Humans are animals...

[brinny]

Possibly, although that wouldn't be the case for most animals as they lack the ability to imagine like we do, which would mean that they would be unable to comprehend the idea of a God.

Why do you assume that all animals are equal to each other? They are not. We are the most intelligent of them. We fit the definition of animal, the Bible does not say we are not an animal, and potentially says we are animals. We are animals. There's not that much that can be debated.

Man was created in the image of God. Animals were not created in God's image.

 

[Belk]

Man was created in the image of God. Animals were not created in God's image.

So are you a vegetable or a mineral?

 

[brinny]

all right, i realize that maybe i need to move on...perhaps i'm beating a dead horse...it takes me a while LOL

i s'pose we must agree to disagree amicably.

peace.

 

[brinny]

i wish we were able to talk about God without ev'rybody gettin' riled up..i like talkin' to most of you.....but i believes what i believes...the title of the thread is like honey attracting ants (like me)

 

[SithDoughnut]

Man was created in the image of God. Animals were not created in God's image.

The Bible does not say that Animals were not created in God's image. What is says is that God created man to rule over the other animals - it is not specific as to whether humans are animals themselves or not.

If the Bible does not mention it, then I think we can safely turn to science, which does give us an answer - Humans are animals.

If you wish to incorporate God into your beliefs, fine, but humans are animals. The Bible says nothing to contradict this.

 

[Cabal]

nm

 

[Belk]

i wish we were able to talk about God without ev'rybody gettin' riled up..i like talkin' to most of you.....but i believes what i believes...the title of the thread is like honey attracting ants (like me)

And I think most here enjoy talking with you. But simply because you believe something does not mean that I will lend it credence without thinking about it. I would also like to note that just because I disagree with you does not mean I am riled up.

Peace

 

[brinny]

And I think most here enjoy talking with you. But simply because you believe something does not mean that I will lend it credence without thinking about it. I would also like to note that just because I disagree with you does not mean I am riled up.

Peace

ok, good point....i agree you haven't been....and really neither has anyone else...

peace

 

[Skaloop]

Man was created in the image of God. Animals were not created in God's image.

Suppose I am an artist. Specifically, an anime artist.

One day, I draw up a bunch of pictures of all sorts of different animals. Then I draw a self-portrait of myself. All in the anime style.

Now, there is a likeness of me amongst all the non-likenesses of me, but that likeness is still anime, just like the rest. Even though it is in my image. And I am not anime, or even a drawing. I just made a drawing in my image; a drawing that is anime just like all the other things I drew. But it is slightly special because it is my likeness, so I make it the hero of the story. A superhero, called Who Man. The other anime creatures are under his control (that's his power). So Who Man is special, made in the image of his creator, and has dominion over the rest of the anime, but he's still anime, too.

 

[CoderHead]

i s'pose we must agree to disagree amicably.

All I wanted to know was whether or not you had a point. You were running in circles. I realize you're unable to agree with the statement, "humans are animals" simply because of your beliefs. So I'll leave you to it.

i wish we were able to talk about God without ev'rybody gettin' riled up..i like talkin' to most of you.....but i believes what i believes...the title of the thread is like honey attracting ants (like me)

As you've already acknowledged, nobody was getting riled up. We just wanted to know what you were talking about.

 

[Archer93]

In recorded history, has it ever been done? Before it was deemed cannibalism, was it done? Why or why not? What innately keeps man from doing this? Even during times of slavery, this did not happen. Why not? The slaves were seen as property and livestock. Why wasn't this done?

Cannibalism has occured in many societies as an innate part of their culture.
Endocannibalism is when people eat deceased members of their own community, exocannibalism is when the eat people from outside of their community.
Endocannibalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Exocannibalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't think that at any point humans were raised by other humans for the specific purpose of being eaten, but that's irrelevant as no other meat eating animal raises its own food either.

Cannibalism occurs in many other animals- sometimes it's sexual cannibalism as in the black widow spider and the praying mantis.
Other times it tends towards cannibalism of ofspring- pigs and hamsters, for example, are both known to eat their young. I don't know why, though.
I also don't know if there are examples of other animals attacking and eating other adult animals, except maybe in cases of food shortage.

Humans tend to cannibalise for a specific reason- hunger, revenge, respect.
That may be because humans are distinct from other animals in that they have a high capacity for abstract thought and can develop reasons for why they do or do not do something. With this capacity comes a perception that other humans are different from food animals, and so the consuming of them is viewed differently.

This may not always have been the case- I recall reading some years ago something about a discovery of early human bones. The knife marks and heat charring indicated that the person had been cut up and cooked, but the bones were found in an area with a high concentration of similarly treated food animal bones.
This would suggest that not only was the person eaten, they were viewed as being on a par with other food animals.
I'll try to find the article, but it was many years ago.

 

[Freysinn]

Man was created in the image of God.

I think It's vice-verca.

 

[sandwiches]

God is Creator. He is holy. He is not an animal. We are created in His image. Animals were not. God's "image" meaning those characteristics to know what's right and wrong, and to make choices, including rejecting Him, the Creator, and denying Who He is.

