What sets humans apart?

[Ephinie]

We need another thread for this man/animal thing LOL
Okay! Here it is.

What is special and unique about humans as opposed to other animals?

Are humans no better than animals, or do we truly have something about us that makes us higher or of more worth than other forms of life on the planet?

Yeah, watch this thread die a quick and un-lamented death.

[LifeMaiden]

You said it in your other post...the capacity for IMAGINATIONin order to create. I believe what seperates humans from animals is the capacity for different kinds of love. It's true that animals have affection for each other which can be a sort of love, but humans can love in many different ways...there's the love we have for our parents, our friends, our lovers and spouses, our children...all these different kinds of love.

The ability to presevere in the face of difficulties and to have faith in a higher being. The ability to know right from wrong ( well in most instances) and a sense of justice as POTW mentioned.

[Ephinie]

Yeah, all that's true, too. There seems to be so much.

On a more negative note: Other animals kill for food, territory, or mating rights. Humans kill out of greed, anger, bitterness, or to obtain long-term goals. Have you ever heard of an animal other than a human committing a pre-meditated murder? I've not.

I WAS going to say that only humans go to war, but then I remembered that ants go to war, too.

[EveningStar]

I believe these arguements are well meaning but not accurate. Every species is different from all others, to be certain. Most arguements of "human vs. animal" are designed to justify the subjegation and ruin of nature.

Animals experience many kinds of love, not just "a sort of affection." They have complex emotional states and this can be shown by empirical evidence.

It is dangerous to step out of the role of humble servant, to step away from the Temple of God where we are reminded that we have all sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God and cannot earn our salvation but must be given it as the free will of God. To hunt down reasons why we are so much better than all other forms of life on earth is to forget for even a moment that we are sinners and in need of God's pity.

Let us rather say the difference in humans and animals is that animals have not committed a mortal sin and have not fallen from the position to which their creation entitled them. We have.

Lists of ranking are only useful for one thing. And that's if you think some things must be marked off the list, what would you keep? If God created all life, then all life is important and none of it is expendable. We would do well to remember this in the way we use our world.

Said in love for all life...yours, mine, my dog's, some anonymous wolf in the Russian Steppes....

John B.

[Ephinie]

Dang, I think I just got told.

[EveningStar]

But in a very sweet way by everyone's favorite badger. Cute as a button...ask me mum! :D

Frustrating as it is, most folks accuse me of putting down the human race when I defend another species. I don't put anyone down. It rankles me when people say I am pulling anyone or anything DOWN on something or someone else's level for pulling down is of Satan not of God.

As a servant of God and a lover of my fellow men, it is my job to build up and encourage. I push up the downtrodden, the neglected, the discouraged. I never pull anything down except those false gods that threaten us...the obsessive pursuit of wealth, comfort or power at the expense of a well-balanced and compassionate life.

[Ephinie]

But in a very sweet way by everyone's favorite badger. Cute as a button...ask me mum! :D I can't ask your mum, cuz I don't know her. :p

[inkspot]

ES, over in the Wicca Thread, we got off topic discussing whether animals were better than or equal to man. Someone was saying in their religion, man is an animal and not "special" to God at all. I can only figure she is coming from a background of Jainism, the folks who even wear a mask so they don't breathe in a micro-organism and accidentally kill it.

I totally agree animals are special to God -- but I think man is made in the image of God.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

I agree with pretty much everything that folks have posted in this thread, particularly our good friend of our furry friends EveningStar and IceMaiden (who, despite her moniker, has one of the warmest hearts I've met on this forum). There are real differences between humans and animals, but that does not mean animals are simply for us to use, abuse, and ignore. We are entrusted with all the earth, to use it wisely and respect it for what it is: God's handiwork. There's a book I want to get called Dominion (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&isbn=0312319738&itm=3), which is written by an evangelical Christian and is a critique of how we "civilized" men treat the animals we raise for food, and the terrible impact of "factory farms". I hear it's not a comfortable read, but something I need to read anyway.

None of this concern distracts from our concern for our fellow men, of course - from the children enslaved on the chocolate farms in Africa to the slumdwellers of Sao Paulo to the ignored elderly wherever they may be. But we can do both!

