Our bodies become the grass, and the cows eat the grass, and so, Hockey, we are all connected in the great circle of life.
Lol. Come on, Kelly. You don’t eat human meat...but I bet you eat some kind of animal meat.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Our bodies become the grass, and the cows eat the grass, and so, Hockey, we are all connected in the great circle of life.
It is nice, I'm sure, to just be able to quote a Biblical passage with no accompanying context- but I'm about to show why that is problematic. It first of all, does not show that the Biblical authors believed this was true of animals across a spectrum, as you view it. It also doesn't show they thought humans are not animals.
The word animal is derived from the Latin animus in origin, which refers to an animated creature or form- one that moves. Taken in that way, humans are absolutely animals.
The Church wouldn't have been unaware of the passage you quoted, and so far you've only told me why you think they are no authority on the book they preserved for centuries. Again- no human being in history that I am aware of prior to Descartes, put forth that animals are just automatons devoid of personality or feeling.
Rats would save other rats, humans would save other humans. What's the difference?Well, Sayak wouldn’t answer, so let me ask you:
If a building caught on fire, and you could only save one life, your beloved pet dog or a human baby you didn't know...... which one would you save?
Hmm?
No, rats would not, if they knew the humans better! You keep avoiding the point, don't you.Rats would save other rats, humans would save other humans. What's the difference?
I just pointed out the study showing that rats do save other rats. Do you have amnesia?No, rats would not, if they knew the humans better! You keep avoiding the point, don't you.
So...do you eat meat?
Because we consider ourselves better than other animals, but that does not mean we do not consider ourselves animals.But if we really consider ourselves equal to animals, why does society prohibit eating human meat but allow animal meat?
Do you have amnesia?
Here.No, I dont.
(See? I answer your questions....why can’t you give a straight answer to mine?)
One more time: in my scenario, it comes down to saving something (a dog) you care for, verses something (a human) you don’t even know.
BTW, I searched online for an ethics code that rats follow, but I couldn’t find one.
Scientifically, humans are considered animals, but many religions and faiths would disagree. What's your opinion?
Well, Sayak wouldn’t answer, so let me ask you:
If a building caught on fire, and you could only save one life, your beloved pet dog or a human baby you didn't know...... which one would you save?
Hmm?
Ok, thanks for responding. Wish you the best.That doesn't answer that humans are not animals. I'd be in a hard position actually because Buddhists aren't speciests. This question is a rather poor attempt on your part though to pigeon hole me into a position.
But the fact the serpent and the donkey can speak when given the opportunity shows us animals DO think, but we assume they don't due to language barriers.he Bible does comment briefly on this subject
Not on purpose, but with funding cuts to the FDA and everythingYou don’t eat human meat
Get the dog to carry the baby. I win.If a building caught on fire, and you could only save one life, your beloved pet dog or a human baby you didn't know...... which one would you save?
Those kind of questions encourage a form of social conformity since the socially accepted answer is obvious, so I suspect that some aren't being honest when they answer. I'll be honest, though: I'd save my dog because I have more of an emotional connection to my dog than someone I don't know and I don't really have a special emotional affinity for human children (as compared to other age groups). Ideally, I'd strive to save both, though.Well, Sayak wouldn’t answer, so let me ask you:
If a building caught on fire, and you could only save one life, your beloved pet dog or a human baby you didn't know...... which one would you save?
Hmm?
I appreciate your honesty. (Always have, my friend.)Those kind of questions encourage a form of social conformity since the socially accepted answer is obvious, so I suspect that some aren't being honest when they answer. I'll be honest, though: I'd save my dog because I have more of an emotional connection to my dog than someone I don't know and I don't really have a special emotional affinity for human children (as compared to other age groups). Ideally, I'd strive to save both, though.
I asked you a pretty straightforward, non-dismissive couple of questions in an entirely polite way.Well I believe that this is rather self evident.
If you can read my post and respond as you have, I am left to ponder your ability to make an objective evaluation of the evidence.
Every day, if I could.Do you eat hamburger?