Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

If God exists, all dogs go to heaven....

popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 11:40:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I put this in philosophy because this is more philosophical than anything else.

1. Animals have sentience. (From Chapter 5 .)
2. Animals are made in the image of God. (From 1 and Genesis (see next chapter).)
3. Animals have moral standing. (From 2 and from 1, independently.)
4. God is all-powerful and perfectly loving , overflowing wit love and concern for everything with moral standing. (Assumption.)
5. God will do justly and lovingly by animals . That is, he will not allow harm to come to them that is not somehow compensated for, he will see to it that their existences are on the whole quite good (more than just better than on balance good) and that any suffering can be defeated within the context of their lives. (From 3 and 4 and what it means to be loving.)
6. The only way God could do justly and lovingly by animals is to enfold their suffering in a greater good that organically defeats their evil. (Established above.)
7. The only way God could enfold animal suffering into some greater good that organically defeats it is either (i) via their relation to cosmic order, (ii) this-worldly soul-making, or (iii) other-worldly soul-making. (Provisional assumption.)
8. The argument from cosmic order is almost completely unsuccessful as it stands. (From the fact that no aesthetic good can justify horrendous evil.)
9. This-worldly soul-making cannot occur to a significant degree due to current lack of TTPU and other cognitive capacities. (Assumption.)
10. The only way God could enfold animal suffering into some greater good is via future soul-making. (From 7, 8, and 9.)
11. The only way God could do justly and lovingly by animals is via future soul-making . (From 6 and 10.)
12. Future soul-making requires both animal resurrection and deification. (Seemingly obvious assumption.)
13. The only way God could do justly and lovingly by animals involves both animal resurrection and deification. (From 11 and 12.)
14. If God exists, then animals will be resurrected and deified. (From 5 and 13.)

Dougherty, Trent (2014-07-25). The Problem of Animal Pain: A Theodicy For All Creatures Great And Small (Palgrave Frontiers in Philosophy of Religion) (Kindle Locations 3151-3159). Palgrave Macmillan. Kindle Edition.

I've been thinking about this and it seems to me to follow if one assumes God (conceived of with the traditional omni attributes) exists. I"m not sure why I haven't though of this before. Thoughts?

And the title was being "cheeky" (in reference to the movie), of course if all animals go to heaven, then dogs, being animals would go too.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 11:57:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 11:45:25 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

Hallelujah, PCP. Hallelujah.

That video is pretty cool!

The interesting thing is that those who believe in God will often deny that at least some animals will have an afterlife and I don't why that would be.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 12:00:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 11:57:01 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/6/2014 11:45:25 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

Hallelujah, PCP. Hallelujah.

That video is pretty cool!

The interesting thing is that those who believe in God will often deny that at least some animals will have an afterlife and I don't why that would be.

I do, PCP, but it doesn't matter. Here's a hint, though: It's the same reason many people eat pizza with a fork.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 12:11:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 12:00:57 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 9/6/2014 11:57:01 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/6/2014 11:45:25 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

Hallelujah, PCP. Hallelujah.

That video is pretty cool!

The interesting thing is that those who believe in God will often deny that at least some animals will have an afterlife and I don't why that would be.

I do, PCP, but it doesn't matter. Here's a hint, though: It's the same reason many people eat pizza with a fork.

I have a feeling it's extremely obvious but Im not following you.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 12:43:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 12:11:25 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/6/2014 12:00:57 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 9/6/2014 11:57:01 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/6/2014 11:45:25 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

Hallelujah, PCP. Hallelujah.

That video is pretty cool!

The interesting thing is that those who believe in God will often deny that at least some animals will have an afterlife and I don't why that would be.

I do, PCP, but it doesn't matter. Here's a hint, though: It's the same reason many people eat pizza with a fork.

I have a feeling it's extremely obvious but Im not following you.

Fear, PCP. Did you know that the gorilla is the only ape that eats solely vegetation? I think that it's also the most powerful ape allows it to be compassionate. With the rest, it's all a scramble. And so the white man enslaved the black man, that frightening Other. And so man imagines himself above animals--and even women--for we might all be but the playthings of some frightening god, we become lost in Earthly power. And so man who has long eaten animal flesh to survive supposes they might be for him, and so our conception of heaven comes to be painted by such men. Some people eat pizza with a fork so as to distance themselves from animals, for the world is truly frightening to throw oneself in amidst them. Besides death, it is the Other that haunts our dreams, PCP, and so Hitler's Arianism had such appeal, and so many atrocities between human beings occur. And it's all madness and so we are mad.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 12:50:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I call it Adam and Eve syndrome - a sickness by others which, I think, takes its inception with the mother, her finiteness and other interests. And so we slander each others mothers, for our own were the denial of our divinity. Some people just never grow up, I guess. Some day maybe.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 9:50:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 12:43:29 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 9/6/2014 12:11:25 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/6/2014 12:00:57 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 9/6/2014 11:57:01 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/6/2014 11:45:25 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

Hallelujah, PCP. Hallelujah.

That video is pretty cool!

The interesting thing is that those who believe in God will often deny that at least some animals will have an afterlife and I don't why that would be.

I do, PCP, but it doesn't matter. Here's a hint, though: It's the same reason many people eat pizza with a fork.

I have a feeling it's extremely obvious but Im not following you.

