Thread: Religion on other animals?

I've also thought about that. Typical Christian beliefs would mean no animals could go to heaven because they don't believe in God or Jesus, so they would be punished for eternity. Buddhism makes more sense to me because it doesn't give you any specific "laws" that you have to follow or you will be punished forever, but it says animals were reincarnated as animals because in a past life as a human they didn't live the way they should've. After their life as an animal is over, they are reincarnated as a human to try again so they can eventually live in heaven. I believe in God and Jesus, but at the same time a lot of my philosophy and beliefs are Buddhist.

Pretty much. Without getting into whether the supernatural has any evidence in its favour or any of that stuff, it's very safe to say, "religions are man-made abstractions over some aspects of spirituality in general."

Interesting topic choice... I've found myself wondering this on occasion as well. I'm not even sure where I stand on the subject of animal heaven. I watch a lot of nature stuff. I try to study everything that I can when it comes to nature and animals, and it seems to me all animals are at the mercy of their most basic instincts. Eat, sleep, reproduce, etc. But when you come to reproduction, animals differ from even each other. Some will fight to the death to protect their young. Others will try to eat their young almost immediately after they are born. These actions aren't just few and far between either, they are species oriented. You have to ask yourself why.

I've come to learn that nature as a whole is perfect. The entire cycle runs itself by itself. Humans are wild cards. There is a species of fungi in the jungle that attacks insects and kills them. It's called cortyceps, and will be the basis of an upcoming video game by Naughty Dog called The Last of Us. Only on PS3. Anyway, what fascinates me about this fungus is that there are thousands of different types and each type focuses on only a single species of insect. The purpose of this fungus, to the best of our knowledge, is population control. The way it works is it infects an insect and messes with its mind, driving the insect into whatever colony or hive it's from and forces them upward. Once they've reached a nice spot, they hold on to a branch or something and then they die. The fungus then sprouts from its head and erupts, releasing more fungus into the surrounding area and maximizing range due to the insects height. Scientists have noticed this only occurs once a population reaches the point where it threatens to take over. Absolutely amazing.

The point im trying to make is that in nature, everything has its place and purpose. Animals do not have the same control over their lives as we do. If there is an animal heaven, then they all go. If there isn't, then it's because they get reincarnated as Human or some other form of intelligent life (that's another discussion for another day). That's my opinion

Animals don't need religion because they never ate the fruit of knowledge of good and evil.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Animals don't need religion because they never ate the fruit of knowledge of good and evil.

But what is the fruit of knowledge? According to the Bible, God didn't want us to die, but because they ate the fruit, we all die. All animals die.

Just a question from an atheist passerby: How did God expect Adam and Eve to recognize that eating the fruit of knowledge was wrong before they had the ability to discern between right and wrong? And also, why didn't God want them to be able to differentiate between the two? Where is the crime in knowing right from wrong? None of the laws God gave to his people afterwards seemed to frown upon understanding basic morality...

Originally Posted by SnowyCat

Just a question from an atheist passerby: How did God expect Adam and Eve to recognize that eating the fruit of knowledge was wrong before they had the ability to discern between right and wrong? And also, why didn't God want them to be able to differentiate between the two? Where is the crime in knowing right from wrong? None of the laws God gave to his people afterwards seemed to frown upon understanding basic morality...

The countless parts of the bible that seem to contradict themselves are a small part of why I don't understand Christianity. I also can't imagine God being a dictator who sits on his cloud or whatever condemning people to eternal punishment because of one or two mistakes during their relatively short lives or because they don't worship him. It doesn't make any sense to me at all.

Not being religious, I would have guessed a religious person might say that because animals don't have the sufficient sentience to understand the indirect consequences of their actions, and therefore are not accountable such actions (which are almost always necessary for survival). They can also obviously not comprehend any type of god or higher power that we might, and I suppose it would be 'unfair' to subject them to the same laws.

But then again, maybe there's a doggy heaven overseen by a doggy god?

Not being religious, I would have guessed a religious person might say that because animals don't have the sufficient sentience to understand the indirect consequences of their actions, and therefore are not accountable such actions (which are almost always necessary for survival). They can also obviously not comprehend any type of god or higher power that we might, and I suppose it would be 'unfair' to subject them to the same laws.

But then again, maybe there's a doggy heaven overseen by a doggy god?

Apologies for the double (and now triple) post.

From what I understand, animals don't go to heaven, but the lion will lie down with the lamb. It's all pretty clear.

there are animals in heaven (maybe not animals as we know them but there are ''animals')
there are a few selected animals that went to heaven, they have an human body


animals are here on earth to test us ,(what we do to animals is the same as we do to humans)
are we helping them (good) or treat them bad (evil)
this will judge us humans on the day of judgement,
Animals cease to exhist (they don't go to heaven nor hell,neither pain nor bliss).

Originally Posted by SnowyCat

Just a question from an atheist passerby: How did God expect Adam and Eve to recognize that eating the fruit of knowledge was wrong before they had the ability to discern between right and wrong? And also, why didn't God want them to be able to differentiate between the two? Where is the crime in knowing right from wrong? None of the laws God gave to his people afterwards seemed to frown upon understanding basic morality...

If God set it up so they would wrong him just so he could punish them, then it makes sense. From reading the rest of the bible, it is pretty clear God is a sadist, so setting up others to fail so he has a reason to harm them actually fits in well.

Originally Posted by SnowyCat

Just a question from an atheist passerby: How did God expect Adam and Eve to recognize that eating the fruit of knowledge was wrong before they had the ability to discern between right and wrong? And also, why didn't God want them to be able to differentiate between the two? Where is the crime in knowing right from wrong? None of the laws God gave to his people afterwards seemed to frown upon understanding basic morality...

Those naked people in the woods knew it was wrong to do something that might introduce them to the concept of wrong. It was an act so heinous that it makes sense for all other humans to suffer, unless they accept God as their savior from God. Well, people who have done that need to suffer too. God sacrificed himself to himself so that later on he wouldn't hurt us on purpose. My hero!

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Those naked people in the woods knew it was wrong to do something that might introduce them to the concept of wrong. It was an act so heinous that it makes sense for all other humans to suffer, unless they accept God as their savior from God. Well, people who have done that need to suffer too. God sacrificed himself to himself so that later on he wouldn't hurt us on purpose. My hero!

Technically something has to be given up, killed or lost to be considered a sacrifice. Seeing as how Jesus didn't die, and he came back it can't really be called a sacrifice. It was more like a 3 day vacation.

Originally Posted by typodnow

there are animals in heaven (maybe not animals as we know them but there are ''animals')
there are a few selected animals that went to heaven, they have an human body


animals are here on earth to test us ,(what we do to animals is the same as we do to humans)
are we helping them (good) or treat them bad (evil)
this will judge us humans on the day of judgement,
Animals cease to exhist (they don't go to heaven nor hell,neither pain nor bliss).

I love Aesops Fables and fairy tales.

Originally Posted by Alric

Technically something has to be given up, killed or lost to be considered a sacrifice. Seeing as how Jesus didn't die, and he came back it can't really be called a sacrifice. It was more like a 3 day vacation.

I read your post and then immediately went to YouTube. The first thing I saw was a suggested video, this one:

Originally Posted by Woodstock

I've also thought about that. Typical Christian beliefs would mean no animals could go to heaven because they don't believe in God or Jesus, so they would be punished for eternity. Buddhism makes more sense to me because it doesn't give you any specific "laws" that you have to follow or you will be punished forever, but it says animals were reincarnated as animals because in a past life as a human they didn't live the way they should've. After their life as an animal is over, they are reincarnated as a human to try again so they can eventually live in heaven. I believe in God and Jesus, but at the same time a lot of my philosophy and beliefs are Buddhist.

Yeah, no. You're stapling the concept of sin to the concept of karma and making the universe revolve around humans with a gratuitous "so they can eventually live in heaven" thrown in. Living in heaven would be an unfortunate detour for a Buddhist, human births are considered exceptionally rare (which can also be established with simple math without even venturing into non-animal realms), and there's no "should've." One's existence becomes that of an animal if one's habits are those of an animal.

With regard to the OP, Buddhism regards animals along with humans, gods, devils, angels and ghosts as being more or less in the same boat, with the exception that humanity offers the optimum mix of awareness and dissatisfaction to allow buddhas to emerge and lead others out of the suffering and dissatisfaction inherent in our existence (regardless of whether we're humans, animals, gods, devils, angels or ghosts). There's a sort of recycling of sentience that has nothing to do with anyone labeling your actions good or bad so much as like begetting like, and effects being constrained by their causes.