Are animals equal or inferior to humans?

[alligatorsky]

The Bible doesn't talk much about animal salvation or really much about animal rights in general.

Also, can being vegetarian be influenced by true Christian values?

 

[twinserk]

Men are masters over the rest of creation. Just because something is subordinate to you does not mean that they/it are to be treated shamefully or without love.

 

[AlexBP]

I take the common sense approach. Humans can think, read, write, do math, study history, plan for the distant future, philosophize, love God, devise ethics and morals and aesthetics, and do a great many other things that no animal can do to even a minor extent. Hence humans are superior to animals.

Some people will argue that there is overlap. A severely retarded or brain-damaged person may have the same intelligence as a well-trained chimpanzee. Likewise a criminal may have no more morals than a dog. But as I see it, that precisely proves the point. If we see a person who's only as intelligent as a chimp, we know that person has been damaged or disabled in some way, and we make every attempt to reverse the damage and cure the person. If we see a chimp, we know it's just doing what it should be doing: being a chimp. No cure is needed or desired.

The concept of animal salvation is as meaningless, to me, as tree salvation or rock salvation. To be saved one must make a personal decision to renounce sin, which no animal can do.

On the vegetarian question I'm on the fence. I rarely eat meat but will do so in special circumstances, such as parties or family reunions. While I have no moral qualms about eating animals in general, it's true that nowadays food animals are raised in atrocious circumstances. Even people who aren't concerned about the suffering of animals in factory farms should be concerned that they provide ideal conditions for disease the spread and produce tons of pollution, which gets dumped into our rivers and streams and eventually pollutes our drinking water. On that topic, I recommend the following videos:

YouTube - ‪The Truth About Factory Farming and Beef Slaughterhouses‬‏

YouTube - ‪Food, Inc. - Industrial Chicken Farmers‬‏

 

[oi_antz]

I take the common sense approach. Humans can think, read, write, do math, study history, plan for the distant future, philosophize, love God, devise ethics and morals and aesthetics, and do a great many other things that no animal can do to even a minor extent. Hence humans are superior to animals.

Some people will argue that there is overlap. A severely retarded or brain-damaged person may have the same intelligence as a well-trained chimpanzee. Likewise a criminal may have no more morals than a dog. But as I see it, that precisely proves the point. If we see a person who's only as intelligent as a chimp, we know that person has been damaged or disabled in some way, and we make every attempt to reverse the damage and cure the person. If we see a chimp, we know it's just doing what it should be doing: being a chimp. No cure is needed or desired.

The concept of animal salvation is as meaningless, to me, as tree salvation or rock salvation. To be saved one must make a personal decision to renounce sin, which no animal can do.

On the vegetarian question I'm on the fence. I rarely eat meat but will do so in special circumstances, such as parties or family reunions. While I have no moral qualms about eating animals in general, it's true that nowadays food animals are raised in atrocious circumstances. Even people who aren't concerned about the suffering of animals in factory farms should be concerned that they provide ideal conditions for disease the spread and produce tons of pollution, which gets dumped into our rivers and streams and eventually pollutes our drinking water. On that topic, I recommend the following videos:

Fantastic post!

 

[JadeTigress]

I have no clue what the answer is or what it should be. All I know is that I like cats way better than most people I've encountered.

 

[dewba]

Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?
mtt 6:26

 

[Verv]

It is good to respect animal life. This should be done.

However, the Bible is clear on its stance: Humans are superior.

Nature is also clear...

The difference between the life and the fulfillment one can receive in life, or even the pain one can receive, is quite amazing. Humans are innumerably more important than animals.

I do not know why there would ever be an argument that our life is somehow on 'equal' terms.

Could somebody make it so we could destroy it?

I am not sure where you would want to begin, though.

 

[dewba]

God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
gen 1:28

And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.
gen 1:30


What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.'"
matthew 15:11


They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving,
1 tim 4:3-4


One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them.
romans 14

If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?
1 cor 10:30


similar verses

 

[jayem]

Human society does grant itself a higher position, with more extensive rights than are given to other animals. I believe we do have the right to consume them, and to use them for scientific purposes, but we also have the responsibility to treat them humanely and be attentive to their welfare. And not to extinct a species out of our greed. As Temple Grandin said, just because nature is cruel, doesn't mean we have to be.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

Human society does grant itself a higher position, with more extensive rights than are given to other animals. I believe we do have the right to consume them, and to use them for scientific purposes, but we also have the responsibility to treat them humanely and be attentive to their welfare. And not to extinct a species out of our greed. As Temple Grandin said, just because nature is cruel, doesn't mean we have to be.

I am essentially in agreement with this statement.

I was taught to respect all life - that doesn't mean I cannot eat meat or such, but that I am respect the animal. To revere it, to thank God for it. I was taught to kill the animal fast and as painlessly as possible for food. [My family are all good shots because of this - it is shameful to make a bad shot, as the animal would suffer] Not to waste. And to never hunt for sport (as this is a waste and a cruelty).