Fear, PCP. Did you know that the gorilla is the only ape that eats solely vegetation? I think that it's also the most powerful ape allows it to be compassionate. With the rest, it's all a scramble. And so the white man enslaved the black man, that frightening Other. And so man imagines himself above animals--and even women--for we might all be but the playthings of some frightening god, we become lost in Earthly power. And so man who has long eaten animal flesh to survive supposes they might be for him, and so our conception of heaven comes to be painted by such men. Some people eat pizza with a fork so as to distance themselves from animals, for the world is truly frightening to throw oneself in amidst them. Besides death, it is the Other that haunts our dreams, PCP, and so Hitler's Arianism had such appeal, and so many atrocities between human beings occur. And it's all madness and so we are mad.

This is actually a good point.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2014 1:19:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 11:40:28 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
I put this in philosophy because this is more philosophical than anything else.

1. Animals have sentience. (From Chapter 5 .)
2. Animals are made in the image of God. (From 1 and Genesis (see next chapter).)
3. Animals have moral standing. (From 2 and from 1, independently.)
4. God is all-powerful and perfectly loving , overflowing wit love and concern for everything with moral standing. (Assumption.)
5. God will do justly and lovingly by animals . That is, he will not allow harm to come to them that is not somehow compensated for, he will see to it that their existences are on the whole quite good (more than just better than on balance good) and that any suffering can be defeated within the context of their lives. (From 3 and 4 and what it means to be loving.)
6. The only way God could do justly and lovingly by animals is to enfold their suffering in a greater good that organically defeats their evil. (Established above.)
7. The only way God could enfold animal suffering into some greater good that organically defeats it is either (i) via their relation to cosmic order, (ii) this-worldly soul-making, or (iii) other-worldly soul-making. (Provisional assumption.)
8. The argument from cosmic order is almost completely unsuccessful as it stands. (From the fact that no aesthetic good can justify horrendous evil.)
9. This-worldly soul-making cannot occur to a significant degree due to current lack of TTPU and other cognitive capacities. (Assumption.)
10. The only way God could enfold animal suffering into some greater good is via future soul-making. (From 7, 8, and 9.)
11. The only way God could do justly and lovingly by animals is via future soul-making . (From 6 and 10.)
12. Future soul-making requires both animal resurrection and deification. (Seemingly obvious assumption.)
13. The only way God could do justly and lovingly by animals involves both animal resurrection and deification. (From 11 and 12.)
14. If God exists, then animals will be resurrected and deified. (From 5 and 13.)


Dougherty, Trent (2014-07-25). The Problem of Animal Pain: A Theodicy For All Creatures Great And Small (Palgrave Frontiers in Philosophy of Religion) (Kindle Locations 3151-3159). Palgrave Macmillan. Kindle Edition.

I've been thinking about this and it seems to me to follow if one assumes God (conceived of with the traditional omni attributes) exists. I"m not sure why I haven't though of this before. Thoughts?

And the title was being "cheeky" (in reference to the movie), of course if all animals go to heaven, then dogs, being animals would go too.

Animals follow a very rigid pattern of behaviour, mainly they are led by their senses and do not have the use of as much power of the mind such as humans do to overpower their senses and make conscious decisions. Therefore the bad Karma an animal accumulates in it's life isn't as bad as a human is able to accumulate through the power of free will, using the mind to make decisions.

Thus an animals has only one way of evolving to the next life, that is upwards. but a human being can either go upwards or downwards, ie, to a higher type of body form, maybe into the spiritual world or even remaining in the material world but onto a higher planetary system or a lower type of body, either an animals body or into a lower planetary system.

All living entities are living souls, they are simply just dressed differently, conditioned by the material energy, one has the dress of a dog, one has the dress of a king and another has the dress of a bird, ect ect...

We all have to pass through the material realm and evolve upwards, the human life form is a most desirable life form all across the universe, according to the Vedas, because it enables one to understand their surroundings, their existence and what is God.

Misusing the human life form and choosing to live in ignorance by not enquiring into examination of the self and what is God, is no different to the animals, therefore you are re-incarnated into an animals until you get the opportunity to evolve upwards and get the human life form again, and only then can we escape the material realm and return back to the spiritual world.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2014 9:54:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"all dogs go to heaven...." except for the three dogs that bit me, they are burning in hell
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 12:19:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 11:57:01 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/6/2014 11:45:25 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

Hallelujah, PCP. Hallelujah.

That video is pretty cool!

The interesting thing is that those who believe in God will often deny that at least some animals will have an afterlife and I don't why that would be.

It ignores the difference in souls among life i.e) the vegative soul, sensory soul, and modt importantly the rational (and eternal) soul. I'll expand more upon this when I get home from school.
Nolite Timere
YYW
Posts: 36,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 12:22:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 11:40:28 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
I put this in philosophy because this is more philosophical than anything else.

1. Animals have sentience. (From Chapter 5 .)
2. Animals are made in the image of God. (From 1 and Genesis (see next chapter).)
3. Animals have moral standing. (From 2 and from 1, independently.)

How? If animals have moral standing, then they can be capable of sinning -but to sin requires a soul, which is unique to people.

