Are humans animals?

[Mike]

Where does one go to find out what a true Christian believes?

happyjoy, you know where to go to find out what a true Christian believes, but you reject a lot of it's contents. It does appear that whenever there is a debate raging between the Christian belief and the worldly belief, you are on the side of the world.

just sayin'...

 

[happyjoy]

Where does one go to find out what a true Christian believes?

happyjoy, you know where to go to find out what a true Christian believes, but you reject a lot of it's contents. It does appear that whenever there is a debate raging between the Christian belief and the worldly belief, you are on the side of the world.

just sayin'...

What truths have I rejected?

 

[Nick]

Let's keep this on topic please. Plate techtonics can be discussed elsewhere...

 

[Mike]

Where does one go to find out what a true Christian believes?

happyjoy, you know where to go to find out what a true Christian believes, but you reject a lot of it's contents. It does appear that whenever there is a debate raging between the Christian belief and the worldly belief, you are on the side of the world.

just sayin'...

What truths have I rejected?

Since you're asking...

Besides in this thread which includes:
People are not wholly different than other animals as we are created in God's image
God doesn't act on His, or doesn't have, authority over the earth and its nature

You've stated on other threads:
It's a good idea to date, even if it results in marriage, an atheist.
Belief in Christ is not necessary to spend eternity with God.
There's no such thing as spiritual warfare.
The Bible is loaded with errors.

That's just a few that I've come across. I hope it doesn't look like I'm personally attacking you with this. You asked, so I said. If you don't believe I've stated a point correctly in the list, I'd be happy to cut and past from threads where I saw them. They might have been taken as a single comment at the time, and not reflective of your overall beliefs, but you did say these things.

 

[Mike]

Let's keep this on topic please. Plate techtonics can be discussed elsewhere...

Sorry. My bad.

mjjcb

 

[Lewis]

Let's keep this on topic please. Plate techtonics can be discussed elsewhere...

Thanks Nick.

 

[happyjoy]

Since you're asking...

Besides in this thread which includes:
People are not wholly different than other animals as we are created in God's image
God doesn't act on His, or doesn't have, authority over the earth and its nature

People are not wholly different than animals. I would say I have established humans are animals.

As for God not having power over the Earth. I didn't say that. I said it is superstition to blame earthquakes, volcanoes, weather on God.

Also, it is my understanding that God gave dominion of the earth to Satan.

You've stated on other threads:
It's a good idea to date, even if it results in marriage, an atheist.
Belief in Christ is not necessary to spend eternity with God.
There's no such thing as spiritual warfare.
The Bible is loaded with errors.

I didn't say it was a good idea to date an atheist, I said it was a bad idea to tell someone to end a relationship with someone who treats them well, and makes them happy, because because of it.

I am not the only one who thinks that there are exceptions to believing in Christ to get to heaven. I think everyone agreed that babies, the mentally in-firmed, people who had no opportunity to hear are given exception, there may be more.

I didn't say there was no such thing as spiritual warfare. I asked for clarification about what people where talking about.

I never said the bible was full of errors, you must have me confused with someone else.

That's just a few that I've come across. I hope it doesn't look like I'm personally attacking you with this. You asked, so I said. If you don't believe I've stated a point correctly in the list, I'd be happy to cut and past from threads where I saw them. They might have been taken as a single comment at the time, and not reflective of your overall beliefs, but you did say these things.

I don't think you are attacking me.

 

[handy]

Oh yeah there are tons of outright bogus scientific claims, and pseudo science out there, but science has developed a very good process to debunk those claims. One need only go to any accredited university to find the truth of what science actually says.

Where does one go to find out what a true Christian believes?

A fair question. The short answer is, of course, the Bible.

But, yes, the Bible has been picked apart and argued over in the Church since the canon was decided upon. And, every denomination has it's own take on it.

But, in spite of the in-house fighting, the Church still has pretty well defined what Christians, as a body, believe and those are found right in the Statement of Faith here on this board.