[Narborg]

I agrre with what Inkspot said, that we are make in the image f God. thats the key difrence between us and other cratures ( including amilmals and angels). This dose not mean that God dosent love amimls. Nor dose it mean that we can misstreat them, as Adan was told to look ater them.

[echoscot]

As a Christian, I have found that we are made in God's image. I believe that sets us apart from the rest of creation. Thought others may choose not to accept the Bible, I still feel they are simply denying their heritage.

Scot

[LifeMaiden]

Yeah, all that's true, too. There seems to be so much.

On a more negative note: Other animals kill for food, territory, or mating rights. Humans kill out of greed, anger, bitterness, or to obtain long-term goals. Have you ever heard of an animal other than a human committing a pre-meditated murder? I've not.

I WAS going to say that only humans go to war, but then I remembered that ants go to war, too.

Hehe...have you ever seen lions and hyenas in battle? :p

[Ephinie]

Hehe...have you ever seen lions and hyenas in battle? :pOnly on the Lion King.

[LifeMaiden]

I agree with pretty much everything that folks have posted in this thread, particularly our good friend of our furry friends EveningStar and IceMaiden (who, despite her moniker, has one of the warmest hearts I've met on this forum). There are real differences between humans and animals, but that does not mean animals are simply for us to use, abuse, and ignore. We are entrusted with all the earth, to use it wisely and respect it for what it is: God's handiwork. There's a book I want to get called Dominion (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&isbn=0312319738&itm=3), which is written by an evangelical Christian and is a critique of how we "civilized" men treat the animals we raise for food, and the terrible impact of "factory farms". I hear it's not a comfortable read, but something I need to read anyway.

None of this concern distracts from our concern for our fellow men, of course - from the children enslaved on the chocolate farms in Africa to the slumdwellers of Sao Paulo to the ignored elderly wherever they may be. But we can do both!

Should I change my name to FireMaiden then :p ? ( that would melt the ice LOL)

I remember from Catholic school of course that we were taught animals have no souls. And I am sure this is stated in the Bible. But do any of you as Christians disagree with that? Or is it that man's soul is the only one that must be saved? ( through Christ).


Perhaps I am incorrect in believing that animals do possess a soul of sorts...but, I am a deeply sensitive person towards animals...and whenever a beloved pet of mine passes away, I feel a great deal of grief in their passing. Sometimes, the suffering of an animal or cruelty towards animals bothers me more than things that happen to people...as strange as that may sound. Nothing enrages me more than cruelty to animals.

Now why is that? Is it because we know animals are helpless in the face of their tormentors?

Recently, and this may be going off topic, in another town nearby, there was an animal shelter ( one of those no kill shelters) which put up stray cats and dogs for adoption. Two teenaged boys came and broke into the shelter, using a baseball bat to bludgeon and crush 17 cats in total with these bats. The name of the animal shelter was NOAH'S ARK, by the way. No dogs, just cats.

Here is where a human behaves like an animal!!! I broke down in tears when I heard this on the news.

[Ephinie]

Perhaps I am incorrect in believing that animals do possess a soul of sorts...but, I am a deeply sensitive person towards animals...and whenever a beloved pet of mine passes away, I feel a great deal of grief in their passing.Well... I guess the key would be to define what a soul IS. Animals certainly have personalities, but is a personality a soul?

[EveningStar]

I believe animals have souls but that the fact is not mentioned in the Bible. Please do not tell me that the Bible SAYS that only humans have souls. It does not.

I believe that the western hemisphere exists and that there are human beings there not mentioned in the Bible.

I believe Saturn has rings though that's not mentioned in the Bible.

Perhaps Aslan said it best when he told Lucy that she was only entitled to see HER story, for the stories of others were their own private business. The story of mankind is that they are capable of immortality but require salvation for their sin through the sacrifice of Christ Jesus.

