Most zoologists and animal behaviourists have long contended that our tendency to apply human interpretation/invocation to the behaviour of various animal specie (be they domestic or wild) should be done with great caution, lest we fall into the trap of procedurally elevating them to the level of human predisposition.
Nowhere is this tendency to "humanize" animal behaviour more obvert than in the observation that various animal specie, from cats and dogs, to crows, elephants, and whales goes through what appears to be ritualized activities, when dealing with the death of a kin. Ritualized activities that seem to support the idea that humans are not the only sentient specie that mourn the death of a loved one or a kindred.
Could we go further and say that this ability to mourn, not only signal sentience, and cognition, but volition and creation as well? These four characteristic are typically what defines humans, soulful or otherwise.
Many many people love their pets, and yes pets have the ability to feel some sort of affection and attachment to humans, even specific humans sometimes.
But...if you're trying to close the soul/spirit gap or even the natural gap between humans and animals, it can't be done. There will always be a huge difference between the two species.
Humans and all the other sentient entities are members in good standing of what we call the animal kingdom. Some would caution however, that humans, having reached its current niche in the natural world, should never be hubristic enough to conclude that they are the undisputed ruler of that kingdom. Our dominance over the earth is not an acceptable formulation to some folks i.e. the objectiviists/reductionists/nihilists amongst us. To these folks, the fact that we share the most basic of genetic codes with other animal specie, is an indication that humans are not any more special, important, purposeful, meaningful, than the others.... the unassailable existence of the human soul, notwithstanding.
Well, I'm pretty sure that connection was made by some person (perhaps a "scientist") who chose to make that connection and it picked up speed and kept rolling. I personally don't have to agree with whatever definition of "animal" or "species" or "humanity" some other person came up with! I have as much common sense as any scientist, and I maintain that humans and animals are two separate species. I am not a part of the "animal kingdom" and animals are not a part of humanity.
Not just the Bible, but common knowledge tells us that there's a huge difference between humans and animals. Of course we're more special!
I'll take that as a compliment.
As anyone should.
For some, the topic of evolution is indeed common knowledge, while it completely escapes the grasp of others, for various reasons.
For example, although humans are indeed classified as a species, animals are not.
@Brenda Durham~ Thankfully scientists need more than "common sense", as you put it, to be qualified...
Somebody really didn't pay attention in biology class.
TWO species? Two? Try millions. All animals are not part of the same species. And yes, there are differences between Homo sapiens and other species, just like there's a big difference between a dog and a cat, or a robin and a chicken.
Well then, there are six biological kingdoms - Animalia, Plantae, Fungi, Protista, Archaea, and Bacteria. If you aren't part of the animal kingdom, then you're a plant, a fungus, or some type of microorganism such as a bacterium.
Thanks for reminding folks that Homo Sapiens is not the only animal specie on earth. I stil remember my old Biology/Zoology professor, Dr. Pozon, with respect and admiration for his love of the natural world.
Again, no I'm not part of the animal species.
Just because someone else chooses to classify humans as animals doesn't make it so!
Biologically/zoologically speaking Homo Sapiens is, for classification and comparison purposes, an animal specie. Now philosophically speaking, you have a point in saying that humans may classify themselves apart and or distinct from the other sentient entities.
I think I persist in making my point because society seems to avoid differentiating between the two. I mean, seriously, even around these forums, some atheists and evolutionists have taken to declaring that they (and I, in order to mock me) are "Great Apes" and such. I think they think if they say it enough, people will start to believe it. Heck, they already have! lol. It's a common misconception that humans are "animals" both biologically and philosophically! And that idea has come from the erroneous classification by some "scientist" or whoever created that label.
No, it's a verified fact beyond any shadow of a doubt that humans are animals, every scientist on the planet knows that. Children know and understand that. Denying these clear and simple to understand facts is well beyond any reasonable or rational grasp of reality, not even tenuous at best.
Wait a minute.
Exactly why were humans labeled as animals?
Think about it before you answer.
Why should we believe whichever "scientist" or "scientists" labeled us as animals, when in FACT we can look around us and see reality, see the difference between us and animals?
And it is also a fact that humans are Great Apes:
Great apes are members of the family Hominidae, which includes humans, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans.
But of course:
WHO made up that definition?
And why do we have to go by that?
The answer is we do not.
As I said before, we can see reality. We can literally see the difference between humans and animals.
The scientific group or person/s who started the rumor about humans being animals were in great error, and their error has perpetuated the idea that biological evolution is valid.
Even the Bible confirms the difference, tells us that the two "species" are indeed separate.
Genesis gives the story of creation, which lays out the facts.
And here's another verse that tells-----
1Corinthians 15: 39:
"All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds."
What do you mean, who made it up? Why is that even relevant?
Because it is fact.
True, one can deny any fact they wish to deny. The problem comes when one denies one fact but easily accepts another. Then, it becomes a matter of honesty.
Sorry, that verse is dead wrong. We can look at the biological makeup of humans and other animals and find many similarities.
And of course we postmodern humans should accept the authority of a 2000 year old text, written by charlatans claiming to be taking dictation from God.
Sorry, but that would be totally unwise.
Yes, let's get all of our biological information from the Bible, the very same book that asserts that whales are fish and not mammals.
You mentioned that just because someone says that we are animals that does not make it so.. Let me ask you this (as a fellow Christian).. How do you know that your use and interpretation of this scripture is the correct one?
This scripture could actually be saying the same thing that science is.. That we are not the same on a deeper biological level.. Meaning that there are different classes of flesh... I think the current term is species. No, humans are not the same as birds, fish, nor other beasts. But then again, Humans are classified as mammals. Homo sapiens fundamentally part of the animal kingdom. The separation comes on a more complex scale when you take genetics into consideration..
Humans decided what the word "animal" means are, and humans decided we meet all the criteria. So, yeah, people saying it is what makes it true.
Not sure what you mean.
Those verses are straightforward and easily interpreted. They simply say that humans are different from the animals, from the birds, from all other creatures.
Well, yes, I do too see what you may be trying to say...........that all flesh may be different, but the same in worth or whatever?..........aargh....no.
Combining the simple interpretation with the fact that the Bible doesn't anywhere say that God sent Jesus to die for any creatures except humans (it even omits the angels from salvation!), so....taking those factors into account, I don't see how that can be complicated.
The Bible's simplicity is so often deliberately complicated by people who doubt its basic truths; and sometimes even us Christians are tempted by that propoganda if we're not very careful!
Everything that is written is subject to the interpretation of the reader. This is why there are so many denominations of Christianity. People putting their own interpretation of scripture and stating that their interpretation is correct because their interpretation is the straightforward one.
Yes, I know there are many people/denominations who interpret things differently. That should not be, but it is. And yeah it's sad and bad.
The worst thing is that so many people think the basics are open to different interpretations. They're not validly open to other interpretations.
Take Genesis 1: 1, for example.
There's no valid way to misinterpret that.
Yet people have tried to! Amazing.
There are some scriptures that are written as to be straightforward. But the one I responded to is not one of them. There are other scriptures that aren't as straightforward as others. This is where interpretation comes into play
So.....then do you interpret that Scripture to mean that humans are the same as animals?
Saying 'humans are animals' is not saying' humans are the same as animals'.
on a basic fundamental level, yes. But when you get into genetic structure, habits, and some of the more deeper levels, no two animal is exactly the same although they share similar traits. Look at it like this. All animals have brains, correct? animals bleed, correct? Animals reproduce offspring, correct? Animals have the ability to reason things out according to their environment, correct? Animals adapt to survive, correct?
Humans have brains, Humans bleed. Humans reproduce offspring. Humans reason depending to their environment, Humans adapt to survive..
So, Explain to me how humans aren't animals.
I've done so in this thread.
The burden of proof now lies with you.
Explain to me how animals are human, if you think you can.