4. God is all-powerful and perfectly loving , overflowing wit love and concern for everything with moral standing. (Assumption.)
5. God will do justly and lovingly by animals . That is, he will not allow harm to come to them that is not somehow compensated for, he will see to it that their existences are on the whole quite good (more than just better than on balance good) and that any suffering can be defeated within the context of their lives. (From 3 and 4 and what it means to be loving.)
6. The only way God could do justly and lovingly by animals is to enfold their suffering in a greater good that organically defeats their evil. (Established above.)
7. The only way God could enfold animal suffering into some greater good that organically defeats it is either (i) via their relation to cosmic order, (ii) this-worldly soul-making, or (iii) other-worldly soul-making. (Provisional assumption.)
8. The argument from cosmic order is almost completely unsuccessful as it stands. (From the fact that no aesthetic good can justify horrendous evil.)
9. This-worldly soul-making cannot occur to a significant degree due to current lack of TTPU and other cognitive capacities. (Assumption.)
10. The only way God could enfold animal suffering into some greater good is via future soul-making. (From 7, 8, and 9.)
11. The only way God could do justly and lovingly by animals is via future soul-making . (From 6 and 10.)
12. Future soul-making requires both animal resurrection and deification. (Seemingly obvious assumption.)
13. The only way God could do justly and lovingly by animals involves both animal resurrection and deification. (From 11 and 12.)
14. If God exists, then animals will be resurrected and deified. (From 5 and 13.)


Dougherty, Trent (2014-07-25). The Problem of Animal Pain: A Theodicy For All Creatures Great And Small (Palgrave Frontiers in Philosophy of Religion) (Kindle Locations 3151-3159). Palgrave Macmillan. Kindle Edition.

I've been thinking about this and it seems to me to follow if one assumes God (conceived of with the traditional omni attributes) exists. I"m not sure why I haven't though of this before. Thoughts?

And the title was being "cheeky" (in reference to the movie), of course if all animals go to heaven, then dogs, being animals would go too.
Tsar of DDO
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 12:35:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/16/2014 12:19:27 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 9/6/2014 11:57:01 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/6/2014 11:45:25 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

Hallelujah, PCP. Hallelujah.

That video is pretty cool!

The interesting thing is that those who believe in God will often deny that at least some animals will have an afterlife and I don't why that would be.

It ignores the difference in souls among life i.e) the vegative soul, sensory soul, and modt importantly the rational (and eternal) soul. I'll expand more upon this when I get home from school.

Not really. Trent Doughtery (the author) argues that animals have rational souls.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 12:37:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/16/2014 12:22:55 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/6/2014 11:40:28 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
I put this in philosophy because this is more philosophical than anything else.

1. Animals have sentience. (From Chapter 5 .)
2. Animals are made in the image of God. (From 1 and Genesis (see next chapter).)
3. Animals have moral standing. (From 2 and from 1, independently.)

How? If animals have moral standing, then they can be capable of sinning -but to sin requires a soul, which is unique to people.


Why would you assume that only people have a soul?

4. God is all-powerful and perfectly loving , overflowing wit love and concern for everything with moral standing. (Assumption.)
5. God will do justly and lovingly by animals . That is, he will not allow harm to come to them that is not somehow compensated for, he will see to it that their existences are on the whole quite good (more than just better than on balance good) and that any suffering can be defeated within the context of their lives. (From 3 and 4 and what it means to be loving.)
6. The only way God could do justly and lovingly by animals is to enfold their suffering in a greater good that organically defeats their evil. (Established above.)
7. The only way God could enfold animal suffering into some greater good that organically defeats it is either (i) via their relation to cosmic order, (ii) this-worldly soul-making, or (iii) other-worldly soul-making. (Provisional assumption.)
8. The argument from cosmic order is almost completely unsuccessful as it stands. (From the fact that no aesthetic good can justify horrendous evil.)
9. This-worldly soul-making cannot occur to a significant degree due to current lack of TTPU and other cognitive capacities. (Assumption.)
10. The only way God could enfold animal suffering into some greater good is via future soul-making. (From 7, 8, and 9.)
11. The only way God could do justly and lovingly by animals is via future soul-making . (From 6 and 10.)
12. Future soul-making requires both animal resurrection and deification. (Seemingly obvious assumption.)
13. The only way God could do justly and lovingly by animals involves both animal resurrection and deification. (From 11 and 12.)
14. If God exists, then animals will be resurrected and deified. (From 5 and 13.)


Dougherty, Trent (2014-07-25). The Problem of Animal Pain: A Theodicy For All Creatures Great And Small (Palgrave Frontiers in Philosophy of Religion) (Kindle Locations 3151-3159). Palgrave Macmillan. Kindle Edition.

I've been thinking about this and it seems to me to follow if one assumes God (conceived of with the traditional omni attributes) exists. I"m not sure why I haven't though of this before. Thoughts?

And the title was being "cheeky" (in reference to the movie), of course if all animals go to heaven, then dogs, being animals would go too.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
YYW
Posts: 36,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 12:44:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/16/2014 12:37:00 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/16/2014 12:22:55 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/6/2014 11:40:28 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
I put this in philosophy because this is more philosophical than anything else.

1. Animals have sentience. (From Chapter 5 .)
2. Animals are made in the image of God. (From 1 and Genesis (see next chapter).)
3. Animals have moral standing. (From 2 and from 1, independently.)

