Animal telepathy is just as controversial as human mind-to-mind communication. Many people think the whole subject is ridiculous. Others believe it's absolutely true. Some people rush to embrace it, consulting animal psychics and even trying to contact lost pets. Others refuse to participate for spiritual reasons, if they feel that it's contrary to their beliefs.
Science has some evidence for non-verbal communication that does not seem to involve body language. There is no definitive proof one way or the other to present to sceptics. However, some of the research is very interesting, not to mention disturbing to our human complacency.
In twentieth-century research done with true scientific method, possible emotional connection between animal and plant species was studied. It was demonstrated that plants could apparently respond to emotions experienced by animals. If tiny shrimp were thrown into boiling water, sensors on plants in adjoining rooms recorded a disturbance. Moving the plants farther away within the building did not lessen this response.
This is disturbing to those of us who eat plants, shrimp, and other organic foods. Of course, we have to eat something, and it does not seem possible to survive on inorganic material. We can be reassured by biblical accounts of the Creator providing plants for our food and Jesus partaking of the Passover lamb. We just have to come to terms with the fact that our food might be sentient.
So why should it be impossible to tap into the thoughts of 'higher' kinds of animals? (It was once thought that single-cell organisms, for instance, were less advanced than more complex organisms. The electro-magnetic microscope and DNA studies have changed that thinking.) It makes sense that creatures that can communicate with each other - like whales and dolphins and migrating birds - could communicate with humans.
Horses are subjects that psychics say they can communicate with. Many owners consult an animal communicator if they feel that they do not understand one of their equine companions. One owner was told that her new horse was wondering where his blanket was. It was true that the former owner had always blanketed the animal in the stall and that the new owner did not.
As far as the ethical or spiritual aspect of this sort of communication, it is not forbidden to Christians at least. In the Bible, a donkey speaks to a prophet. Ravens feed the hungry. The scriptures forbid asking for guidance from psychics; Christians are to look to God and the Holy Spirit for help and direction. But otherwise, using the gifts of those who can pick up the emotions of animals does not seem wrong, as long as it is not a substitute for prayer.
This is an example of how subjective the response to animal telepathy can be. On the other hand, it's hard to ignore things like telepathy among aborigines in Australia that help them find prey animals they depend on for food, or the connection the Inuit people share with animals. Perhaps there is a lot to learn about this subject for all of us.
Science has some evidence for non-verbal communication that does not seem to involve body language. There is no definitive proof one way or the other to present to sceptics. However, some of the research is very interesting, not to mention disturbing to our human complacency.
In twentieth-century research done with true scientific method, possible emotional connection between animal and plant species was studied. It was demonstrated that plants could apparently respond to emotions experienced by animals. If tiny shrimp were thrown into boiling water, sensors on plants in adjoining rooms recorded a disturbance. Moving the plants farther away within the building did not lessen this response.
This is disturbing to those of us who eat plants, shrimp, and other organic foods. Of course, we have to eat something, and it does not seem possible to survive on inorganic material. We can be reassured by biblical accounts of the Creator providing plants for our food and Jesus partaking of the Passover lamb. We just have to come to terms with the fact that our food might be sentient.
So why should it be impossible to tap into the thoughts of 'higher' kinds of animals? (It was once thought that single-cell organisms, for instance, were less advanced than more complex organisms. The electro-magnetic microscope and DNA studies have changed that thinking.) It makes sense that creatures that can communicate with each other - like whales and dolphins and migrating birds - could communicate with humans.
Horses are subjects that psychics say they can communicate with. Many owners consult an animal communicator if they feel that they do not understand one of their equine companions. One owner was told that her new horse was wondering where his blanket was. It was true that the former owner had always blanketed the animal in the stall and that the new owner did not.
As far as the ethical or spiritual aspect of this sort of communication, it is not forbidden to Christians at least. In the Bible, a donkey speaks to a prophet. Ravens feed the hungry. The scriptures forbid asking for guidance from psychics; Christians are to look to God and the Holy Spirit for help and direction. But otherwise, using the gifts of those who can pick up the emotions of animals does not seem wrong, as long as it is not a substitute for prayer.
This is an example of how subjective the response to animal telepathy can be. On the other hand, it's hard to ignore things like telepathy among aborigines in Australia that help them find prey animals they depend on for food, or the connection the Inuit people share with animals. Perhaps there is a lot to learn about this subject for all of us.
About the Author:
You can visit the website www.petstellthetruth.com for more helpful information about Is Animal Telepathy For Real?
No comments:
Post a Comment