I already did. I explained the similarities between humans and animals that would classify human by nature and species as animals. Nobody is saying that it is an exact thing, as it would appear that you are thinking is being said. I even acknowledged that the similarities that go into the classification are the same while the specifics that make each animal are very different. Nobody is saying that animals are EXACTLY human. Animals and humans are similar in basic fundamental ways. But when you get into design overall every animal is different
Deepes I prefer to address this as "humans, and other animals." meaning humans are not to be differentiated......just as you can also say cats and other animals....or moles are different from other animals because....
Similarities isn't the defining factor.
If it were, we could say we're in the same species as insects, because we share similarities, like we all breathe, we have legs of sorts, we "work", as do ants! lol, etc.....we have eyes and ears or other hearing mechanisms, etc.
Yet we are not insects!!
I think you're trying to say that humans are of the animal species, but are a "higher" form or whatever.
Notice above that I said prove to me that animals are human.
Some people are satisfied with the theory that humans are animals, but animals aren't necessarily human.
I am not satisfied with that theory, because it's a lie.
I never said humans are a higher form of animal. I said humans are animal. How we act within our own species and environment is no better or worse than how other animals act within their own specific environment. It is all the same. based in the individual and their view of the world and how it suits them. I cannot say that I am higher than a wolf because I have never been a wolf to know how they specifically live nor to know all the differences.
Some have proposed including chimpanzees (genus Pan) in the same genus as human beings (genus Homo) to recognise these similarities, calling them Homo troglodytes. Though this is controversial, it emphasizes how similar we really are.
Thanks for reminding me of my high school biology class Getit...LOL..
Glad to be of assistance....since your assertions are the ones that make any sense at all to any rational, thinking human being.. Thank goodness you are not one of those Christians who just makes up stuff to assuage your ego..
If you choose to continue to allow yourself to be classified as an animal, that's up to you.
I do not.
And that's fine. You don't want to be classified that way (for reasons I do not know). But it doesn't change anything other than you prefer to refer to yourself in a different manner.
See, this is an example of misinterpretation of words. You have read what myself and others have written and concluded that we are saying that animals are human. Animals cannot be human because the term "Animal" is actually a classification of a group of organisms that share similar traits, same as fungi, minerals, plants, etc. What we are saying is that Humans fall under that specific classification and category because humans share similar traits to other organisms (such as the ones I mentioned before)that fall under the same category of what is classified as animals. We are all uniquely different. that is why we were all given different names. But the classification is the same.
I see. There, you've said what I've just said.
I understand what you mean.
However, the thing you don't seem to understand is this----
The classification was made by some person who simply wanted to classify it that way.
I maintain that their classification is erroneous entirely.
And as long as people continue to accept that erroneous definition, they will be unable to fully understand and explain the facts of human life and animal life.
Humans are not animals, anymore than animals are human.
Humanity is an entirely separate species on its own.
Right.. You said species. With this word, you have just made everyone else's case... Humans are a species of animal, just like a dog is a species of animal, just like a cat is a species of animal. All animals are different because they are separated by species. But all animals are the same. they are a classification of different species of organisms that share the same traits
Humans are their own separate species.
Do you still not understand?
The classifications are wrong.
Those classifications, from the definitions to the application of the theories, are based on error.
Man! Talk about the Bible being susceptible to error!! It's so-called "science" that's in huge error!! And people have kept letting themselves be classified as animals for all this time, just because somebody else said it was a fact! Amazing.
So you are basically saying that humans are a separate classification of organism? there is humans, animals, plants, fungi, and everything else?
Yes, if you want to put it that way.
Humanity is an entirely separate species than any other living thing.
Yes, if you're gonna classify yourself as an animal, you might as well classify yourself as a fish or a bird or an insect too.
Every living is an entirely different species than every other living thing. That's why they are called by their unique name. If you refused to be classified as being part of a specific group, then Why do you call yourself a Christian? Christian is a classification of a group of individuals that share some similarities. But A baptist Christian is not the same as a Pentecostal, Methodist, and so on and so forth..
If you are so adamant about not being classified by one thing, then why allow yourself to be classified at all? Why only allow it as it suits you to be classified?
Because I am a Christian, period.
A believer in and follower of Jesus the Christ.
Just because some other people have made different denominations or religions out of that word, doesn't mean I'm going to refuse to be called a Christian. It is they who've categorized it wrongly, not me.
so you're accepting that classification because you've determined yourself to be unique in relation to how others have classified it, but you are still using the same classifying word? Each denomination considers themselves unique but fundamentally they still call themselves Christian because they believe in and follow the bible just like you.
Interesting that you will accept this classification (while maintaining your uniqueness) but not any other classifications that may be out there, even though you are still unique..
I don't just "accept" that classification; I embody that classification because in its pure form it simply means a born-again, blood-bought follower of Jesus.
Others besides actual Christians may try to claim that label, but they are in error if they're not born-again Christians.
Let me ask you this.. What is it about Humans that make us a different classification (other than the bible?)
Observance. Common sense. Open your eyes; observe animals and humans. The difference is so obvious it's startling, and yet so commonplace that it shouldn't be startling.
Strange because I am a behaviourist trained in observing humans and other animals. And it is not that obvious to me.
So in your "observance", are you considering the idea and possibility that the behavior of animals are in direct relation to their own habitat? Are you looking at the behavior of an animal and thinking how you would behave if you were that specific animal in that habitat? Or is your observation colored by the fact that you are not that animal and as such do not have that animal's instincts that would allow it to survive in that habitat? If your answer is no you were not thinking like that animal, but like a human then I'd rethink how common your "sense" is because any human can look at the behaviors of animals and note how natural it is for that animal to act to survive as according to its environment. You should also consider the idea that before the discovery of fire as well as the evolution of thought that lead to the development of tools humans behaved the same way in order to survive. Humans did not always have fire, tools, technology. They killed however they could and ate the meat raw.
But I digress, And I am going to excuse myself from this particular conversation because Again it is your right to believe however you choose. The truth is unbiased and how You view things or how I view them do not change the way things are or what we are.
Quick! Name a personality trait that is unique to humans!
Hint: "Mourning the dead" does not count, as that is done by elephants. "Sex for pleasure" has been taken by dolphins and rhesus macaques, and "paying for porn" is done by the bonobos.
Name an animal, other than humans, that can empathize with the suffering of another species halfway across the world.
I believe the trait you're fishing for is "empathy," which is an extremely common animal trait often exhibited in your everyday household by your pet dog.
As for the super-specific niche of "empathy for other creatures across the globe," that's just asinine and you should be ashamed for posting something so dumb. Of course they can't empathize with anything on the other side of the globe--they're most likely not even aware there IS an other side to the globe.
Empathy is a trait shared with other animals, but my point was that our ability to empathize transcends theirs tremendously. It is asinine to not be able to follow such a simple point. IMO.
How does it transcend their immensely. I have seen a cat suffer so deeply he did not eat or move because another cat was ill. I think his empathy transcended even his will to live. I, personally, have never felt that kind of empathy.
That was for another cat. Call me when he starves himself because a mouse is ill. Or a moose. That would be interesting.
Would you starve yourself if a mouse or a moose was ill? No? But I thought humans had much greater empathy!
A friend of mine who lived with his grandma had a cat that was strongly bonded to the grandma. Sadly, the grandmother passed away. The cat died about a month later because he wouldn't eat.
An old cat of mine passed away about a year and a half ago. My bird and the cat never interacted (they mostly ignored each other). However, my bird refused to leave my shoulder for the entire day, which is extremely unusual for him (usually an hour or two of "shoulder time" is all he wants). He was much more snuggly than usual as well. I don't know if he was sad about the cat being gone, or if it was just that he could sense I was upset. Either way, it's an example of an animal showing empathy for another species.
I'm not attempting to trivialize the feelings of animals. However, I have observed that many who claim to see more in animals have a tendency to make decisions that are not in the best interest of animals, because they give them more deference on some levels than is best. An animal lover will fight vehemently against hunting laws, without taking into account the need for population management. Disease and starvation is ignored, I assume because they would rather see them die a horrible death over a longer period. House pets are given more deference than humans. I've seen food drives for dogs when children were hungry.
Balance is necessary. And is often lost in the far end pro animal argument. I give my pets the same consideration I give myself, but it is no where near the consideration society now expects me to give. I find a great deal of hypocrisy in many arguments for animal rights and I feel it its brought about by this belief that animals are no different from us. When any animal, other than human, steps to the microphone to argue the point I'll be all ears. For now, I view the argument as blind. Those who see animals as animals, deserving of respect and logical steps of protection are better friends to animals.
Please demonstrate how you know that humans are have more empathy than any other animal. You've made the claim now back it up with evidence. I guess you are going to go down the list of every animal and supply evidence that they don't have our level of empathy.
There is no known study which shows that your assertion is true. It would be much easier for you to show me the one, than for me to go through the entire animal kingdom. Species by species.
You can believe anything you want to rad man. But, without proof, it is only belief. I would love to see proof that animals think and function on the level we do. Go ahead. Make my day.
You've made the statement, not me, so it up to you to supply the evidence. Empathy has nothing to do with intelligence Emile, you should know this. Do more intelligent people show more empathy?
You are in fact so wrong that I'll show you at least one study that you said doesn't exist.
I didn't say they couldn't empathize. I said they didn't have the ability to empathize with the complexity we do.
I'll make a deal. I didn't watch your you tube video, but I saw the monkey at the beginning. If you think a monkey is just like you...OK. I accept that.
Not only did that video show that they can show empathy it showed they can show more. Maybe you should watch it again. As said in the video, when was the last time you were sitting in a restaurant and have someone else half your food?
So your claim is based on.... just assuming people are better at stuff.
Further, you didn't watch the video that proved even rats show more empathy then some humans and then you call me a monkey? I have to say I'm a little embarrassed for you. I feel your pain.
Hey rad man, I was joking. If you perceive that as me needing to feel pain, than I suppose the joke want funny to you. So, I apologize. But, you really go overboard with this, imo. And it causes me to become flippant. I'm not blind or uncaring, when it comes to the sensitivity of animals and I do think that when we finally understand them we will suffer a great deal of guilt at not giving them more credit. I've been known to brake for butterflies and I do pick up moths disoriented by daylight to help find safe shelter until dark. I catch the occasional mouse that comes in the house and help him into appropriate shelter away from me.
I don't expect the same from our animal friends and I don't begrudge their lack of thought toward others. If the entire Hub Pages community wants to pretend they think on a larger scale than I have observed, that's OK. When I see proof that this is true I'll be ecstatic. I simply don't see it.
You didn't watch the video so you didn't see it. Perhaps you don't want to, I don't know. You asked for a study that showed animals have empathy and I showed you one that shows that even the common rat may have more empathy then we do.
I never said animals don't have the ability to empathize (I am merely unsure that it is wise to put their abilities on the level with ours), but you repeatedly accuse me of having made that statement. Fine. Think what you want. I'll do the same. When I have the time, I'll watch you tube for you. To be perfectly honest, I don't use you tube as a resource for anything other than entertainment, but if you think the video will impart information I am not already privy to, I'll watch it out of courtesy.
No thanks, don't bother, I don't need your courtesy.
Watched your video. Nothing new, or particularly surprising. A couple of comments. Studies have shown that rats become agitated when alone. They are, as you know, pack animals. So, it could be argued that it was not empathy driving the rat's behavior. It was in his best interest to free the other. As to the chocolate chips, pack animals share their food. So, it isn't surprising that the rat shared.
I don't see anything unique enough about the bonobo opening the cage to comment on
That's right Emile, the rat freed the other rat, pulled him out and gave him half the food because he didn't want to be alone, but us humans with all our empathy walk by the homeless without a thought.
You take an isolated experiment and attempt to make conclusions on humanity. I, personally, have never walked past a homeless person without offering something. I wouldn't know how to ignore them.
I guess you don't live in a large city. You'd be broke very quickly if you stopped for every person. It was not an isolated experiment and it wasn't my conclusions. You stated no such experiment was done, I google it and it was the first link I found.
But, the experiment doesn't prove anything conclusively rad man. You do understand that is necessary in order to draw a conclusion. Fairly, anyway. You can always read into it what you want.
I don't want anything. Why would I read anything into it.
From where I'm standing you are. A pack animal, when given the opportunity to stay alone, or find a way to free another of its species, chooses to free another of its species. I don't see anything incredibly astounding in that action. I don't see empathy as the only reason for its actions. You do. Do you think a human, in captivity and alone, given the opportunity to free another enough to share his company wouldn't do the same? Would that human be acting out of empathy, or sating his desire for companionship? Or both?
We have no idea how well fed those rats were. Had the rat been denied food for a period of time, would it have shared? Is sharing food a typical behavior pattern in rats? Were you incarcerated with another human being, would you share? Would you, like the rat, consume 70% of the available nourishment or would you share 50/50? Remember, the rat had no reason to believe that food would not be forthcoming. I assume it was conditioned to expect food at various intervals.
The point is, you watched a video. But, it didn't answer questions that need to be answered in orderto draw hard conclusions. But, you drew them anyway.
I didn't draw them. The conclusion were drawn by those doing the experiments. The rats are given 7 pieces a day, but only ate half of what was there. The same for the chimps, let the chimp out and share.
No, the rat that was initially free ate 3.5 of the chips. Leaving 1.5 for the other rat. Greedy little rodent, if you ask me. (just kidding on the greedy comment. Don't be offended for the rats)
The point is, given similar circumstances of being ostracized from your community, held captive by another species; you would not only do the same, but more. And I would need to see other variables introduced. Such as food deprivation. The possibility of escape alone. These are very rigid parameters, as presented in this clip. I can assure you, the conclusions offered on this you tube video were for entertainment value only.
You know what would be an interesting experiment; take a white lab rat, put it into one of those cages and place it in a New York sewer. Just to see what happens.
Who do they empathize with, and why? Simply because they travel great distances doesn't mean they empathize with anyone in particular.
The point is, we care. To a much greater degree and across more lines than animals do. Can a bird empathize with the snake getting ready to eat it? Can the whale care about the seal it consumes? If the whale knew it was the last pod of seals on earth, would it matter? Would the bird mourn the absence of snakes in its environment?
Empathy probably wasn't the angle I should have gone, but it is our empathy that drives us to action. And, yes many animals do help others. But these are isolated instances compared to our actions. We chose to coexist in instances when it could be argued to be in our best interest to eradicate something. Because we know our best interests are not the only interests that matter.
Our intellect sets us apart and lets us rise above the simple behavior patterns we find in animals that we compare to our own.
WOW!! Really? glad I was paying attention in biology classes
Okay lets line up a few animals including us.
Which one of these things doesn't belong.
Is it no less amazing than people believing the bible is true exactly as written because people say it is so?
No, because whatever is inspired by God, and is about God, and is the autobiography of the Holy Spirit, and is the history of mankind, and is a creation of the very Creator, and is the story of the Savior, and is the testament of that Savior and God the Father as to how very much He loves His creation mankind, is totally believable, whereas some person who calls him/herself a scientist or a factual person.....isn't believable at all when everyone can see the real facts for themselves.
The idea that man is animal is obviously and outright disprovable by just observing the two species.
But the facts of the Bible aren't disproved by our natural eye; matter of fact, they are confirmed by our natural eye.
No no no.. I didn't say anything about whether it is believable.. I said TRUTH.. there is a difference.. The bible is very believable (hence why I believe in it). But the words as written may not be the total TRUTH. Once again.. Writing something under inspiration does not specifically lend itself to being the total TRUTH about something. Events can be exaggerated to inspire awe or fear.
Maybe this has already been pointed out to you, but humans are considered an entirely different species. I think you are getting too hung up on the word animal. Do you also deny that we are mammals? Do we have warm blood? Do we give live birth? Do we produce milk?
Being classified as something doesn't imply that we are any less unique within the world.
Yes it does.
It is why atheists go around thinking they're telling the truth when they say they're Great Apes and call others primates and Great Apes and such nonsense.
It is why advocates for animal "rights" get by with going so far as to try to prosecute someone if they throw a guinea pig out into the alley, but yet refuse to stand up for the rights of an unborn human baby.
She already stated that animals are less than humans, therefore one might conclude that she doesn't care as much about unborn guinea pigs (or any other unborn animal for that matter)
If it looks like a duck and quakes like a duck then...
The term "mammal", when applied to humans, is offensive as well.
It would be okay if it were only used to classify animals that have mammary glands, etc., like humans do. But to put humans directly into that same category is wrong. Because humankind is its own category, its own species.
I don't know about your willingness to accept that, but I am not an animal. And I am not a mammal, even though I have mammary glands etc. There are animals, however, that are "mammals", and I'm kinda okay with that term when applied to them, even though I find it useless really; I do understand that the poor guy/gal who coined that term was simply trying to organize and categorize data; however, it's confusing and based on the misconception that humans are animals.
What part of a warm-blooded vertebrate animal of a class that is distinguished by the possession of hair or fur, the secretion of milk by females for the nourishment of the young and typically gives live birth does not apply to humans?
That has been going on the entire thread, but your religious beliefs have taught you to deny any facts or evidence placed before you.
Of course, the real problem stems from not knowing anything about evolution, yet being so dishonest as to attempt to argue against it here with absolutely nothing other than this to support it...
Well they have to. It's been translated a bunch of different ways and doesn't hold merit to what's understood about the universe.
But the bible was also written by man. Therefore i wouldn't imagine that it would incorporate anything that is different than the writers.
Eh.....unconfuse me please....
I thought you earlier said you were a fellow Christian?
But now you say the Bible was written by man, and you say it in a manner that disavows its integrity??
I am a Christian. But the bible was not written by God. It was written by man "inspired by God". Being inspired by something is not the same as coming from something. This means that the bible has been written by several authors who have their own perceptions and ideas of who and what God is. This does not mean that God does not exist, But it does mean that it is very possible that some of the events in the bible may not have happened exactly as written. You must also keep in mind that the bibles that we have today are copies of interpretations of translations of the original writings. Considering the fact that the meaning of words change when translated from one language to another as well as (most notably with the KJV bible) were rewritten to suit the ambitions of the people that retranslated the bible for various reasons, it can be reasoned that although most of the principles in the bible are true and can be applied, a lot of the events of the OT may not be accurate.
Think of it like this, Do you remember the telephone Game? Where you whisper a message into someone's ear and it goes around the room? how often has the original message been changed by the time it got to the last person? Think about this on a larger scale. This story has been told and retold over hundreds of years. Do you actually believe that it is still the original message after being passed through that many people? Some of the original message may be there, but not the whole thing.. Make sense?
Sure, I know what you mean.
But no I don't buy the rumor that the Bible is changed so much that we can't trust it.
The basics of the Bible cannot possibly be misconstrued without humans being able to discern the truth. I don't care how many people spread the rumor that God didn't create the heaven and earth; the fact of it doesn't change, no matter through what route the false rumors go.
Now, there are some specific denominations (such as the LDS, etc.) that deliberately re-write the Bible or make their own books to specifically tout their particular doctrine; and those cannot be trusted at all.
I never said that the bible couldn't be trusted. I said the people who wrote the bible and reinterpreted the bible can't be trusted. This is why Organized religion is not good. You have to gain your own understanding of the word and not rely on exactly what is written and how it is written. It is going along with how things have been written that has led Believers to develop an unhealthy dependence on God for everything when in fact God empowered us to do things for ourselves.. Should we test the idea of understanding and interpretation of the Bible?
Exactly. It is relevant only to philosophical muse.
Again, there is no ONE animal species. There are millions, and Homo sapiens is one of those species. You could say that humans are the most advanced members of the animal kingdom, and you won't get any argument. However, to say that we aren't part of the animal kingdom is flat out false, no matter how much you believe it. There is no separate biological taxonomic kingdom for humans, period.
Why would zoologists even give that any thought whatsoever? Why would anyone care?
Your post is an excellent example on how nihilism could and would totally eradicate any semblance of empathy to human predisposition. Empathy evokes our natural/emotional/intellectual connectedness to each other and to all the other sentient beings that we share the earth with. Empathy in some ways evokes our spiritual connectedness as well.
Oh but I forgot...you do not believe in the soul and or anything related to the spiritual. A soul-less human. What a pity.
Because humans are curious and whether you believe in Creation or evolution, the fact is that there is something, somewhere, that a human or a group of humans will feel passionate about.
But moreover, people care about this because we wonder what it is that sets us apart from the animals. And one way to try to figure that out is to study animal behaviors.
I've always found it interesting that, according to what I've heard, we humans are the only species that work together as a group, i.e. someone sets a goal and then the group works toward that goal. For instance, building a hospital, or making a car. Someone sets the goal, a group of humans come together, some may be specialized or not, and then work together to create from the vision. Other groups of animals will work together for defense of the herd, but not in the purposeful, sophisticated ways that humans do.
Wolves and lions hunt in packs and as a team. Ants and bees certainly work together for a common goal. That's just off the top of my head.
There are numerous example of animal joint activities including impressive hives and communal nests.
Yes. And not one of those things involves someone with a vision organizing a group to work together. So far, humans are still the only ones.
How can you be so sure? You are looking at things from a human perspective. You cannot know for sure how any of the other living things operate.. unless you are saying you speak and understand the language of all the animals as well as know exactly the specifics of how they think
Because I listen to and read what scientists say.
Yeah, in an absolute sense, unless you're really like Dr. Doolittle and Dr. Who combined you can't really know, I suppose, but based on what we do know, which is quite extensive, humans are the only species that do that.
That doesn't mean that animals don't do some fantastic things. But careful observation by people far more patient than I am has not yielded the insight that there are any lemur colonies out there building high-rises with a/c and central plumbing.
Wrong. Lions hunt in coordinated groups and stalk their chosen prey. Each lioness has a favored position in the group, either stalking prey on the "wing" then attacking, or moving a smaller distance in the centre of the group and capturing prey in flight from other lionesses. They work together under the lead alfa female.
Army ants in Brazil bild a nest out of live ants.
Bees comunicate to other bees where to find pollen.
Wolves hunt in coordinated packs with a common goal.
I think you've missed Chris's point. You've brought up things that help survival. He mentioned projects such as the Taj Mahal and a Wal Mart. How are the two similar?
Well because humans don't do much for free. All of the construction workers and engineers get paid. They get paid to put food on the table. I do work for free from time to time, but I don't expect that favour to go unnoticed. It's all about survival.
I guess that is true, in some instances. I had a party once and we built a deck during it. No one got paid. What about a barn raising? Or, when kids get together to build a treehouse?
Are those the same as lions hunting?
That's true (of MODERN men) but that simply serves to reinforce my point.
Or, let me respond by asking you this, if you we were somehow able to introduce the idea of monetary compensation with which these animals could purchase not only necessities but also "creature comforts" (as they used to be called,) are you asserting that we would, eventually if not immediately, see prides of lions start building lion cities? And herds of zebras building zebra hospitals?
Look, nobody is saying they have our ingenuity or intelligence. But what we see in them is a water downed version of us. If you've never seen the bivouac nest of army ants in brazil you should have a look. They somehow work together and form a nest of live ants complete with chambers.
And still none of those things involve someone drawing up a plan and organizing a group. Especially the bees and ants.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that wonderful things don't happen in the animal world. I concede nothing when I say that nature is fascinating and I love to watch programs that point out and talk about all these things. I think that most animals are smarter than people give them credit for. I'm not just being some crank who asserts that humans are the, ah, "bee's knees" (sorry, couldn't resist) and animals are really just dumb brutes.
What I am saying is that no animal ever built a city or a hospital. Yeah, the living hive is a magnificent thing, but it's not the same. Ants aren't capable of that level of thinking. And when I first heard that a bee's pollen dance resembles certain figures from higher trig, that totally blew me away! I really thought that God has designed some wonderous things in His creation. But it doesn't change my point.
You've changed your point so it does change your point. Your original point was that no other animal works together to obtain the results of a goal. When I show you they do you claim your point was no other animals draw up a plan to build a hospital.
My original point was that no other creature has ever built a city or a hospital. What people have used to "disprove" my point has not done so. I might have made it a little clearer that I am aware that animals work in groups (I did say something about protecting the herd) but I never, ever said that animals don't work in groups while humans do. What I have always maintained is that animals don't work in groups to build sophisticated edifices with intricate details according to a plan envisioned by someone.
I think anyone can see humans are a very interesting species that does some things to a greater extent than any other species.
But I still don't see how that makes us anything other than an interesting species of animal.
Great point, we run slow, but can out run any other animal on distance. We are very week and don't have the longest life. You would think God would have a least let us live longer than a turtle. Perhaps we communicate well, but perhaps whales do that better? We are actually very good at very little.
If we are made in Gods image, does he also have back problems? We humans clearly have some design flaws. Ever wonder why a God would give us an appendix? I had mine removed about 35 years ago. Humans are clearly just as vulnerable to decease as other animals. We have the same bodily functions and limitations as other animals.
God gave us design flaws because He never intended us to be God. I think that's pretty clear if you read the Bible. I don't pretend to have all the answers about specifics but in general that seems pretty clear.
Funny, because I don't see any part of that idea anywhere in the Bible. Perhaps you could give us chapter and verse?
So if humans didn't have back pain we'd think we are Gods? That doesn't really make any sense. Would you want your children to be flawed so they wouldn't be as perfect as you? We tend to have lower back pain as a result of the evolution of walking upright. All of our design flaws can be explained by evolution and evolution only.
Why does our eyesight worsen when we hit 40 when God have us 120?
I did say I didn't really know about specifics. So to pull out one specific is not sticking to the point.
I don't know, God designing us with an end-point would explain it just as well.
I can't make the universe. I'm not the one to ask. If I could literally do anything, then I might not want my kids to be as powerful.
Yes, it says God made us in His image. His design flaws are our design flaws.
Yes, it says God made us in His image. It does NOT say God made us as exact duplicates. We are like paintings, representations. We do not possess all the attributes of the Creator any more than even the best and most realistic self-portrait possesses all the attributes of its painter.
It does NOT say God made us any different than Him, either.
Several places in the Bible say pretty specifically that we are not His equal or not like Him. That seems to be saying that He did NOT make us the same as Him.
You said the Bible said pretty specifically that we are not His equal or not like Him. Why would he not make us his equals? Does he like to be superior?
What?! You think humans should be equal to Him?
We are, after all, just "animals" according to you, correct?
I didn't say we should be equal, I asked why didn't you God make us equal? I want my children to be better, smarter and more powerful then me. Your God didn't do that?
Maybe....you're not on a need-to-know basis?................
since I don't think you're serious at all.
If humans are hypocritical, what's that got to do with your initial point? God didn't want to make us as smart, or as powerful as He. I'm not privy to the mind of God except through the Bible and there are some things that even after 25 years I still don't understand. But I accept it.
What I mean't was those who claim to have a personal relationship with God and communicate, ask for stuff and get it look silly when they can't back it up. When I ask them to ask God for some personal information about me to convince they are being honest, they never even try. A few have told me to ask God myself, I respond, why should ask God for information I already have?
And why should God provide information that you already have?
You've read the Bible and you know it doesn't work that way.
I know it doesn't work that way because prayer doesn't work at all. However people continue to claim it does. They claim God answers all prayers, so I call them on it and they change their tune. These same people only seem to pray for purely selfish reasons which lead me to the conclusion that they are ethically immature. Wouldn't you agree?
Prayer DOES work. But it isn't like magic where if we say the right incantations we can force a supernatural being (God) to do what we want. God will sometimes say "yes" and sometimes "no" and sometimes "wait." He will respond to repeated requests from the heart. He won't dance to some childish tune ("Tell me my favorite candy or I won't believe in you!") Some faith is required, even from those of us who have known God.
Pure chance and happenstance, coupled with possibilities, probabilities and the natural laws of universe produce exactly the same results as, "yes" "no" "wait" with no gods required whatsoever.
The evidence doesn't back that up. Christians are well represented in hospitals.
Boy does that not even begin to address what I actually said.
And I hope I don't have to remind you that I, of all people, am very, very painfully aware of that fact.
Sorry, that does seem insensitive. For that I'm truly am sorry. I typed before I thought.
You're kind thanks, but it's not really okay. I should be better than that. Time to rethink my contributions here.
I would say that Chris is modeling forgiveness well right here. And you, my friend, are rethinking things that may not have quite come across the way you meant them to. What a beautiful exchange between the two of you - who stand at vastly different sides of an issue, but are respectful enough to use apology and forgiveness and respect to draw a little closer to each other.
That's what it's all about.
If I'd never been guilty of shooting off my mouth here I would probably be harsher, but every once in a while we all need to step back and examine what we do and why. I know I do.
And we have a breakthrough. Bridging a gap. This is a great example of respect and forgiveness between two people of differing philosophies.
I mean, you can put any spin on it you want, whether it is the hardcore atheist stance of God being egotistical or the evangelical stance of God doing everything for His own glory, but the bottom line is that He never intended for us to be His equals.
He is God.
And we are not.
I don't have any problem with that!
But I've heard even a Christian pastor try to say we can be equal to God. Amazing how some people who should get wiser with age and experience often do exactly the opposite.
Sorry, but that is just your personal opinion, not supported in scriptures.
Okay, I'll bite. How does Scripture support the contention that He DID intend for us to be His equals?
Sorry.. You missed with this one. This scripture does not state that we were to be his equal. Image is not equal to the original. An image is a replication, not a duplication
So what? You and I are humans with everything that makes us equal, yet we are not duplicates.
But you and I do not have the same abilities as the other. .
Again, your claim is not supported by scriptures.
What is so different about us? What abilities do you have that I don't, and vice versa?
I dunno. that would involve us getting to know each other on a personal level.. which would be done away from HP (which I have no problem with.. I think you would be a cool friend)
So not only does the father make us inferior to him he also make us unequal to each other?
We are also not replications of each other. If a football quarterback has a son who is not athletically gifted, they are not equal. We cannot do most of what God can do and has done, so we are not His equal.
Being athletically gifted is over and above the usual criteria that are part of the vast majority of humans who share many common characteristics: love, hate, jealousy, anger, happiness, etc.
Irrelevant to the point. There is no evidence one way or the other to establish what God can and can't do.
You need to decide what you're arguing here because you just switched it up in the middle. Either God exists or He doesn't and if you choose to say He doesn't that's fine but there still needs to be a consistent definition of God and the one most people use, at least as best they understand it, is the Bible. If you choose to treat Him as malleable then there can be conversation one way or another. Debate needs rules.
Christians use the Bible, Muslims use the Quran, etc. There is no such thing as a "consistent definition of God"
I do no such thing, the Bible is clear on how God behaves, just like any other holy book.
I agree. And if that's the basis you want to use to discuss God (or the lack thereof, I'm not attempting to define your position for you) then I'm good. But don't use that as a basis for some posts, or part of some posts, and then switch up in the middle and say, "There's no proof of God having any characteristics" or whatever similar thing you did say. Either say there's no God and here's why I think your belief is immoral/odd/stupid/not well thought out/whatever or say there's no God and that extends even a definition of God. But don't do both.
You're going to have to do better. Even saying for the sake of argument that the one single verse you produced might be interpreted as God creating and intending us to be His equals, that's just one interpretation. I don't read it that way. And the rest of the Bible supports my view over yours.
But if you have more I'm certainly willing to look.
No, I don't have to do better, the verse is self-explanatory.
But, it doesn't actually say "His equals" either. It says created in "His image". And, while it can easily be argued that one can create something that is a "knock-off" of a superior product, Rolex watches comes to mind as they are one of the most often copied products, the product will work and look just like the original. In other words, the properties may be slightly different, but the characteristics are the same. God and humans have different properties that are our make up, however we both maintain the same characteristics.
You do realize that is not an argument or support in any way to the point being made? It only shows an admittance to defeat followed with a childish, "Nyah, Nyah, Nyah"
Not only that, we have found in the past and will continue to find in the future such contradictions of your view and mine and who the Bible supports.
I doubt that.
I agree, which is why your interpretation is such a mystery.
We maintain some of the same characteristics. Omnipotence and omniscience are not human characteristics. Therefore we don't function the same as God.
All right, then let me be more specific. Nobody that I am familiar with has said that God made us just like Him. Mormons might teach something a bit like that, I'm not sure. But the overwhelming majority of groups that call themselves Christian don't. So please show me.
Also, Isaiah 55:8 directly contradicts your interpretation of the Genesis verse.
Now who's being childish? Aren't I asking and looking?
Sorry, but it can easily be argued God is not omnipotent or omniscient, nor are there any verses making that claim. The only thing that comes close is Mark 10:27, which only refers to "possibilities".
That is an appeal to authority fallacy.
Don't change the subject. You are the one who brought up the continual support of different points of view. If I'm guilty then it was because I was following your lead.
And your insistence upon having exact wording that can be pointed to would be more laudable if you didn't turn around and interpret verses that don't have it. You can't have it both ways. Either there's an entire context for the book or you take each individual verse as a separate unit (you've done both).
This is a very profound statement. The irony of how profound this is would be totally missed though
Yes, please be more specific.
Of course, when you say 'not like Him', that specifically is an explanation from God making it "pretty specifically" the differences between Him and humans.
I can easily say I am 'not like him' referring to anyone, but still be human with the same characteristics and properties that make up humans.
If you're not a Christian or Jewish I can understand that. Obviously, as a Christian I do believe that God made us in His image while He did not extend that to other species. Which makes us not only unique but also special.
I am asking why being a special species of animal makes us not an animal. That has nothing to do with what I believe.
People are animals. If you wish to think we are God's special animals I have no problem with that. But when it comes to what an animal is, we tick all the boxes.
In the OT testament both humans and animals are said to have nephesh/souls. So I see nothing in the Bible to contradict my position.
If you believe the propaganda? The Israelites thought they were the chosen people. The Germans thought the Arian Race was special. The ocean quahog can live as long as 507 years. The Bowhead Whale can live as long as 211 years. The Galapagos Tortoise 177 years. We got short changed in that department.
I think I would gladly do without 400 years of life for the chance to get into Heaven and be in the unfiltered presence of God every day.
I was talking about humans. ALL humans. Talking about specific ethnic groups is not what I was getting at. And I'm not advocating the slaughter of other species just because we're "better."
And that's no propaganda.
then why maintain life at all? Why not murder your children before they reach the age of accountability so that you KNOW that they're going heaven and not risk them losing your faith? Why prolong your life? Why seek medical treatment when you get sick?
Hey, now! Don't you go bringing logic into this discussion!
We don't take kindly to logic 'round these parts.
Since you're probably more familiar with the Bible than I am I will assume that you already know the answer to that question.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or serious. I know the common argument. I'm asking for yours.
No, I was not being sarcastic. Sorry if it seemed that way.
I apologize but my internet is down (I'm using a library computer right now) and life has been pretty congested lately anyway. I don't remember if you were asking why not just commit suicide or something a little different. Could you remind me?
I have already accepted we are unique and special, how does that make us not animals?
Er, this seems to be a debate you can't win either way, but here's my belief. The fact that we are made in God's image, that we carry the Imago Deo within us, makes us unique. We carry something that the animals don't.
I understand that for a lot people that doesn't cut it, that it's strictly a biological question and since physiologically we share a phylum we are therefore animals.
Go back to the chart I gave Rad Man.
An "interesting" specie....that's the most that you could say about Homo Sapiens?......WOW. How stunning it is that the devaluation and degradation of the human specie continue at a rather rapid clip even on Hub Pages.
Granted that human history is not exactly paradigmatic of unadulterated and unassailable triumph, the fact is, humans are the only specie that has the temerity and the perspicacity to ask the important questions: When, How and Why are we here. If, as some folks have posited onHub Pages, asking those questions and looking for answers to those questions is an exercise in non-utility , thus futility... then perhaps your assignation to our specie as an "interesting" one is totally appropriate.
An assignation and perception and conclusion that I TOTALLY DISAGREE with.
To quote BF Skinner: "'Animal' is a pejorative term only because 'man' has become spuriously honorific."
I am humbled and honored to have been born an animal. And blessed by my relationships with other animals (some of them human).
...and to quote Sonny Burgess: "The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog"
I'm so sorry that most of your human relationships have not gone as well as with your non-human relationships. That must be one lucky dog.
As for humans becoming spuriously honorific... don't you think they have earned the right to be honorific, even if it is done spuriously?
I think there is a way to consider people special, without considering other animals to be insulting to associate yourself with.
And as it happens my human relationship rock too. I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek.
I am a psychologist who studies both human and non-human animal behavior. I find both to be fascinating and wonderful in their own way.
Intelligence is merely a branch of evolution, one in which humans have evolved more so than other animals. There are lots of species of animals that have evolved characteristics that make them superior over other animals.
So what? How does that devalue or degrade humans?
Your religion devalues and degrades all humans as cursed, evil sinners that need saving.
That is the pot calling the kettle black, dude.
You are missing the point again dude. You devalue and degrade the specie of which you seem to be a member of, because you do not believe in the verity of man's inate dignity... a belief that comes from the idea that you and I are just the incidental and accidental product of a non-directed evolutionary process, thus whose existence just does not have much utility and meaning. Now you may personally assign meaning and purpose to your own existence, but if you do not tie that meaning and purpose to the "grander scheme of things", then that dude, is the ultimate exercise in futility.
Linguistic contrivance notwithstanding, you are neither the pot nor the kettle in this conversation.
And to assume that any God would think our intelligence is worthy of his attention and admiration is arrogant to say the least. Not to mention lack of a purpose that you think your God has laid out for you.
In a perfect world, all things would be united as one.
Yes I know! And me and you are doing little to fix it.
If you have any ideas let me know. Bill Gates with all his money and resources is doing his best with little impact.
You and I are doing the best we can for our families with what we have.
Sorry, have you made an argument for devaluing and degrading humans? No. You've merely asserted without any evidence whatsoever, a "grander scheme of things" which I can only guess is something you're religious beliefs embrace, the one in which your religion devalues and degrades humans to low life evil sinners and blind ignorant followers of ancient myths and superstitions.
That's the evidence for you having missed the point again, dude.
Side split-tingly hilarious. Believers come up with the most childish and silliest excuses.
It has nothing to do with faith or believing in a deity....the absolute fact is humans have the brain capacity that none of the other sentient beings on earth could match.
Now if you and RadMan and the rest of your ilks out there wants to elevate the cerebral perspicacity and temerity of these other sentient entities to the level of your own cerebral capacity, or to degrade your own cerebral functioning to the level of non-human members of the animal kingdom...then be my guest. Your statement "Believers come up with the most childish and sillliest excuses" is totally missing the point of what Chris Neal is saying.
A man who understands himself as a man,
Will be able to identify as and amongst the animals...
And yet still as beyond or higher than them.
Otherwise he who does not understand such things, it is inevitable then,
that his entire Life will be lived merely as an animal...
...Meaning the totality of his life amounts to his own death.
Not only is that silly, it is entirely false. The fact that we are animals has nothing to do with how we decide to live our lives and what value it has.
it is silly to your understanding...
So you are as you think....
...As an animal who cannot see beyond his own death
No need to argue
Anyone who claims they can see beyond their own deaths is lying.
No need to lie.
Anyone who cant see beyond their own death, will deny any such claims....
So you speak the truth....
....according to the dead.
Your post as riddles are so totally perplexing especially to folks whose conception of reality does not involve anything but the physical and material. Thus ATM is flumoxomed by it all.
Wow, I thought I had read everything when someone on another forum explained the variety of skin colour by saying that is you go to California you'll get a tan, but this forum takes the entire cake.
If we are not animals, what are we? We eat, sleep, pee and poop and sometimes we are eaten just like every other animal. Our genetic code is almost identical to the chimps so much so that it takes an expert to tell them apart.
If we are not animals what the heck are we?
We are humans.
So Loved by God that He sent Jesus to die for our sins.
That's what we are.
But isn't an elephant uniquely an elephant, but still an animal? Are humans not subject to all the things other animals are subject to. We are born, we eat, we poo, we pee, we die.
However, you forgot that God didn't murder his son for these other animals. Just for us. That's the difference.
That idea is from a book written by a man, not one written by an elephant. Maybe the animals didn;t need a messiah because they never sinned.
Agreed. The disturbing part is that someone would still follow the primitive mindset and customs of ancient ignorant barbaric peoples who believed that Gods required sacrifices, then come into a forum of postmodern free thinkers, and spout such absurdities...then expect to have a real debate.
So sorry Getitrite, but I must tell you....you are giving yourself way too much credit for being a member of that 'elite' group of what you term as "postmodern free thinkers". You and RadMan and ATM are "postmodern freethinkers?". Now that is a stretch.
If you must know, I'd rather be in the company of "ancient ignorant barbaric peoples" who follow "primitive mindset and customs". Much simpler to acquiesce one's existence to a Deity, than to the non-utility and futility of that existence.
Good thing is that your obviously biased and ad honinem opinion doesn't count.
Yep. If you were in that era, you would fit right in. Then you, and those primitives, could start a big fire, and throw people like ATM, Rad Man, JM, and Getitrite onto it. What an enlightening weltanchauung you have.
And your opinion count? Really?
Those primitives? Weltanchaung?
Oh wait.. you must be an ardent disciple of who else ... Mark Knowles.
It is clear that your desire is to aggressively confront anyone who disagrees with your view, by spouting spiteful, irrelevant absurdities. If you don't have evidence of what you are asserting, don't take it out on those who, rightfully, disagree, until you provide that evidence. I think that is a fair request. We have done you no harm by asking for evidence. Where is it?
See, this is an example of the spiteful, adolescent nonsense. I don't know Mark Knowles. I've never read a book by him or anything. I don't know what his philosophy is. So tell me, how is it that I am following him?
Have you noticed that your forums usually deteriorate into these types of conflicts all the time? Why do you suppose that happens?
I re-read all your posts on this forum, and found all of them devoid of lucidity, luminousity and levity. So don't blame me if the forum "deteriorated" as per your statement above. Blame yourself and your fellow hacks for mucking and mocking a perfectly good conversational piece amongst fully informed and fully engaged folks.
As for you claiming to not know Mark Knowles...very surprising indeed since you both use the same debating style and phrases.
@ Brenda Durham~ How do you explain these:
“For what happens to the children of man and what happens to the beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts, for all is vanity.” (Ecclesiastes 3:19)
"I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you and with every living creature that was with you-the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you-every living creature on earth." (Genesis 9:9-10)
“God created all the animals.” (Psalm 104)
“God cares for the animals.” (1 John 4:16)
Of course Brenda will have some spin on all this too, let's wait and see how she'll manipulate scripture to fit her beliefs...
Maybe this scripture isn't her Bible
These scriptures were only talking about animals, Man wasn't included in these or it would have read MAN and animals.
I took care of it for her..
Well stated. It's a silly argument, indeed, to insist that the Bible doesn't show man as a completely separate species; above and beyond (with dominion over) the animals. And judged by a completely different standard.
The bible does state that man is given dominion. But still no different. Then again it was written by man
I don't know. I'm no where near a Bible at the moment; but I believe the New Testament has passages that make it clear humanity is not on the same spiritual footing as other animals. Not something I believe, but I don't suppose my beliefs determine what the Bible says.
Bu that's a circular argument. How do you know for sure that just because men put down the words in the Bible, that is the only reason men are elevated above the animals in the Bible?
But He still did not create animals in His image, only humans. And Jesus did not come to die for the sins of animals, only humans.
Chris, please tell me that you accept at the very least that homo sapiens are, in fact, a part of the animal kingdom.
I'll lose a little of the respect I have for you. humatn beings are a species, but we're still mammals. we aren't our own classification.
Thank goodness. I was afraid my head would explode!
Seriously, yeah humans are mammals but I've found the danger in saying that we're animals is that people here it as saying "See, he agrees that humans are just another animal." We're not. We were created in God's image, no matter who we are or what we look like. Apes were not, cats were not and whales were not, although they are also all mammals.
I'm not sure how you're going to "hear" this, but in that respect humans are not animals.
So, my answer is a bit more complicated than a simple "yes" or "no."
Mammals are animals.
Humans are mammals.
Therefore humans are animals.
It really is just a yes or no question.
But Jesus didn't die on the cross for those other animals....just for us, because we are special. It says so in the bible.
Apes were not created in God's image.
Cats were not created in God's image.
Humans were created in God's image.
Therefore humans are not animals.
Apes are mammals.
Cats are mammals.
Humans are mammals.
Therefore humans are animals.
I think this comes under "Darned if you do, darned if you don't."
Ecclesiastes was authored by a very experienced, very wise man. Most scholars think it's Solomon himself.
In that first verse you mentioned, he is simply telling how life is from a natural view. A human view. He was, after all, human like we are human, and subject to considering things from a human view at times, whether in himself or in sympathy for others, and dismissing a spiritual view. And when we do that, it would seem like we've got no more of a future than animals do; we live and die and get buried (returning to the dust) just like the animals do; and it's impossible to literally see what happens to our spirits after someone is dead. The dead cannot tell us, and we cannot tell where their spirits are after they're dead!
If you'd read the previous chapters, you'd see that the author is in a very serious thoughtful mood, and sees no lasting pleasure in earthly life, sees the facts of life for what they are, seemingly finding no purpose in this life. He sees mankind's fate as universally useless when only the natural is thought of; it seems to be just like the fate of animals. I think all Christians probably go through that frame of mind sometimes. But we always return to our spiritual knowledge. And there are many passages in Ecclesiastes which illustrate that.
I wonder why you didn't quote Ch. 3 verse18!? OH MY! That one actually insinuates that men ARE beasts!! LOLOL. I think you must've just googled a verse to try to denounce my view, and verse 19 was the one that popped up! ha.
FYI, verse 18 is just a complaint that, again, we often act like beasts and our fate seems to be no different than that of beasts.
I've no problem with any of those verses. Read the rest of Ecclesiastes! Solomon (or whoever the King and "preacher" was), is very Spiritual! He knows the natural life, the natural man that he is, and he knows God and knows the spiritual "man" that he himself is.
And I've never said that God doesn't love animals! I love animals too! I have pets, and I would never be intentionally cruel to any animal unless there was a good reason. But the Bible says we are to have dominion over animals; and to use them for food, work, etc. I'm pretty sure the Lord wouldn't have allowed us to slay, cook, and eat animals if WE were animals! LOL.
The verses in Genesis show that God promised to not destroy the earth with a flood again. Many people and many animals died in the flood! And God promised to not do that again, not to mankind and not to the animals. It doesn't give Him pleasure to see anyone or any thing suffer.
All I've been saying on this thread is that mankind are not animals. Simple fact. Why you'd have a problem with that is strange to me, but whatever! Maybe you and some others like to think of yourselves as animals, but that's a rather head-in-sand way to think of it for sure! A way to avoid responsibility too.
Do you believe that we are mammals?
Here's the definition by Merriam-Webster:
Definition of MAMMAL
: any of a class (Mammalia) of warm-blooded higher vertebrates (as placentals, marsupials, or monotremes) that nourish their young with milk secreted by mammary glands, have the skin usually more or less covered with hair.
Please explain what you mean when you say:
"Maybe you and some others like to think of yourselves as animals, but that's a rather head-in-sand way to think of it for sure! A way to avoid responsibility too."
Responsibility for what exactly?
Responsibility for our actions, thoughts, etc. Sin. Morals. Right versus wrong.
Animals live by basic instinct.
Humans have consciences that persuade us to, if not choose to act right, at least think about whether something is right or wrong.
As far as whether I believe we're mammals or not..........I elaborated on that earlier; humans should've never been classified in the same species as animals from the get-go; ergo, "mammals" is an erroneous label anyway.
do they? Then how do you account for sociopaths or psychopaths that cannot distinguish between right and wrong at all? They feel no empathy or compassion for fellow humans. they do what they want to do. If the bible is true and the law of god is written on the hearts of man, the existence of one of these people negates it and makes it invalid.
There's disease of mind and body in the human species. What's hard to understand about that?
And the Lord said He WILL write His laws on our hearts. I think that refers to His people, Christians. If we Love Him, we will read and pray and study His word so that they ARE written on our hearts.
Aside, of course, from the human conscience that all of us have (perhaps with the few exceptions we mentioned of people who are mentally ill. ..........and then.....there are the ones who've deliberately seared their consciences so badly that they seem to not have one at all).
Humans live by instinct too. We have our own motivations and survival instinct. To assume that humans are special because we know right from wrong is too simplistic.
Humans have the capacity for Spiritual sense too. We don't just survive on instinct. We have access to knowledge about Life after this earthly life.
do you claim to speak all of the animal's language to know what it is that they think about and what they are or are not aware of?
I claim to know that humans are a separate species from animals.
I reckon I've made that clear several times already.
You're asking a rather silly question, it seems; maybe a diversion attempt from the observable facts of the differences...........
But I'll ask it of you-------do YOU claim to speak all of the animals' language? lol
no, but i'm not claiming to know for absolute certainty that human beings think of things that animals are incapable of. Doing so suggests that you've entered into the minds of animals in order to determine their thought processes and what they do/do not know.
In Genesis 2 when god strives to find a suitable helper for adam, eve was an afterthought. He first created each animal and presented them to adam to see if any were suitable to be his helper. Are you claiming that god wasn't smart enough to recognize that of course none of the animals would be good enough because they were below adam and that only another human being of the opposite sex would be good enough for his prized creation?
Yes, you are repeating that false premise over and over again, even when it's been explained ad nauseum that species and animals are completely different categories.
What you keep repeating over and over makes absolutely no sense.
Nonsense, no such thing has ever been shown to exist as a sense or anything else.
All we know for sure is that someone wrote a book....
I understand fully where you are coming from... and I empathize with the philosophic/ spiritual underpinning of what you are saying in your posts.
Therein lies the conundrum.
On the one hand, the HUMANISTS among us are easily predisposed to assign human emotions/conclusions to the behaviour of other sentient beings. On the other end of the spectrum, the NIHILISTS among us are utterly willing to reduce(reductionists) humans to mere physical objects( objectivists) whose realities are neither different nor separate from those of the other sentient beings, and therefore, following the linear progression of those belief systems, human existence could and should be inferred soley from what their 5 physical senses input into their brains and the meaning of that existence neither filled with purpose nor assignated with utility.
And behaviourists realize that a lot of the qualities we consider "human" are actually equally present in many different species.
I am not sure how it is purely an issue of the Bible. IMHO people are very impressive animals with complicated beliefs. Animal is a word and it means what people living now mean when they say it.
Chimpanzees and humans differ by just over one percent of DNA. In fact biologically, chimpanzees are more closely related to humans than they are to gorillas. Some have proposed including chimpanzees (genus Pan) in the same genus as human beings (genus Homo) to recognise these similarities, calling them Homo troglodytes. Though this is controversial, it emphasizes how similar we really are.
One of my cats is sitting on me right now, so let me take a look at her.
Hm. She has two eyes. So do I. We both have two ears, a mouth, teeth, and a tongue. We're both warm-blooded and breathing. We each have four limbs, bones, and the same internal organs. We eat and process food the same. We both have hair of some sort. Sure, there are some differences - she has whiskers and she's purring - but there are lots of similarities as well.
How about my bird? He's also warm-blooded. He has two legs, like I do. He also has bones and mostly the same internal organs. He vocalizes and communicates with me. He eats, sleeps, and enjoys cuddling. Again, there are some differences - he has feathers instead of hair, for instance - but there are plenty of similarities there as well, even though he's not even a fellow mammal.
Also, being a very special species of animals does not prevent us from being a species of animal. Diamonds are very special rocks, but they are still rocks.
Are not!! Diamonds are shiny and therefore a different thing altogether. I'd like to see you pay as much for a piece of sandstone as a diamond...
Great point, did you know that the pear tree is not really in the tree family because nothing else makes a pear.
Are you serious?? Then an apple tree isn't in the tree family either I'm guessing
Yes, he is joking. Or, if you prefer, making a point by way of analogy.
Correct my friend, the apple tree is in the apple tree family and therefore not a tree.
tis a silly place.
I have studied rats a lot and they have a general peaceful and sharing approach to life. Not perfect but probably less violent than most people would be under the same conditions. What that has to do with anything I don't know. Rats are like rats are. People are like people are.
I agree with psycheskinner!
We are just that - highest form of animal and we subjugate other animals as per our wishes! Who knows if we have a soul or not. It is just the longing to have a soul and the need for it that is real, other than that we love, survive then we die!
A lot of folks on HubPages are adamant in their belief that there is no such thing as a soul, i.e. it's existence has never been proven by objective/empirical evidence. Question to them is: How do you prove the existence of the soul (or God for that matter), a spiritual entity, by physical/material methodologies?
I posit that the proof lies not in scientific formulation, but in the "longing conceptualization" as you so subtly suggested. So why do we long for a soul? Is it because, as some sage suggested, we all are, first and foremost, spiritual beings but whose physical reality have so subdued and overcome that spiritual reality, thus we long to actually return to that more spiritual existence?
Some long for a soul because it was at some point evolutionary advantageous for us to think we are special.
Longing for a soul is just wishful thinking. Kinda like longing to be 6'2" when your 5'6".
If as you said "it was at some point evolutionary advantageous for us to think we are special".... how is that "wishful thinking".
Wishful thinking neither leads to actionable nor controllable advantages, and in the evolutionary field, totally counterintuitive and counterproductive.
Conceptualizing that we have souls, have nothing to do with wishful thinking... it has a to do with truthful introspection.
Plenty of things that are advantageous in evolution were "wishful" (i.e. assuming what is flattering is true). Believing one is a member of a special sacred group better than all other people, for example, leads to having a more motivated and deadly defensive military and so helps in defending against other tribes.
Neither have leprechauns riding unicorns in the Kentucky Derby, but I had a personal experience of winning the Derby, and I had a little green suit, a shamrock and pointy shoes, and I was holding on to the horn.
That begs the question back: How does one acceptance the existence of a soul if there is no physical/material evidence on which to even posit the existence?
How do you know you're a spiritual being if there is no physical/material evidence?
That's not how I pictured you at all, but who am I to judge?
"Innate dignity" would not be so easily undermined by mere semantics. It would be like the dignity of the eagle or the antelope, immune to language.
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.