How? If animals have moral standing, then they can be capable of sinning -but to sin requires a soul, which is unique to people.


Why would you assume that only people have a soul?

That's not an assumption. In no place in the bible does it say that any beings other than people have souls. The bible makes reference to animals being important to God, and to man, but it does not say that they are born with souls in the way that people are.

4. God is all-powerful and perfectly loving , overflowing wit love and concern for everything with moral standing. (Assumption.)
5. God will do justly and lovingly by animals . That is, he will not allow harm to come to them that is not somehow compensated for, he will see to it that their existences are on the whole quite good (more than just better than on balance good) and that any suffering can be defeated within the context of their lives. (From 3 and 4 and what it means to be loving.)
6. The only way God could do justly and lovingly by animals is to enfold their suffering in a greater good that organically defeats their evil. (Established above.)
7. The only way God could enfold animal suffering into some greater good that organically defeats it is either (i) via their relation to cosmic order, (ii) this-worldly soul-making, or (iii) other-worldly soul-making. (Provisional assumption.)
8. The argument from cosmic order is almost completely unsuccessful as it stands. (From the fact that no aesthetic good can justify horrendous evil.)
9. This-worldly soul-making cannot occur to a significant degree due to current lack of TTPU and other cognitive capacities. (Assumption.)
10. The only way God could enfold animal suffering into some greater good is via future soul-making. (From 7, 8, and 9.)
11. The only way God could do justly and lovingly by animals is via future soul-making . (From 6 and 10.)
12. Future soul-making requires both animal resurrection and deification. (Seemingly obvious assumption.)
13. The only way God could do justly and lovingly by animals involves both animal resurrection and deification. (From 11 and 12.)
14. If God exists, then animals will be resurrected and deified. (From 5 and 13.)


Dougherty, Trent (2014-07-25). The Problem of Animal Pain: A Theodicy For All Creatures Great And Small (Palgrave Frontiers in Philosophy of Religion) (Kindle Locations 3151-3159). Palgrave Macmillan. Kindle Edition.

I've been thinking about this and it seems to me to follow if one assumes God (conceived of with the traditional omni attributes) exists. I"m not sure why I haven't though of this before. Thoughts?

And the title was being "cheeky" (in reference to the movie), of course if all animals go to heaven, then dogs, being animals would go too.
Tsar of DDO
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 12:47:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/16/2014 12:35:53 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/16/2014 12:19:27 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 9/6/2014 11:57:01 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/6/2014 11:45:25 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

Hallelujah, PCP. Hallelujah.

That video is pretty cool!

The interesting thing is that those who believe in God will often deny that at least some animals will have an afterlife and I don't why that would be.

It ignores the difference in souls among life i.e) the vegative soul, sensory soul, and modt importantly the rational (and eternal) soul. I'll expand more upon this when I get home from school.

Not really. Trent Doughtery (the author) argues that animals have rational souls.

I'll argue against that.
Nolite Timere
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 1:19:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/16/2014 12:44:34 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/16/2014 12:37:00 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/16/2014 12:22:55 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/6/2014 11:40:28 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
I put this in philosophy because this is more philosophical than anything else.

1. Animals have sentience. (From Chapter 5 .)
2. Animals are made in the image of God. (From 1 and Genesis (see next chapter).)
3. Animals have moral standing. (From 2 and from 1, independently.)

How? If animals have moral standing, then they can be capable of sinning -but to sin requires a soul, which is unique to people.


Why would you assume that only people have a soul?

That's not an assumption. In no place in the bible does it say that any beings other than people have souls.

That seems like an argument from silence even if that were true (which I do not think it is). Suppose there are aliens - would that mean they aren't ensouled because the bible never mentions them?

The bible makes reference to animals being important to God, and to man, but it does not say that they are born with souls in the way that people are.


4. God is all-powerful and perfectly loving , overflowing wit love and concern for everything with moral standing. (Assumption.)
5. God will do justly and lovingly by animals . That is, he will not allow harm to come to them that is not somehow compensated for, he will see to it that their existences are on the whole quite good (more than just better than on balance good) and that any suffering can be defeated within the context of their lives. (From 3 and 4 and what it means to be loving.)
6. The only way God could do justly and lovingly by animals is to enfold their suffering in a greater good that organically defeats their evil. (Established above.)
7. The only way God could enfold animal suffering into some greater good that organically defeats it is either (i) via their relation to cosmic order, (ii) this-worldly soul-making, or (iii) other-worldly soul-making. (Provisional assumption.)
8. The argument from cosmic order is almost completely unsuccessful as it stands. (From the fact that no aesthetic good can justify horrendous evil.)
9. This-worldly soul-making cannot occur to a significant degree due to current lack of TTPU and other cognitive capacities. (Assumption.)
10. The only way God could enfold animal suffering into some greater good is via future soul-making. (From 7, 8, and 9.)
11. The only way God could do justly and lovingly by animals is via future soul-making . (From 6 and 10.)
12. Future soul-making requires both animal resurrection and deification. (Seemingly obvious assumption.)
13. The only way God could do justly and lovingly by animals involves both animal resurrection and deification. (From 11 and 12.)
14. If God exists, then animals will be resurrected and deified. (From 5 and 13.)