So, yes, I do feel humans are superior - least in that we are the higher animal. We are animals as well - just as the lion takes her prey -fast, with strength- so should we. But with this comes the responsibility to care for nature and to only do what we need to do to survive.
Good stewardship is taking only what one must while improving and helping what one doesn't need now.

 

[Smileandtheworld]

It seems a little silly to say Humans are more morally considerable because humans can read/write/ do history where animals can not.

It's quite ego-centric to think humans are superior in virtue of having human traits.

I'm not buying the "humans are superior" line at all tbh.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

I think it depends on the use of the word "superior". Is in a moral context? Or is it used to indicate simply the hierarchial order of the subject?

For instance, and I made it clear (I think), that I meant it in the latter. We are a higher animal, capacity wise and taxonomically.
I don't think we can make calls on morality comparing humans to other animals.

 

[Smileandtheworld]

I think it depends on the use of the word "superior". Is in a moral context? Or is it used to indicate simply the hierarchial order of the subject?

For instance, and I made it clear (I think), that I meant it in the latter. We are a higher animal, capacity wise and taxonomically.
I don't think we can make calls on morality comparing humans to other animals.

I am higher than a cow. Therefore, I deserve to be kept alive more than a cow.

I.e. If you had to pick one to kill, it'd be the cow.

--------

In what way are we higher in capacity?

 

[Freodin]

Humans are superior... at being humans. No other animal comes close to us at being humans... very surprisingly.

 

[Eudaimonist]

My kitten can run much faster than myself. My kitten is my superior in terms of speed.

When asking these questions, one needs to be clear: superior or inferior in what way? With what standard and for what purpose?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Fenny the Fox]

I am higher than a cow. Therefore, I deserve to be kept alive more than a cow.

I.e. If you had to pick one to kill, it'd be the cow.

--------

In what way are we higher in capacity?

Is the lion or the antelope higher? Depends on criteria. But it is clear that, based on order, the lion is higher. The lion hunts to feed. So do we. This is no different when it comes to it.

The difference arises in terms of mental capacity and capacity to change the environment [the overall "Capacity" that I mentioned]. We have a greater capacity for environment change -both protective and destructive- than other animals.

This means we have the capacity to raise our food and to hunt out food. We have the capacity to both restore damage and make more ruined land.
To protect or to decimate our Earth.


There is no moral distinction among species. We are no better morally and no worse morally than any other animal - we are merely different.

 

[Smileandtheworld]

Is the lion or the antelope higher? Depends on criteria. But it is clear that, based on order, the lion is higher. The lion hunts to feed. So do we. This is no different when it comes to it.

The difference arises in terms of mental capacity and capacity to change the environment [the overall "Capacity" that I mentioned]. We have a greater capacity for environment change -both protective and destructive- than other animals.

This means we have the capacity to raise our food and to hunt out food. We have the capacity to both restore damage and make more ruined land.
To protect or to decimate our Earth.


There is no moral distinction among species. We are no better morally and no worse morally than any other animal - we are merely different.

So you're classification is based on "power over enviroment and other animals?"

What about diseases with no cure? Where do they rank, I mean they prey on humans, but they can't influence there enviroment?

What about animals that don't need to influence their enviroment, a rattler is happy as larry on his own in a desert with no possessions. Compare that to a human however....


Edit: So you'd have trouble picking between a Human and cow when one has to live and one has to die?

 

[Fenny the Fox]

So you're classification is based on "power over enviroment and other animals?"

What about diseases with no cure? Where do they rank, I mean they prey on humans, but they can't influence there enviroment?

What about animals that don't need to influence their enviroment, a rattler is happy as larry on his own in a desert with no possessions. Compare that to a human however....

No living thing can live without influencing and changing the environment. The bacteria lives of other beings when it must - it changes the environment. The rattler must eat when it must, and so it must kill another living thing - it changes the environment.

The difference is in degree. We have a greater capacity (as I stated before). That does not imply that others have no capacity at all.

We come along and subdue the earth. We cure sickness (kill and eliminate a bacteria or virus [if you wish to classify a virus as living]), we kill animals, we destroy forests, we tame animals, we grow food, we raise animals for pets and for food. All of these have a greater impact than the "take as you need, and only that" behavior conducted by other species.

Edit: So you'd have trouble picking between a Human and cow when one has to live and one has to die?

No, I would pick my life over its life.
Just as any animal takes the life of another creature for its own sustenance - any hunter makes this call, whether that be by direct choice or by instinct.

 

[DaisyDay]

How do you feel about laboratory-grown meat?

 

[Beechwell]

When it comes to survival, antilopes (some species at least) are probably superior to lions. I'd wagger than Springboks will still be around when lions are long extinct.
And cockroaches will probably still be around when we become extinct.