Animals are quite capable of deep love, loyalty and compassion. I could tell you enough stories to crowd the server of The Dancing Lawn into submission with stored files. We enter dangerous ground when we say God is Love yet try to say that some who feel love have a spiritual side and others don't. When we separate love, memories, feelings, awareness from the soul, what's left doesn't appear to be all that important. Certainly not important enough for Christ to die for in his innocence to save us in our sin. No, folks, love, memory, awareness, all of those things are spiritual and glorify God.

John B.

[echoscot]

I believe animals have souls but that the fact is not mentioned in the Bible. Please do not tell me that the Bible SAYS that only humans have souls. It does not.

I believe that the western hemisphere exists and that there are human beings there not mentioned in the Bible.

I believe Saturn has rings though that's not mentioned in the Bible.

Perhaps Aslan said it best when he told Lucy that she was only entitled to see HER story, for the stories of others were their own private business. The story of mankind is that they are capable of immortality but require salvation for their sin through the sacrifice of Christ Jesus.

Animals are quite capable of deep love, loyalty and compassion. I could tell you enough stories to crowd the server of The Dancing Lawn into submission with stored files. We enter dangerous ground when we say God is Love yet try to say that some who feel love have a spiritual side and others don't. When we separate love, memories, feelings, awareness from the soul, what's left doesn't appear to be all that important. Certainly not important enough for Christ to die for in his innocence to save us in our sin. No, folks, love, memory, awareness, all of those things are spiritual and glorify God.

John B.

I am certainly with you on that. Though a Baptist, I part company with their doctrine on this point. I don't believe it is essential to salvation. I also believe the Bible infers the eternality of Animals. In Genesis 9, God says he will hold animals accountable for the shedding of innocent blood. That says a lot by inference. Siren, in the Wicca thread, actually gave em several scriptures that she had studied that also implied the eternallity of animals.

Of course, in St. Augustine's definition, they don't have to cope with Original Sin, only us humans have to deal with that junk. :rolleyes:

[Gryphon]

humans think "Right from wrong?" animals think "Does this hurt me or not?"

[ernie]

About whether animals have souls or not...
I guess that would depend upon what a soul is, but I have been taught that the animals will all be up there with God. So, even if they don't have souls in the sense that we do, their type of soul, I guess would be saved :) (in reference to what IceMaiden asked).

[EveningStar]

Animals never fell from their innocent state. They are not in need of salvation. Therefore they do not need to learn doctrines or have a religion or be baptized for the remission of sins.

Like young children who die in infancy, they are admitted as blameless creatures in God's great plan.

I tried to explain many threads ago that if all animals were nothing more than furniture and food for man, the world would have only had a dozen or so species. Certainly not several thousand different species of butterflies. And certainly no species that only exist in the bottom of the Marianas Trench several miles down where pressures crush and light never shines.

If animals existed only for man's benefit there would be no blind crayfish in caves, no fox bats in the middle of the Amazon, no penguins in Antarctica. None of these have any practical use. But all of these enjoy life and take steps to prevent it from being snatched away.

I must be compelled by common sense to believe their existance, like ours, pleases God.

John B.

[inkspot]

I believe animals have souls and will be perfected in heaven, like people, especially the animals we have loved in this world. The Bible never says they don't, and the Bible says a lot about beasts in heaven.

[Wendygirljp]

IMHO, the "Image of God" is that of love, not a shape.

[echoscot]

IMHO, the "Image of God" is that of love, not a shape.


Perhaps you are not speaking of the Christian God, if that is the case then you can make him however you would like.

The Bible says that Love is the Character of God, not his shape.

It also clearly states that God made man in his image.

But, like I said, we may not be talking of the same God so the reference becomes moot.

[Gryphon]

The Bible says that Love is the Character of God, not his shape.
On the contrary, The Word says that God IS Love...

16 And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

I think the fullness of the meaning of "the image of God" is something that Scripture never defines completely. That we bear the "image of God" certainly means some things - that we can love, for instance, and that we can communicate, and that we can be creative. There are many aspects of our human existence that we could point to and say, "there - that's a manifestation of the image of God in us."

One thing that's certain from Scripture: that we bear the image of God gives each one of us dignity and infinite value.

[echoscot]

I think the fullness of the meaning of "the image of God" is something that Scripture never defines completely. That we bear the "image of God" certainly means some things - that we can love, for instance, and that we can communicate, and that we can be creative. There are many aspects of our human existence that we could point to and say, "there - that's a manifestation of the image of God in us."

One thing that's certain from Scripture: that we bear the image of God gives each one of us dignity and infinite value.


Again, very well put.

[Gryphon]

Alot of times when people talk about being made in the image of God I think about action figures. They look like Superman or Batman even though they arent and they portray something that the actual Superman or Spiderman does. Some come with little darts and some come with "super strength" I think in alot of ways we come with diffrent "actions" that we all do.

Something else that I think about is like in the movie "The Lion King" when Simba returns to the Pride lands and Scar is afraid of him because Simba looks like Mufasa and Scar is afraid that Mufasa had come back. It makes me wonder about how satan is afraid of us being something more and looking like him.

A couple of days ago I heard a girl say "God doesnt make people ugly, people make people ugly" food for thought...

[Wendygirljp]

Echoscot,

So, I do not understand - are you differing from what I am saying, or are you agreeing? I stated "IMHO, the "Image of God" is that of love, not a shape." - Then, you said, "The Bible says that Love is the Character of God, not his shape." That sounds like an agreement, but yet, you stated as well, "
Perhaps you are not speaking of the Christian God, if that is the case then you can make him however you would like."

I did not know God was a Christian. (or maybe you are meaning the Christian perception of God?)

I am well versed that the bible says about "man" being made in the image of God. I also believe ALL was made in that image of which we were talking - that of love.

[LifeMaiden]

Could it be said that God created Man in his image and He did so out of love?

[Wendygirljp]

Ice Maiden,

It very well could - my statement was simply, how does one define "in His image"? It appears to take on many different possibilities, do you not agree?

[Gryphon]

I did not know God was a Christian. (or maybe you are meaning the Christian perception of God?)
Out of curiocity, what doctrine do you follow Wendygirljp?

[Wendygirljp]

My ethics are Buddhist - my spiritual beliefs are Animist - thank you for asking.

[echoscot]

Echoscot,

So, I do not understand - are you differing from what I am saying, or are you agreeing? I stated "IMHO, the "Image of God" is that of love, not a shape." - Then, you said, "The Bible says that Love is the Character of God, not his shape." That sounds like an agreement, but yet, you stated as well, "
Perhaps you are not speaking of the Christian God, if that is the case then you can make him however you would like."

I did not know God was a Christian. (or maybe you are meaning the Christian perception of God?)

I am well versed that the bible says about "man" being made in the image of God. I also believe ALL was made in that image of which we were talking - that of love.

Ah, I think initially I agreed, but used a cautious approach be cause I wasn't sure where you were headed with that. But what you have said here, I think we can both safely agree on. :D

[Gryphon]

The problem is, there are many diffrent deities called "God" so its hard to pinpoint just what it is "God" is.

The hebrew God (sometimes called "Yaweh") is the Christian God...

Although, if you are Buddhist your "God" isnt going to be the same one with same characteristics as mine or echoscot's unless he's Buddhist as well... which he isnt...

[Wendygirljp]

Gryphon,

Just for general information, quickly, so as to not get off subject, Buddhism is non-theistic - there IS no God - it is irrelevant - much as it is not relevant to having a God concept and a member of the military. The military has a set of ethics to follow - Buddhism is similar, having a set of guidelines, but no, not a theistic "religion". That is why there are many people who are "Buddhist Christians" or "Buddhist Jews", for example.

Many people assume "Buddha" is a deity. It means "enlightened one"....not God. I hope this helps.

Also, please remember, I stated that my ETHICS are Buddhist, but my spiritual path is Animist. Maybe, if you wish to be talking about any God concept, we should be talking about that direction, not Buddhism?

[~The Narnia Addict~]

This makes me think...

[Gryphon]

Also, please remember, I stated that my ETHICS are Buddhist, but my spiritual path is Animist. Maybe, if you wish to be talking about any God concept, we should be talking about that direction, not Buddhism?
haha, oh yeah >_> i forgot :D how silly of me...

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAnyway, ignore that whole statement then becuase I thought you might be Buddhist Christian er something or other... :rolleyes:

still, there are many diffrent views of "God"

[PrinceOfTheWest]

The only tradition that uses the phrase "the image of God" to describe mankind is the Judeo-Christian tradition - no other tradition has this concept. The first occurrence is right at Creation: "Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness..." (Gen 1:26). The fullness of that definition is fleshed out further in the Scriptures, such as Gen 9:5b,6: ("of every man's brother I will require the life of man. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image." - interestingly, establishing captial punishment). Thus it stands to reason that the Judeo-Christian Scriptures should be the authority to which one should turn for a definition of what the phrase means.

Gryphon's post regarding God being love is certainly true and appropriate, but not exhaustive. God is certainly love, but He is also holy (Is 6:3) and righteousness and strength (Is 45:24), as well as communicative and creative (obvious from Creation). Man's expression of all these attributes is an aspect of what it means to be "made in the image of God", but none of them exhaust it.

One thing to be clear about: when God tells us in the Scriptures that He is love, and we understand that part being imagebearers of Him is that we, too, should love, this means agape love - better translated as charity. This is not necessarily an emotion, nor is it "niceness", as our culture defines it. Lewis described it well in Perelandra when Ransom looks at the faces of the manifestions of the Powers Malacandra and Perelandra, and sees, "pure charity, neither arising from nor descending to human affection". It's a frightening sight.

[echoscot]

Well, I'll be nice. Humans are obviously predominant because they can understand and comprehend things based on moral decisions or immoral decisions. We can process things out of reason and humans have a soul becuase of this. Animals do not because they live by instincts, they are here to serve humans for eating purposes and other purposes as stated in the Bible (if you're a Christian). Animals do not have a soul and therefore are definitely nowhere near human standpoint. Have a nice day.


I am also a Christian, but having read the Bible, cannot agree with your viewpoint about animals having souls. Several places the scripture references animals, both symbollically and literally as pictures of God's complete creation. Also, Genesis 9 very specifically states that God intends to hold animals accountable for the spilling of innocent blood. If they don't have a soul, how does He hold them accountable?

[PrinceOfTheWest]

If you're referring to this passage:

"Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning; of every beast I will require it..."

I think we'd need someone with more OT training to interpret that correctly. It seems to me that it could mean one of two things. One is that God requires the lifeblood of any animal killed - it could not be eaten; it had to be poured out on the ground. The other would be that an animal that killed a man had to be killed itself. If it is the latter case, I don't think you could make a case that God was holding the animal morally responsible. For instance, in Ex 21:29 the Law states that if an ox with a history of goring people gores someone to death, the ox would be killed but so would the owner, on the basis that he did not take appropriate steps to contain a dangerous animal. The moral responsiblity would be the owner's. The killing of the animal would not be so much a punishment as a safeguard against future mishap - something like filling in a hole in the road.

[inkspot]

Hello, all, fascinating discussion. Earlier in this Thread, I inadvertently insulted someone who had stood up for all animals being made in God's image by suggesting she might come from a background of Jainism, which reveres every animal, so much that they don't step on insects and wear surgical masks so they don't breathe in any organisms. I find Jainism to be a perfectly fine faith, and I respect Jains for taking their faith so far: if one animal like a dog is to be cherished, then all animals, even mosquitos are to be cherished, that sort of thing. However, if I hurt anyone's feelings by implying they might come from a background of Jainism when in fact they do not, please forgive me. I did not mean to insult you or anyone of that faith or any other.

Carry on.
:)

[echoscot]

If you're referring to this passage:

"Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning; of every beast I will require it..."

I think we'd need someone with more OT training to interpret that correctly. It seems to me that it could mean one of two things. One is that God requires the lifeblood of any animal killed - it could not be eaten; it had to be poured out on the ground. The other would be that an animal that killed a man had to be killed itself. If it is the latter case, I don't think you could make a case that God was holding the animal morally responsible. For instance, in Ex 21:29 the Law states that if an ox with a history of goring people gores someone to death, the ox would be killed but so would the owner, on the basis that he did not take appropriate steps to contain a dangerous animal. The moral responsiblity would be the owner's. The killing of the animal would not be so much a punishment as a safeguard against future mishap - something like filling in a hole in the road.