Dougherty, Trent (2014-07-25). The Problem of Animal Pain: A Theodicy For All Creatures Great And Small (Palgrave Frontiers in Philosophy of Religion) (Kindle Locations 3151-3159). Palgrave Macmillan. Kindle Edition.

I've been thinking about this and it seems to me to follow if one assumes God (conceived of with the traditional omni attributes) exists. I"m not sure why I haven't though of this before. Thoughts?

And the title was being "cheeky" (in reference to the movie), of course if all animals go to heaven, then dogs, being animals would go too.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 1:20:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/16/2014 12:47:30 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 9/16/2014 12:35:53 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/16/2014 12:19:27 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 9/6/2014 11:57:01 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/6/2014 11:45:25 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

Hallelujah, PCP. Hallelujah.

That video is pretty cool!

The interesting thing is that those who believe in God will often deny that at least some animals will have an afterlife and I don't why that would be.

It ignores the difference in souls among life i.e) the vegative soul, sensory soul, and modt importantly the rational (and eternal) soul. I'll expand more upon this when I get home from school.

Not really. Trent Doughtery (the author) argues that animals have rational souls.

I'll argue against that.

I await that. :3
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
YYW
Posts: 36,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 1:22:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/16/2014 1:19:35 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/16/2014 12:44:34 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/16/2014 12:37:00 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/16/2014 12:22:55 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/6/2014 11:40:28 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
I put this in philosophy because this is more philosophical than anything else.

1. Animals have sentience. (From Chapter 5 .)
2. Animals are made in the image of God. (From 1 and Genesis (see next chapter).)
3. Animals have moral standing. (From 2 and from 1, independently.)

How? If animals have moral standing, then they can be capable of sinning -but to sin requires a soul, which is unique to people.


Why would you assume that only people have a soul?

That's not an assumption. In no place in the bible does it say that any beings other than people have souls.

That seems like an argument from silence even if that were true (which I do not think it is). Suppose there are aliens - would that mean they aren't ensouled because the bible never mentions them?

God doesn't distinguish "men" from "aliens" in the book of Genesis -but he does with animals.

The bible makes reference to animals being important to God, and to man, but it does not say that they are born with souls in the way that people are.



4. God is all-powerful and perfectly loving , overflowing wit love and concern for everything with moral standing. (Assumption.)
5. God will do justly and lovingly by animals . That is, he will not allow harm to come to them that is not somehow compensated for, he will see to it that their existences are on the whole quite good (more than just better than on balance good) and that any suffering can be defeated within the context of their lives. (From 3 and 4 and what it means to be loving.)
6. The only way God could do justly and lovingly by animals is to enfold their suffering in a greater good that organically defeats their evil. (Established above.)
7. The only way God could enfold animal suffering into some greater good that organically defeats it is either (i) via their relation to cosmic order, (ii) this-worldly soul-making, or (iii) other-worldly soul-making. (Provisional assumption.)
8. The argument from cosmic order is almost completely unsuccessful as it stands. (From the fact that no aesthetic good can justify horrendous evil.)
9. This-worldly soul-making cannot occur to a significant degree due to current lack of TTPU and other cognitive capacities. (Assumption.)
10. The only way God could enfold animal suffering into some greater good is via future soul-making. (From 7, 8, and 9.)
11. The only way God could do justly and lovingly by animals is via future soul-making . (From 6 and 10.)
12. Future soul-making requires both animal resurrection and deification. (Seemingly obvious assumption.)
13. The only way God could do justly and lovingly by animals involves both animal resurrection and deification. (From 11 and 12.)
14. If God exists, then animals will be resurrected and deified. (From 5 and 13.)


Dougherty, Trent (2014-07-25). The Problem of Animal Pain: A Theodicy For All Creatures Great And Small (Palgrave Frontiers in Philosophy of Religion) (Kindle Locations 3151-3159). Palgrave Macmillan. Kindle Edition.

I've been thinking about this and it seems to me to follow if one assumes God (conceived of with the traditional omni attributes) exists. I"m not sure why I haven't though of this before. Thoughts?

And the title was being "cheeky" (in reference to the movie), of course if all animals go to heaven, then dogs, being animals would go too.
Tsar of DDO
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 1:52:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/16/2014 1:22:38 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/16/2014 1:19:35 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/16/2014 12:44:34 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/16/2014 12:37:00 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/16/2014 12:22:55 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/6/2014 11:40:28 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
I put this in philosophy because this is more philosophical than anything else.

1. Animals have sentience. (From Chapter 5 .)
2. Animals are made in the image of God. (From 1 and Genesis (see next chapter).)
3. Animals have moral standing. (From 2 and from 1, independently.)

How? If animals have moral standing, then they can be capable of sinning -but to sin requires a soul, which is unique to people.


Why would you assume that only people have a soul?

That's not an assumption. In no place in the bible does it say that any beings other than people have souls.

That seems like an argument from silence even if that were true (which I do not think it is). Suppose there are aliens - would that mean they aren't ensouled because the bible never mentions them?

God doesn't distinguish "men" from "aliens" in the book of Genesis -but he does with animals.


Just in the fact that they are non humans, not in the fact that they have souls. When I get home I'll post some verses.

The bible makes reference to animals being important to God, and to man, but it does not say that they are born with souls in the way that people are.



