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!
They're genuine heart frubals. I found the words touching.@JustGeorge
While one thanks you for the heart emoticons but fyi one doesn't expect them or feels it is required.
Looks like you weren't the only one wondering: HumanityIn passing one saw this thread Human Animals?
One wonders how can the question be answered without first being clear on what it means to be a human? What constitutes "humanity"? Not humanity as a collection, an aggregate, but humanity as the quality? Has one ever pondered about it seriously or glossed over frivolously like everything else in their petty lives?
If a person puts aside the idea of 'better', can we claim to be 'different'? With that in mind, why don't we place as much emphasis on the differences of species, and why do we lump them all as 'animals'? There's a lot of difference between a sponge and an elephant, I'd guess.Can we really claim to be better than animals? Surely we don't have the power of a horse, the strength of a gorilla, the endurance of migrating birds etc. - then where does this deluded sense of entitlement come from?
With these qualities, might what is judged as 'superior' change from outlook to outlook(especially if you consider the outlooks of multiple species)?Look at the beauty of a parrot and then look at the ugliness of their (so-called human) counterparts. While the former exceeds their allotted intelligence, the latter simply regurgitates collected information. Look at the form of an actual weasel and then look at the characteristics (conniving) of their human counterparts. Look at the beauty in a reptile and then compare it to the stings or the bites of their human parallels with reptilian tendencies.
So what do we observe? We see that in spite of your delusions you aren't even an animal. No sir/ma'am. You're a second hand animal. Perhaps it is best to get off that horse.
Where is that need coming from? Why the need to be 'different'? Is it because we have been conditioned by the fairly recent narrative "oh look at me i'm so different!". Or is it because we are being taught everything is relative?If a person puts aside the idea of 'better', can we claim to be 'different'? With that in mind, why don't we place as much emphasis on the differences of species, and why do we lump them all as 'animals'? There's a lot of difference between a sponge and an elephant, I'd guess.
An " outlook" is a "human" quality. It doesn't exist in the animal kingdom.With these qualities, might what is judged as 'superior' change from outlook to outlook(especially if you consider the outlooks of multiple species)?
I don't know where the need comes from, or if its a need, or its how we're taught to identify. I'm not sure if its recent, though(though recent is relative, I suppose). There's been admonishments for centuries not to "behave like animals"(though I'm not sure that behaving like animals would be a bad thing).Where is that need coming from? Why the need to be 'different'? Is it because we have been conditioned by the fairly recent narrative "oh look at me i'm so different!". Or is it because we are being taught everything is relative?
I think the classification of a species comes as more of an identifier. It seems strange to invest emotion in a classification(yet I acknowledge it happens).Sure, you can classify yourself as a species. But can we? What happens to our emotional investment that we are superior?
I'm not certain on that. In my years, my pets have surprised me with having more 'opinions' than normally is recognized.An " outlook" is a "human" quality. It doesn't exist in the animal kingdom.
Fair enough.Furthermore, superiority isn't always a value judgement, it can also be a matter of fact. Like said above, humans don't have the strength of a gorilla etc. You may also remember our exchange on your thread: about how some are better suited for some things while other may not. So one has to inquire for themselves why there is this obsession with 'relative' "labels" (outlooks).
If, one is able to.When one withdraws one's gaze