That is one of the better counterinterpretations I had heard. Of course it would be Prince who writes so well. I am still not convinced of the lack of soul being a distinction. And being Baptist I have heard the Baptist argument to that multiple times and still disagree with the interpretation.

[LifeMaiden]

I am also a Christian, but having read the Bible, cannot agree with your viewpoint about animals having souls. Several places the scripture references animals, both symbollically and literally as pictures of God's complete creation. Also, Genesis 9 very specifically states that God intends to hold animals accountable for the spilling of innocent blood. If they don't have a soul, how does He hold them accountable?


In Catholic school we were told animals have no souls. But regardless of whether or not that is true, I love animals and would never dream of bringing them any harm or pain. It's hard for me to believe that when I had to see my old cat Eddie die right in front of me, painfully, I didn't feel something leave his body at the moment of his death.

And heck, I don't even kill spiders.

[Siren]

Curious, I did a bit of research and found this:

"The Bible teaches that "all flesh shall see the salvation of God" (Lk.3:6) and that "all the living things in creation - everything that lives in the air, and on the ground, and under the ground, and in the sea" will praise Yahweh and the Lamb" (Rev.5:13). God's care and love extends to even the humble sparrow (Lk.12:6) and He has promised that He will restore all living things (Ac.3:21; Eph.1:10).

http://www.ourchurch.com/member/w/w_lasalle/

Also this site: http://www.woodhavenlabs.com/animals-heaven.html

In Revelation 5:8-13 all creatures recognize Jesus as the Savior of the world and praise God right along with redeemed men.

In Psalm Psalm 145:-9-10,13,15-21 God loves all His creation and has made plans for all His children and the lesser creatures to enjoy His eternal Kingdom.

Romans 8:19 says that the lesser creatures await Christ's return to redeem the sons of God so they, too, will be released from physical death to eternal life.

So if the Bible says that even animals praise God...then how can some empty shell not go to Heaven? How can an empty creature, to which it is said, God created, not be endowed with a soul? I can't imagine something can praise God and not have a soul. Also, it states "creatures" and "animals", not "pets" and "animals that have touched human lives" It makes no sense to me that they can do one but not the other. I'm not saying you HAVE to believe this way, because of how others refer to the Bible, but just, refer to the scripture to which you believe and decide for yourself.

I personally believe animals, all animals, have souls. From an ant to an elephant.

[Tweetsie]

I don't know wabout this, but someone told me this once.

"Animals have no souls; therefore, they cannot go to heaven."

I don't know if this is true, (I haven't had time to reasearch it) but whether it is or isn't, I don't believe it's right. I think we're all different, so the question that began this thread is not a good one (no offense whatsoever), but I do believe that it's well meant. I think Animals do have souls, and this is coming from someone who lived next to a dog kennel for five years, and then visits every two. All the dogs I have known at that kennel- I could name about ten of them that I have known well that died that I believe deserve to "go to heaven" more than some human beings do.

Might I remind you, as for now I don't believe in God, heaven, etc. So.. that is the reason for the quotation mark. This is just my discussing the worth of animals from that viewpoint that I don't have just yet.

[Ephinie]

And heck, I don't even kill spiders.I kill spiders. We had a horrible problem with brown recluses in my apartment, so we had to get it fumigated. It made me sad, though. We kept finding them all over the place, and ever time I saw one I didn't want to kill it... But they're venomous; and I knew that if I didn't kill it, it might bite me or my brother or my cat later. For Snowball, a brown recluse bite could be fatal. As for us humans... geez, people can lose limbs from those bites! So I felt really sorry for the poor creatures as I smashed them mercilessly, but I'd rather kill a spider than lose a hand because it bit me.

Venomous creatures have no place in human dwellings. *shudders*

[echoscot]

! So I felt really sorry for the poor creatures as I smashed them mercilessly, *shudders*


That was a very funny quote....LOL