4. God is all-powerful and perfectly loving , overflowing wit love and concern for everything with moral standing. (Assumption.)
5. God will do justly and lovingly by animals . That is, he will not allow harm to come to them that is not somehow compensated for, he will see to it that their existences are on the whole quite good (more than just better than on balance good) and that any suffering can be defeated within the context of their lives. (From 3 and 4 and what it means to be loving.)
6. The only way God could do justly and lovingly by animals is to enfold their suffering in a greater good that organically defeats their evil. (Established above.)
7. The only way God could enfold animal suffering into some greater good that organically defeats it is either (i) via their relation to cosmic order, (ii) this-worldly soul-making, or (iii) other-worldly soul-making. (Provisional assumption.)
8. The argument from cosmic order is almost completely unsuccessful as it stands. (From the fact that no aesthetic good can justify horrendous evil.)
9. This-worldly soul-making cannot occur to a significant degree due to current lack of TTPU and other cognitive capacities. (Assumption.)
10. The only way God could enfold animal suffering into some greater good is via future soul-making. (From 7, 8, and 9.)
11. The only way God could do justly and lovingly by animals is via future soul-making . (From 6 and 10.)
12. Future soul-making requires both animal resurrection and deification. (Seemingly obvious assumption.)
13. The only way God could do justly and lovingly by animals involves both animal resurrection and deification. (From 11 and 12.)
14. If God exists, then animals will be resurrected and deified. (From 5 and 13.)


Dougherty, Trent (2014-07-25). The Problem of Animal Pain: A Theodicy For All Creatures Great And Small (Palgrave Frontiers in Philosophy of Religion) (Kindle Locations 3151-3159). Palgrave Macmillan. Kindle Edition.

I've been thinking about this and it seems to me to follow if one assumes God (conceived of with the traditional omni attributes) exists. I"m not sure why I haven't though of this before. Thoughts?

And the title was being "cheeky" (in reference to the movie), of course if all animals go to heaven, then dogs, being animals would go too.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 6:31:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/16/2014 1:22:38 PM, YYW wrote:

God doesn't distinguish "men" from "aliens" in the book of Genesis -but he does with animals.

The bible makes reference to animals being important to God, and to man, but it does not say that they are born with souls in the way that people are.

"9.1.1 Biblical support for animal souls

In the beginning of the Hebrew Scriptures , 1 it seems clear that animals and humans share the same animate nature (thus "animals"). First let us display the passage that dramatically tells the story of the creation of the first human.

Then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being. (Genesis 2: 7)

By the time many readers get to this passage, they have already forgotten the easy-to-gloss-over verse not far away.

And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food. (Genesis 1: 30)

It is true that in Genesis 2, "breath of life" renders the Hebrew neshamah and "living being" renders the Hebrew nefesh, but apart from an intruding mysticism, it seems clear that becoming a living being just is having the breath of life. So even as different a translation as the New International Version (NIV ) renders nefesh as "breath of life" in Genesis 1: 30. There is no reason at all from within the text to think that neshamah and nefesh mean anything significantly different. The NRSV and the NIV (as well as Young"s literal translation and the New English Translation) no doubt translate nefesh in Gen 1: 30 as equivalent to neshamah in Gen 2: 7 since in Gen 1: 30 nefesh is the object of the preposition "sher-B", "wherein" (there is). The more flat-footed New American Standard translation has it "and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth that has life," then includes the footnote regarding the last phrase "Lit in which is a living soul ." Throughout Genesis 1 ( verses 20, 21, and 24) nefesh is translated as "creature,""living thing," "living creature," "creature having life," "soul," and "living soul" by various translations. And this makes sense, since Gen 2: 7 has two important phrases that share parts the "breath of life " transliterates as nish"mat chaYiym, the first term being the cognate of neshamah, "breath," and the second being the cognate of chay, "life." The second is what the thing that receives the breath of life becomes: nefesh chaY"h, "a living soul." You become a living thing when you receive life; you are alive when you get life. Life comes in the form of breath "neshamah," which like the Greek word pneuma means "breath,""spirit," and "soul," as it is in Isaiah 57: 16, Job 26: 4, and Proverbs 20: 27 at least.

The upshot is that there is no reason at all in the text (or from context) to drive a wedge between the life that humans get in Genesis 2 and the life that non-human animals get in Genesis 1. In the beginning, animals and humans are presented as having the same divine stuff. One might wonder why the breathing in is only mentioned in Genesis 2, which tells of the enlivening of humans and not in Genesis 1, which treats the enlivening of non-human animals. Isn"t this a sign of humans" special status? The answer is that it is indeed such a sign, since humans are not only ensouled but have capacities on earth that allow them to enter into a special kind of covenant with God. But this is no reason to think that only humans and not non-human animals have a non-material component . That non-human animals also have this, and that it is of the same essence as humans, is made clear above. It is generally accepted that the author (s) of Genesis 1 is different from the author( s) of Genesis 2 (technically the transition is at 2: 4), and the author (s) clearly have different purposes . Genesis 1 is about the creation of the world, and Genesis 2 is about the beginning of the human family. Yet the author( s) of Genesis 2 clearly picks up the language of the author( s) of Genesis 1 and sees humans as metaphysically continuous with other animals. This covers the most important passage of the Scriptures relevant to our purposes here, but there are others that merit brief treatment.