I think we can both agree that the real source of all truth, scientific as well as spiritual is God. But, God has only revealed what He has determined. Since we tend to be curious creatures, we tend to fill in the gaps with our own logic. The error that both the Church and the scientific community fall into is to become very dogmatic about our way of filling those gaps.

May I ask you this, happyjoy? You stated that "people are not wholly different than animals". I agree. I agree that we are not "wholly different" because even though we are made in the image of God, God in His wisdom still made us from the earth, just as He made the animals from the earth, and we have biological "flesh and blood" just as the animals do.

My question is though, do you believe that humans are more than just animal?

 

[happyjoy]

My question is though, do you believe that humans are more than just animal?

Yes I do.

 

[handy]

I thought you most likely did, happyjoy.

So, now I'd like to ask a question of the others here in this discussion.

We are in agreement that humans are more than animals. Is there anybody who disagrees that humans are animals, biologically, granting that they are more than just animal?

 

[Caroline H]

Etymology--The word "animal" comes from the Latin word animal (meaning with soul, from anima, soul). In everyday colloquial usage, the word usually refers to non-human animals.[1] Frequently only closer relatives of humans such as vertebrates or mammals are meant in colloquial use.[citation needed] The biological definition of the word refers to all members of the Kingdom Animalia including humans.[2]

According to the meaning of the word, I would have to say No, I do not disagree.

 

[Mike]

Etymology--The word "animal" comes from the Latin word animal (meaning with soul, from anima, soul). In everyday colloquial usage, the word usually refers to non-human animals.[1] Frequently only closer relatives of humans such as vertebrates or mammals are meant in colloquial use.[citation needed] The biological definition of the word refers to all members of the Kingdom Animalia including humans.[2]

According to the meaning of the word, I would have to say No, I do not disagree.

We could be talking semantics here by the words "soul" and "animal". Also defining them from different perspectives yield different results: biological, philisophic, religious (I hate that tag)

Also from Wikipedia, since having a soul seems important to consider, a part of the definition of "soul":

The Greek word is derived from a verb "to cool, to blow" and hence refers to the vital breath, the animating principle in humans and other animals, as opposed to ???? (soma) meaning "body". It could refer to a ghost or spirit of the dead in Homer, and to a more philosophical notion of an immortal and immaterial essence left over at death since Pindar. Latin anima figured as a translation of ???? since Terence. It occurs juxtaposed to ???? e.g. in Matthew 10:28:

The Christian view of the soul is based upon the teaching of both the Old Testament and New Testament. The Old Testament contains the statements "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it" (Ecclesiastes 12:7) and "And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." (Genesis 2:7). In the New Testament can be found a statement by Paul the Apostle, "And so it is written, the first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit." (1 Corinthians 15:45).

I'm sure there are a small minority of biblical Christians that would say animals (apart from humans) have souls, I believe the vast majority would reject this notion. Science seems to have placed us in the same category of species, but are we talking about something defined by a group of people or defined by God? I would place the higher authority of God as the determinant. Unless someone can show me scripture to suggest any other living thing has a soul other than people, I would say we don't. That said, I would say from a creationist point of view, people are not animals.

 

[jasoncran]

animals, dont repent and get saved. only we humans can do that.
we are classified in the animal kingdom as we have things in common with them.

 

[happyjoy]

animals, dont repent and get saved. only we humans can do that.
we are classified in the animal kingdom as we have things in common with them.

Yes, but what you don't seem to want to acknowledge is that the thing we have in common with them is that we are animals.

 

[jasoncran]

animals, dont repent and get saved. only we humans can do that.
we are classified in the animal kingdom as we have things in common with them.

Yes, but what you don't seem to want to acknowledge is that the thing we have in common with them is that we are animals.

i take issue when persons of science say this stuff and advise this crap.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/carole-jahme

read those and thats based on the philosophy darwinism. mave favorite one is this its ok for a woman to have multiple partners and cheat on the spouse, and not a man. not exactly true to what darwin would espouse via his theory of evolution and the survival of the fittest.

 

[happyjoy]

animals, dont repent and get saved. only we humans can do that.
we are classified in the animal kingdom as we have things in common with them.

