse or commits any other type of sin, if they haven't eaten the fruit, does it actually count as a sin?
A large portion of people might believe in religion, but an insignificant amount of all animals do. Therefore it is safe to say that animals don't believe in religion, just as we say that the sky is blue.
Religion might exist, but I think what GM_k meant was that it's made up, just as Happy Potter, etc, is. The stories of Harry Potter actually exist, but it is made up. Just as, the Bible actually exists, but it is made up.

 

Religion means having your imagination affect you real life.

 

So I'm religious then?

 

Religon means you believe in something

if you dont your a atheist, simple