First, consider this passage from Ecclesiastes 3 , where the author is fretting the lot of mankind.

I said in my heart with regard to human beings that God is testing them to show that they are but animals . 19 For the fate of humans and the fate of animals is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and humans have no advantage over the animals; for all is vanity. 20 All go to one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again. 21 Who knows whether the human spirit goes upward and the spirit of animals goes downward to the earth?

One must, of course, be careful in interpreting passages that are plausibly either non-literal or written from a perspective not endorsed by God. Scripture records speeches of people who are speaking evil and speeches of people who are speaking nonsense. In this passage, we would clearly be wrong in taking it as a scriptural teaching that "all is vanity" or even that humans are "but animals." The literal content is clear though: Animals and humans are on par in this regard: They both die, and the fate of each is uncertain. Nevertheless, there is a clear presupposition here that both humans and non-human animals have souls. In fact, the author picks up the very same language of Genesis, saying that they "have the same breath," that is, the breath of God that makes them more than mere matter, makes them animate beings, animals.

This pattern is also seen in the Psalms. Consider these verses of Psalm 104. 24 O Lord, how manifold are your works! In wisdom you have made them all; the earth is full of your creatures. 25 Yonder is the sea, great and wide, creeping things innumerable are there, living things both small and great. 26 There go the ships, and Leviathan that you formed to sport in it. 27 These all look to you to give them their food in due season; 28 when you give to them, they gather it up; when you open your hand, they are filled with good things. 29 When you hide your face, they are dismayed;when you take away their breath, they die and return to their dust. 30 When you send forth your spirit, they are created; and you renew the face of the ground.

This language clearly evokes Genesis 1. In the NRSV, there is a footnote after "your spirit" reading "or your breath." This is the breath that God breathes into matter to make living beings. When he takes it back, the creature dies. We have in these three passages a clear pattern: a laying out of the view in Genesis and an affirmation of it in Ecclesiastes and Psalms. Furthermore , there are no counter-trends in the Hebrew Scriptures, no passages in support of the opposite picture. Thus, for the theist already committed to any significant authority for Scripture, their background evidence prior to considering the problem of animal suffering will already contain an important component of the saint-making theodicy. We next turn to the broader Christian tradition."

Dougherty, Trent (2014-07-25). The Problem of Animal Pain: A Theodicy For All Creatures Great And Small (Palgrave Frontiers in Philosophy of Religion) (Kindle Locations 3370-3383). Palgrave Macmillan. Kindle Edition.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 7:52:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 11:40:28 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
I put this in philosophy because this is more philosophical than anything else.

1. Animals have sentience. (From Chapter 5 .)

Even chimpanzee or dolphin intelligence doesn't quite compare to human intelligence. No animal believes in a higher power, no animal contemplates the reason for its existence, no animal develops a philosophy of any kind, other than "eat drink sleep hunt run away sex sex sex die."

2. Animals are made in the image of God. (From 1 and Genesis (see next chapter).)

The Bible only states that man was made in God's image.

3. Animals have moral standing. (From 2 and from 1, independently.)

Animals have no conscience.

4. God is all-powerful and perfectly loving , overflowing wit love and concern for everything with moral standing. (Assumption.)
5. God will do justly and lovingly by animals . That is, he will not allow harm to come to them that is not somehow compensated for, he will see to it that their existences are on the whole quite good (more than just better than on balance good) and that any suffering can be defeated within the context of their lives. (From 3 and 4 and what it means to be loving.)
6. The only way God could do justly and lovingly by animals is to enfold their suffering in a greater good that organically defeats their evil. (Established above.)
7. The only way God could enfold animal suffering into some greater good that organically defeats it is either (i) via their relation to cosmic order, (ii) this-worldly soul-making, or (iii) other-worldly soul-making. (Provisional assumption.)
8. The argument from cosmic order is almost completely unsuccessful as it stands. (From the fact that no aesthetic good can justify horrendous evil.)
9. This-worldly soul-making cannot occur to a significant degree due to current lack of TTPU and other cognitive capacities. (Assumption.)
10. The only way God could enfold animal suffering into some greater good is via future soul-making. (From 7, 8, and 9.)
11. The only way God could do justly and lovingly by animals is via future soul-making . (From 6 and 10.)
12. Future soul-making requires both animal resurrection and deification. (Seemingly obvious assumption.)
13. The only way God could do justly and lovingly by animals involves both animal resurrection and deification. (From 11 and 12.)
14. If God exists, then animals will be resurrected and deified. (From 5 and 13.)


Dougherty, Trent (2014-07-25). The Problem of Animal Pain: A Theodicy For All Creatures Great And Small (Palgrave Frontiers in Philosophy of Religion) (Kindle Locations 3151-3159). Palgrave Macmillan. Kindle Edition.

I've been thinking about this and it seems to me to follow if one assumes God (conceived of with the traditional omni attributes) exists. I"m not sure why I haven't though of this before. Thoughts?

And the title was being "cheeky" (in reference to the movie), of course if all animals go to heaven, then dogs, being animals would go too.
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 10:43:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/16/2014 7:52:18 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 9/6/2014 11:40:28 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
I put this in philosophy because this is more philosophical than anything else.