Yes, but what you don't seem to want to acknowledge is that the thing we have in common with them is that we are animals.

i take issue when persons of science say this stuff and advise this crap.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/carole-jahme

read those and thats based on the philosophy darwinism. mave favorite one is this its ok for a woman to have multiple partners and cheat on the spouse, and not a man. not exactly true to what darwin would espouse via his theory of evolution and the survival of the fittest.

That link has nothing to do with what we are discussing. I can't help the silly things some people believe, and what they say doesn't change the fact that we are animals.

 

[jasoncran]

because it does. you say that we are animals and that we are those and nothing more. i posted that and by the way

what she epsouses is a science , evolutionary psychology.

ever heard of it?
hmm its legit to them of the scientific arena. unless you doubt science.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evolu ... sychology/

the original person in that link i commited has a masters in that field.
so i think this is relevant. after all its a world view that you are disagreeing with.

 

[happyjoy]

because it does. you say that we are animals and that we are those and nothing more. i posted that and by the way

what she epsouses is a science , evolutionary psychology.

ever heard of it?
hmm its legit to them of the scientific arena. unless you doubt science.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evolu ... sychology/

the original person in that link i commited has a masters in that field.
so i think this is relevant. after all its a world view that you are disagreeing with.

I think you are trying to divert attention. Psychology is not now nor has it ever been a hard science, and evolutionary psychology certainly isn't.

Biology, however, absolutely is, and Biologists unanimously agree. Humans are animals.

 

[handy]

Leaving aside the question of animals and souls (which has already been discussed), are humans in nature, but more than animals being made in the image of God?




I think this is what is the heart of the problem: Science and Faith are so polarized with each other right now, that no one wants to appear to concede anything.

[Note: I was called away whist writing this post and came back to find the exchange between Jason and happyjoy. I think that their exchange proves exactly what I'm getting at.]

Take for instance the idea that life begins at conception. That is a no brainer, but we have scientists lining up all across university campuses to deny this obvious fact, because to concede that life begins at conception would be to concede just a little bit of ground to the religious right on the issue of abortion.


By the same token, we can see with our eyes, touch with our hands, smell, hear and yes, taste, and see that human beings have flesh, blood, produce milk, reproduce sexually, have a lot of salt in their system (that's what I meant by taste, not cannibalism, just wanted to be clear), have the same basic skeletal system, have the same basic digestive system, even have the same basic DNA, as other mammals here on this earth. But, I think what drives most Christians to say that human beings are not animal at all (because we've already acknowledged that humans are more than animals) is because to do so would concede some ground to evolutionary science.

God made man from the same earth as He did the other animals. Yes, He took special care in His creation of man, He just didn't call Adam forth from the earth as the other animals (because we are more than animals) but nonetheless, He didn't create us the same way He did the angels, either. We humans are just as much of this earth as dogs and the duck-billed platypus are.

God also acknowledges our kinship with the animals in that the first dietary law on record was that humans were not to consume the blood of the animal they ate, because the blood was its life. (Gen 9:4) The fact that God places our life's blood of higher significance than the animals, doesn't mean that the animals do not have life's blood, just as we do.

To deny that we are creatures of the flesh is to deny the Bible, I don't think anyone would argue with that. But, the very fact that we are of flesh and blood means that we are animals, we are not pure spirit, nor are we created beings, not of this earth. God created us as animals, as opposed to vegetables, minerals or spirits. But, we are animals that are far more than cattle, beasts or crawling things because we were made in God's image. Just because we acknowledge the truth of this doesn't mean that we are conceding to the unwarranted conclusions of evolutionary science. It's just acknowledging truth.

 

[jasoncran]

that is a science, not all scientist agree on the specfics on how evolution is coming to be defined.

you seem to think that we can all be in agreement with the biologist and when we dont you say that we are superstitiouts. then when i point that line of thinking thats all were espoused by many naturalists, then you change your mind.

which science do you accept?
only biology? nothiing in the phsyciatry and phsycology arena, even though that you have stated animals have some morals. that falls under the fields of philosophy and phsycology.

i am not diverting pointing out a contradiction.
handy i agree with that.