Animals and the Afterlife

Author: ludofl3x

Posts

Total: 320
Topic's author
#181
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Animals do not have souls as humans do. It seems like a safe conclusion to say that there will be animals in heaven. However, the Bible is not explicitly clear on whether particular animals will be there. I tend to think they just cease to exist since they do not have a human soul, but they certainly won't go to hell. Since they don't have souls, they are not culpable for moral choices and cannot be punished in that way.

So you're saying then that it's possible to get into Christian heaven without a soul, and that animals will be there, but maybe not 'particular' animals? I'm sorry, that's not exactly a clear position. Especially when you say you think it's a safe conclusion there will be animals in heaven, but that you think they just ceases to exist when they die. If they have no souls, what then exactly would they be doing in heaven? 

To put my view another way, there will likely be animals in heaven, just not the animals that die in this lifetime. This may not be a particularly comforting answer, but we can find comfort in knowing that there is no sorrow, grief, or death in heaven.

So if there are animals in heaven, soulless animals, in heaven, they'd be animals that didn't 'die in this lifetime'? THis is even less clear. First of all, nothing dies in a lifetime, by definition, when death occurs that entity's 'LIFEtime' is over. If you're not referring to the specific entity's lifetime, rather, for example, MY lifetime during which my dog died, are you then saying if (theoretically) I died and went to heaven, I'd have A dog, just not MY dog, because it died in my lifetime, but I love dogs... but I won't notice because noticing would make me sad, or I won't care? Or, did "this lifetime" mean the generic time we share as humans, meaning that the animals that are in heaven when we get there, it'll be the ones that went extinct prior to our existence, like heaven's full of dinosaurs? Sorry if I didn't get your meaning, but in the text you take a couple of strange positions. I will restate it as a I interpret you, so that you might point out easily where I'm wrong:

"There will be animals in heaven, but they won't be earth animals specific to the ones you know or knew. Because animals have no soul, they cannot be punished with hell, but it wouldn't be fair to reward them with heaven, so what IS there will be a simulation or generic version of an animal that you might vaguely recognize, but it won't be an animal you knew, mainly to [purpose unknown], because there won't be any need for a pet since there's no sorrow, grief, death or, presumably, desire for companionship and friendship in heaven. All of this is based on nothing in the bible."

And no, if there's a heaven, I guess my dog will be sad, because I'm burning in hell for not believing in Jesus. I don't lose any sleep over it. 
#182
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
If you replace legitimate with objective I will agree but I disagree with this statement as ot stands. Humans wanting to live is a legitimate reason even if not an objective one independent of human opinion.
That's a fair adjustment.

As far as objective vs subjective standards, I suppose I should have established a more precise term than "genocide," so I'll give you a point for that. I specifically had in mind the elimination of a group strictly for opinion-based reasons ("because I don't like them") or biological reasons ("killing them will produce a genetically superior race"). Or even something similar to the international crime of genocide (https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml). As an example, I would not consider America going to war with Germany "genocide" even though there was a systematic killing of Nazis. I would also argued we were justified to do so.

So to see if we're on the same page so far, would you consider there to be a difference between the actions of America going to war with Germany and the Holocaust? Or would you consider both to be genocide?
Topic's author
#183
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
..., would you consider there to be a difference between the actions of America going to war with Germany and the Holocaust? Or would you consider both to be genocide?

The actions of AMerica weren't "kill all germans because they're germans," it was "stop the Axis powers including the genocide of the jews." The actions of the Nazis were "kill all jews, full stop." By definition, one is a genocide. The other is a different action entirely. There's only one circle in the venn diagram of the holocaust: jewish people. There are two, at least, in the other side, the Nazis. "Nazis" were German, but not all Germans were Nazis. 
#184
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
So the waging of war on armed soldiers is not genocide. Genocide is by definition the systematic termination of an entire population including unarmed civilians.

To answer the spirit of your question however is

My personal subjective standard includes wellbeing promoted versus harm prevented and an arbitrary sliding scale of importance which places human wellbeing over the wellbeing of other species of animal for no reason other than that I am a human being so I share more empathy with humans. It can objectively be said that my personal moral opinion judges the acts of genocide against a civilian population and the waging of war on armed soldiers that actively support or perpetuate such a genocide differently with a distinct tendency to view one in a very much more favorable light.

So the short answer is I do judge them differently. 

#185
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@ludofl3x
It appears I took a few assumptions for granted and sacrificed clarity for brevity. To be clear, I am arguing from a biblical worldview. So to answer a question like “do animals have souls?” I am staying within that framework. Here are the important points that have to be established that exclude my opinion. Hopefully this is more clear.
 
The Biblical Narrative
God created the universe and everything in it. The original creation had no death, suffering, disease, or anything like that. This means death is not natural, even for animals. People and animals didn’t kill. Then, Adam and Eve sinned by disobeying God. Since humans have dominion over the world, God cursed both humans and the world that was under their dominion. All of creation was then subject to death, decay, disease, and such. This is the state of the world that we are in now. We will continue in this state until Jesus returns, the final judgment takes place, this fallen creation is destroyed, and a new and perfect creation is made by God. This creation will be similar to the original state of the first one (no death, suffering, disease, or anything like that.) This will be the eternal heaven where those who placed their faith in Jesus will be. There will also be a place of eternal suffering where those who rejected God will be. When I say “this lifetime,” I am specifically referring to the time between Adam and Eve’s fall and the ultimate destruction of the world at the final judgment, and the next life will be the one in eternity (heaven or hell).
 
Difference Between Humans and Animals
This distinction is important. Humans consist of both a material and immaterial part, or body and soul. This is clearly established in the Bible. Humans are made in the image of God which gives us an intrinsic value that animals do not have. This is why I specifically said, “Animals do not have souls as humans do.” I cannot definitively say they do not have souls at all but even if they do, they are not made in the image of God. Humans have the ability to determine right from wrong, which is why we will be held accountable for our actions in the final judgment. Animals do not have this capacity and are driven by instinct. This is not to say they don’t have individual characteristics that make them unique and special to us, they are just not moral creatures. Because the bible is not explicitly clear, it is possible that animals that die in this lifetime will be in heaven.
 
Animals in Heaven
Animals were a part of God’s original “good” creation that had no death, disease, etc. Animals are under the effects of the curse with the rest of creation which is why they die. Since they were part of the original creation, I see no reason why there will not be animals in the new perfect creation that will not experience death. The question that is open to interpretation then is whether they are resurrected animals that died in this lifetime, or if they will be completely new creations made specifically for the eternal heaven.
 
I can clarify my particular position on this issue, but I wanted to at least have a foundation of what we can definitively establish from the Bible.

#186
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
Well I'm glad we found at least some agreement there.

Here is the statement you made previously:

Also the Yahweh commands genocide so under the biblical model it is not just excusable but expected. There is no need to address this as it is not in question. The god depicted in the bible allowed, commanded and even committed genocide over and over in the story. Either genocide is not wrong or Yahweh is.

I think there should have to be at least some burden of proof to classify the conquering of Canaan by Israel as genocide. This becomes more difficult when genocide is really a subjective human standard, but the conquering of Canaan also involves a objective deity who sets His own standard rather than just humans. I'll give a few reasons why I don't think Israel or God were guilty of genocide.

Israel was merely an instrument being used by God to carry out judgment on the Canaanites. They were much weaker than the Canaanites and Israel had no military training. It was actually God working supernaturally that allowed them to win battles. They also had strict parameters to follow that were set by God. They were only allowed to attack under certain circumstanced in some cases. Some Canaanite groups were to be completely annihilated, some were just to be conquered and the survivors taken into Israel. If Israel did not carry out God's orders exactly as He commanded, they were severely punished. So the people of Israel are not really culpable if God was the one giving commands that they had to follow, and they would not have succeeded without God's intervention.

Genesis 15:13-16 shows clearly that God actually allowed Israel to be slaves in Egypt until the wickedness of the Amorites (a Canaanite group, possibly a general reference to all inhabitants of Canaan) reached a culminating point where God would judge them. Archaeological finds and historical records have verified that these Canaanite nations had many extremely gruesome practices. It should also be noted that each encounter with a Canaanite nation (Amalekites, Amorites, etc.) carried completely different circumstances and outcomes. For instance, Israel was actually attacked by the Amalekites before even entering into this land. This is why God pronounced total annihilation upon the Amalekites as retribution for this unprovoked attack. In the events of the conquering, God was carrying out just punishment of the Canaanites.

So I think it must be established then, which specific Canaanite nations did Israel/God commit genocide against and why would that specific conflict be classified as genocide? 

Topic's author
#187
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Appreciate the clarification. It relies pretty heavily on your interpretations, I am sure you'd agree. If animals can get into heaven, without souls and / or without knowing Jesus, doesn't that make faith irrelevant in some way? It also strikes me as strange that god was able to not just curse man, instead he had a tantrum and cursed everything, but that's another topic. 
#188
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I think there should have to be at least some burden of proof to classify the conquering of Canaan by Israel as genocide.
Well this can be cleared up very simply. Yes or no did it involve the systematic termination of entire civilian populations?

#189
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
Well as the one making a severe accusation against the ancestors of the Jews (arguably the most highly persecuted group in world history), I think it is upon you to substantiate your accusation with evidence of specifically who they committed the crime of genocide against, and why it should be considered genocide.
#190
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@ludofl3x
Well everything depends upon interpretation in some way. If I say, "My bird is blue," you would probably assume that I was referring to the color of the bird. But I could also be using an expression to say that my bird is sad. I could also be using an awkward phrasing to express that, "My bird is named Blue." Now if I were to say, "My bird is blue with yellow wings," it could almost certainly be assumed I am referring to color.

Interpreting the Bible can follow a similar pattern. Context, repetition, and explanations within the Bible itself are used to interpret the meaning of a word, phrase, or passage. My post contained the bare essentials of what we can accept as a correct interpretation of the Bible based on context, repetition, and explanations from a straightforward reading of relevant passages. For example Genesis 1:1 says, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Regardless of how long one thinks it took, the passage is clearly saying that it was God who created the heavens and the earth.

If animals can get into heaven, without souls and / or without knowing Jesus, doesn't that make faith irrelevant in some way?
Well this assumes that resurrected animals would be in heaven AND that this would be possible without a soul. Also, animals wouldn't have to "get into" heaven because they were never excluded from it. Heaven is not so much about a place but about being in a right relationship with God. When Adam and Eve sinned, they rebelled against God and severed that relationship, the ultimate punishment being hell. The rest of creation besides humanity is not subject to hell because there are no other moral creatures that rejected God besides humans. Animals also don't have this type of relationship that could even be severed. It is humans who actually need forgiveness of sins through faith in Jesus to have a right relationship with God. An animal does not need this forgiveness any more than a tree does. Nor does an animal even have the capacity to have faith in Jesus.

The conclusion then would be resurrected animals will either be in heaven or they won't be, and it has nothing to do with a right relationship with God or faith in Jesus.

Now I personally think that animals don't have souls and won't be resurrected, meaning that new animals will be created in heaven that will never die. I have reasons for this but it is still speculation.
#191
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Well as the one making a severe accusation against the ancestors of the Jews (arguably the most highly persecuted group in world history), I think it is upon you to substantiate your accusation with evidence of specifically who they committed the crime of genocide against, and why it should be considered genocide.
Genocide has a particular definition. If the termination of entire civilian populations was involved then it was a genocide. So I will ask you again. Did the yahweh as depicted in the bible condone, command or perpetuate the termination of entire civilian populations? If so then that would be a genocide by definition.

#192
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
On a side note I am not accusing anyone of anything as the I have no reason to think the bible more than fictional. 
#193
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
Also the Yahweh commands genocide so under the biblical model it is not just excusable but expected. There is no need to address this as it is not in question. The god depicted in the bible allowed, commanded and even committed genocide over and over in the story. Either genocide is not wrong or Yahweh is. 
Well this seems like an accusation. So far no evidence has been provided and thus it remains completely unsubstantiated.

#194
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
So you are entirely unfamiliar with the bible then? Not familiar with the story of the flood or the battles in which the yahweh commands that entire populations to the sword including women children and even goats? If you are not even familiar with the source material then this conversation isn't going to go far.
#195
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
I am quite familiar with the stories and I am still not accusing God of a crime, especially the crime of genocide. Out of curiosity, would you consider Thanksgiving a genocide of turkeys?
#196
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I am quite familiar with the stories and I am still not accusing God of a crime, especially the crime of genocide.
I am not accusing anyone of anything. The bible makes it quite clear that the yahweh commands and engages the extermination of entire civilian populations. Your argument doesn't seem to be that the yahweh did not engage in genocide as that it was justified genocide.
Out of curiosity, would you consider Thanksgiving a genocide of turkeys?
No. No one is trying to exterminate Turkey's. The moral implications of raising animals as food aside it is not the extermination of any species.
#197
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
Your argument doesn't seem to be that the yahweh did not engage in genocide as that it was justified genocide.
I would actually say my argument is that only humans can commit genocide, and that the act of genocide would be a morally neutral act without the existence of God.

The turkey question was just to raise the point that most people make a distinction between humans and animals when it comes to moral issues - except allegedly RationalMadman, though I haven't heard a defense of his position yet...

You could replace the example with an exterminator seeking to systematically destroy an entire population of termites or whatever. If we treat human interactions with other humans different than interactions with animals, I don't see why we wouldn't also make a distinction between God and humans.

Now if we're talking about the Christian God, we are talking about an all-powerful being who created humans and defines morality outside of human opinion. This is why morality in this view is objective. God sets the standard and humans must follow it. So if God sets the standard or the law saying, "If you do this then you will die," it is perfectly just for God to carry out this punishment.