1. Animals have sentience. (From Chapter 5 .)

Even chimpanzee or dolphin intelligence doesn't quite compare to human intelligence. No animal believes in a higher power, no animal contemplates the reason for its existence, no animal develops a philosophy of any kind, other than "eat drink sleep hunt run away sex sex sex die."


How do you know that? And, by that token, no infant believes in a higher power, or contemplates the reason for it's existence, or develops philosophy of any kind, other than "eat, drink, sleep".

2. Animals are made in the image of God. (From 1 and Genesis (see next chapter).)

The Bible only states that man was made in God's image.


No, it doesn't. Check the post above.

3. Animals have moral standing. (From 2 and from 1, independently.)

Animals have no conscience.


Again...how do you know this?
4. God is all-powerful and perfectly loving , overflowing wit love and concern for everything with moral standing. (Assumption.)
5. God will do justly and lovingly by animals . That is, he will not allow harm to come to them that is not somehow compensated for, he will see to it that their existences are on the whole quite good (more than just better than on balance good) and that any suffering can be defeated within the context of their lives. (From 3 and 4 and what it means to be loving.)
6. The only way God could do justly and lovingly by animals is to enfold their suffering in a greater good that organically defeats their evil. (Established above.)
7. The only way God could enfold animal suffering into some greater good that organically defeats it is either (i) via their relation to cosmic order, (ii) this-worldly soul-making, or (iii) other-worldly soul-making. (Provisional assumption.)
8. The argument from cosmic order is almost completely unsuccessful as it stands. (From the fact that no aesthetic good can justify horrendous evil.)
9. This-worldly soul-making cannot occur to a significant degree due to current lack of TTPU and other cognitive capacities. (Assumption.)
10. The only way God could enfold animal suffering into some greater good is via future soul-making. (From 7, 8, and 9.)
11. The only way God could do justly and lovingly by animals is via future soul-making . (From 6 and 10.)
12. Future soul-making requires both animal resurrection and deification. (Seemingly obvious assumption.)
13. The only way God could do justly and lovingly by animals involves both animal resurrection and deification. (From 11 and 12.)
14. If God exists, then animals will be resurrected and deified. (From 5 and 13.)


Dougherty, Trent (2014-07-25). The Problem of Animal Pain: A Theodicy For All Creatures Great And Small (Palgrave Frontiers in Philosophy of Religion) (Kindle Locations 3151-3159). Palgrave Macmillan. Kindle Edition.

I've been thinking about this and it seems to me to follow if one assumes God (conceived of with the traditional omni attributes) exists. I"m not sure why I haven't though of this before. Thoughts?

And the title was being "cheeky" (in reference to the movie), of course if all animals go to heaven, then dogs, being animals would go too.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2014 6:23:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think the problem is with how the Bible was translated into English, specifically the Hebrew word "nephesh", the word nephesh is translated to the word "soul" and it is applied to both humans and animals in the Bible. The problem is that when you see the word "soul" it almost always was originally the word nephesh, but nephesh isn't always translated to the word soul. Roughly two thirds of the time nephesh is translated as "soul", and the other third of the time it is translated into forty-four different words or phrases. That tells me the idea that animals don't have souls is not found in the Bible, it is found in the people who translated the Bible into English.

Nevertheless, the Bible says that animals are found in heaven, and I don't see how Ecclesiastes 3:19-21 can be read any other way than to be explicitly telling us that animals do have souls, and even indicating that the distinctions some try to make in this regard are meaningless.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2014 9:23:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/16/2014 7:37:50 PM, YYW wrote:
Life does not imply soul.

The verses I posted specifically adressed that?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2014 9:27:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/17/2014 6:23:23 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
I think the problem is with how the Bible was translated into English, specifically the Hebrew word "nephesh", the word nephesh is translated to the word "soul" and it is applied to both humans and animals in the Bible. The problem is that when you see the word "soul" it almost always was originally the word nephesh, but nephesh isn't always translated to the word soul. Roughly two thirds of the time nephesh is translated as "soul", and the other third of the time it is translated into forty-four different words or phrases. That tells me the idea that animals don't have souls is not found in the Bible, it is found in the people who translated the Bible into English.

Nevertheless, the Bible says that animals are found in heaven, and I don't see how Ecclesiastes 3:19-21 can be read any other way than to be explicitly telling us that animals do have souls, and even indicating that the distinctions some try to make in this regard are meaningless.

Well said.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2014 7:44:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/17/2014 9:27:18 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/17/2014 6:23:23 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
I think the problem is with how the Bible was translated into English, specifically the Hebrew word "nephesh", the word nephesh is translated to the word "soul" and it is applied to both humans and animals in the Bible. The problem is that when you see the word "soul" it almost always was originally the word nephesh, but nephesh isn't always translated to the word soul. Roughly two thirds of the time nephesh is translated as "soul", and the other third of the time it is translated into forty-four different words or phrases. That tells me the idea that animals don't have souls is not found in the Bible, it is found in the people who translated the Bible into English.

Nevertheless, the Bible says that animals are found in heaven, and I don't see how Ecclesiastes 3:19-21 can be read any other way than to be explicitly telling us that animals do have souls, and even indicating that the distinctions some try to make in this regard are meaningless.

Well said.

Plus, for me at least, if there weren't dogs and horses, it wouldn't be heaven.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater