Do Animals Have Religion?

[The Hammer]

...not even close to the two Covenants in reference here.

Right.

But when I said this: "For there to be variability there has to be at least 2 points."

You responded with "2 covenants".

But what I was discussing there was Duality.

 

[DNB]

Oh please, if some stoneage tribe of humans made cairns of rocks by certain trees, we would call it religion.

No we wouldn't - you're taking for granted that, if we did, it is because we have already induced that man has an innate propensity to attain to the sublime, or acknowledge and understand its realm. This has been proven throughout EVERY SINGLY CULTURE AND SOCIETY, THROUGHOUT HISTORY.
That is, we are not referring to one single remote tribe, as in the case of these simple and primitive monkeys.

Are we really even trying to compare the two evidences, ....absolutely no contest, like seriously!!!!

 

[DNB]

Right.

But when I said this: "For there to be variability there has to be at least 2 points."

You responded with "2 covenants".

But what I was discussing there was Duality.

My point was the antithesis that lies between the two Covenants i.e. works versus faith.
Either way, you're talking nonsense - duality is conflict and confusion, it is not symbiosis as your fable stories seem to have impressed upon you.
Light dispels the darkness (not the other way around). Good eliminates evil, and exposes it for what it is, putting it to shame and humiliation. A liar is a coward and a weakling. just as a thief is desperate and incompetent.

The conception of duality as a universal principle of completeness and wholeness, is foolish and naïve. Righteousness rules, and it has no opposing counterparts that either compliment it, nor enhances it. It supersedes and circumvents everything antagonistic to it.

 

[The Hammer]

The conception of duality as a universal principle of completeness and wholeness, is foolish and naïve. Righteousness rules, and it has no opposing counterparts that either compliment it, nor enhances it. It supersedes and circumvents everything antagonistic to it.

Sure thing.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

No we wouldn't

Now you are just not being honest. Which means conversation over.

 

[DNB]

Now you are just not being honest. Which means conversation over.

You're talking nonsense, and again, taking much too much for granted.
Placing rocks around trees,. IndigoChild, is absolutely meaningless unless the notion of God has already been introduced into one's comprehension - get it?
This, man has done by writing treatises, doctorates, dissertations, tomes, commentaries, Bibles, Mishnahs and Talmuds, homilies and polemics on the subject matter.
No one assumes anything unless a being with the capacity to do so, imparts the notion and definition. So, if man had not expressed the concept of God, those simple and basal monkeys that you give so much credit to, would never in a million years be assumed to be religious - it's an anachronistic notion..

Man precipitated the concept of God, and not the other way around. God spoke to man and made Himself known to man, and not to any other creature on the planet, obviously.