Now there are things that God can do that humans can't. This would be similar to saying that there are things that law enforcement can do that civilians can't. From that perspective, only humans can commit genocide because a human killing another human wrongfully is murder, and on a massive scale it is genocide. God cannot wrongfully kill someone, so He cannot commit genocide. Even from our subjective standpoint, genocide is a crime and God is not committing a crime either. He's the one who determines what crime is.

#198
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I would actually say my argument is that only humans can commit genocide
Does that excuse the act if perpetuated by an acting agent who is not a human?
the act of genocide would be a morally neutral act without the existence of God.
That is an odd position given that what you actually seem to be arguing is that genocide (or whatever you want to call it when some god(s) commit the act) is a morally neutral act for god(s).
You could replace the example with an exterminator seeking to systematically destroy an entire population of termites or whatever. If we treat human interactions with other humans different than interactions with animals, I don't see why we wouldn't also make a distinction between God and humans.
So your argument is that if the yahweh exists it is morally neutral at worst if he treats us like cockroaches and exterminated us? So again not so much that the Yahweh's actions cannot be directly compared to Hitler's as that the yahweh is justified in perpetuating the same sort of mass slaughter that hitler did or worse?
Now if we're talking about the Christian God, we are talking about an all-powerful being who created humans and defines morality outside of human opinion.
Ok and what makes that more than just the Yahweh's personal subjective opinion?
God cannot wrongfully kill someone, so He cannot commit genocide. 
So of the two of us you are actually the one that is arguing that the systematic extermination of unarmed civilian populations cam be moral. 
#199
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
Now I will address your post but first I have to ask, do you think that someone who breaks the law should be punished according to that law?
#200
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Legal and moral are different distinctions. Lawful and unlawful do not necessarily correlate directly with right and wrong. Rather I believe that if you are  caught and proven guilty you will be punished according to the law.

#201
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
Well God's law is a perfectly moral law because He sets the standard of morality and He is the judge of His creation (including us). So if someone breaks a law in which the punishment is death, then wouldn't God be unjust if He didn't carry out that punishment?

This principle would be true in the American justice system as well. If a serial killer was tried and convicted of murder and the judge just let him walk free, we would seriously question the character of that judge.
#202
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Well God's law is a perfectly moral law
I don't know what to say to someone who thinks it is moral to exterminate unarmed civilian human populations except I disagree.
#203
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't know what to say to someone who thinks it is moral to exterminate unarmed civilian human populations except I disagree.

Well unfortunately that's all you can say. But what if every single person in that population was a convicted serial killer? Would making them unarmed civilians make them any less guilty and deserving of punishment?
#204
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
So in your hypothetical children too young to walk are serial killers? I must admit it is hard to take this thought experiment seriously.

#205
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
No they are not serial killers. But they are sinners against a holy and righteous God. Every single person is born in sin and is guilty before God. The problem is that you are stealing from my worldview to even have pity on the death of children. Your worldview says that it is just a restructuring of matter; they are just meaningless clusters of molecules and it doesn't matter what happens to them.
#206
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
My empathy is not borrowed from anywhere it is my own.
#207
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I thought we agreed that subjective =/= lacking legitimacy. 
#208
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
But we also established that emotions are nothing more than uncontrollable chemical reactions happening in your brain. This creates two problems.

First, you cannot choose to be empathetic. If you have no mechanism to control the chemical reactions producing what you call "empathy," than you cannot choose to be empathetic toward the death of children any more than you can choose not to feel joy over it. So you can't take any kind of moral high ground since your feelings of empathy aren't your own, they are just a random by-product of molecules bumping into each other.

Second, empathy is an immaterial concept. What you call empathy is simply a chemical reaction in your worldview. It is essentially no different than making toast. You are then appealing to an immaterial concept to make any argument at all. So you either have to abandon the immaterial concept of empathy completely or you have to abandon your materialistic worldview.
#209
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
First, you cannot choose to be empathetic. 

So what? I still am. I have no choice.

If humans don't establish standards of morality there are none because humans are the only observable beings who seem capable of participating in the conversation. 

Also materialism isn't my worldview skepticism is. I know the brain is involved in our thoughts and emotions. If there is anything else involved you will have to demonstrate it.
#210
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
Could you please explain how skepticism is a worldview?

Also, you have not demonstrated how empathy exists. You have stated that we can demonstrate that there is a chemical reaction in our brain, and we seem to think that reaction corresponds with the immaterial concept of empathy. But you have not demonstrated that empathy itself exists.