So, are we holy? Because you seem to be completely comfortable with your god looking like mere humans. Yet, for some reason, it seems you have a problem with your god looking like a human animal.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Cannibalism has occured in many societies as an innate part of their culture.
Endocannibalism is when people eat deceased members of their own community, exocannibalism is when the eat people from outside of their community.
Endocannibalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Exocannibalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Supposedly, Ratu Udre Udre, a Fijian tribal chief, ate somewhere between 872 and 999 people during the 19th century, earning him the Guiness record for the world's most prolific cannibal.

 

[Split Rock]

For the obtuse creationists here:

This is the definition of animal from Biology Online: Animal - definition from Biology-Online.org

Animal
Definition

noun, plural: animals

A living organism belonging to Kingdom Animalia that possess several characteristics that set them apart from other living things, such as:

(1) being eukaryotic (i.e. the cell contains a membrane-bound nucleus) and usually multicellular (unlike bacteria and most protists, an animal is composed of several cells performing specific functions)
2) being heterotrophic (unlike plants and algae that are autotrophic, an animal depends on another organism for sustenance) and generally digesting food in an internal chamber (such as a digestive tract)
(3) lacking cell wall (unlike plants, algae and some fungi that possess cell walls)
(4) being generally motile, that is being able to move voluntarily
(5) embryos passing through a blastula stage
(6) possessing specialized sensory organs for recognizing and responding to stimuli in the environment


Which part does not apply to humans?
Which part does not apply to Christian humans?
Which part does not apply to Creationist Christian humans?

 

[BananaSlug]

Man was created in the image of God. Animals were not created in God's image.

What about "humans are animals created in God's image"? Is that better?

Humans are not plants, we are not rocks, we are not plasma. We are animals.

Animal
A living organism belonging to Kingdom Animalia that possess several characteristics that set them apart from other living things, such as:
(1) being eukaryotic and usually multicellular
(2) being heterotrophic
(3) lacking cell wall
(4) being generally motile
(5) embryos passing through a blastula stage
(6) possessing specialized sensory organs for recognizing and responding to stimuli in the environment

Well let's see... humans are eukaryotes and multicellular. We are heterotrophs lacking a cell wall and are extremely motile. Our embryos pass through the blastula stage and we possess sensory organs (eyes, ears, etc).

Let's look at the basic unit of life, the cell. If humans are not animals, then our cells should not look like animal cells (if I am following this logic correctly). Let's see if we can tell the difference between an animal cell and a human cell.

Which one is the animal and which one is the human?

 

[sandwiches]

What about "humans are animals created in God's image"? Is that better?

Humans are not plants, we are not rocks, we are not plasma. We are animals.

Animal
A living organism belonging to Kingdom Animalia that possess several characteristics that set them apart from other living things, such as:
(1) being eukaryotic and usually multicellular
(2) being heterotrophic
(3) lacking cell wall
(4) being generally motile
(5) embryos passing through a blastula stage
(6) possessing specialized sensory organs for recognizing and responding to stimuli in the environment

Well let's see... humans are eukaryotes and multicellular. We are heterotrophs lacking a cell wall and are extremely motile. Our embryos pass through the blastula stage and we possess sensory organs (eyes, ears, etc).

Let's look at the basic unit of life, the cell. If humans are not animals, then our cells should not look like animal cells (if I am following this logic correctly). Let's see if we can tell the difference between an animal cell and a human cell.

Which one is the animal and which one is the human?

Forget it. For her and people like her. Calling something an animal is to denigrate or insult it. Animals are dirty, stupid beasts that exist to serve humans. Also, it's a double whammy of insults since we're supposed to be made after their god's image. So, in essence by calling humans animals, we're calling their deity a dirty, stupid beast that exists to serve humans. Not that that's what we're saying but that's what they interpret this as, anyway.

 

[pgp_protector]

Why are humans called this -------> humans ?

animals, have throughout history, been used at the discretion of humans, including raising animals on farms, and marketing them for food. Some animals are kept as pets, depending on the discretion of humans. Yet humans reserve the mindset that animals are available for human use, and the type of use may change, depending on the humans need.

In Genesis God tells Adam to subdue the earth, which meant to have authority over the creatures on the earth. There was a distinction between animals and humans. Man was created in the image of God. Animals, creatures, and beasts were not.

Man is man, a human being, created in the image of God.

So are you not human because you are called this -> brinny ?

 

[Split Rock]

Forget it. For her and people like her. Calling something an animal is to denigrate or insult it. Animals are dirty, stupid beasts that exist to serve humans. Also, it's a double whammy of insults since we're supposed to be made after their god's image. So, in essence by calling humans animals, we're calling their deity a dirty, stupid beast that exists to serve humans. Not that that's what we're saying but that's what they interpret this as, anyway.

I'm not sure this is the whole story. If they acknowledge that we are animals, then that lends creedence to common descent. It means that we are not "special" beings who's ancestor was made by a special act of God.

 

[BananaSlug]

I'm not sure this is the whole story. If they acknowledge that we are animals, then that lends creedence to common descent. It means that we are not "special" beings who's ancestor was made by a special act of God.

Yet they offer no alternative classification for humans. I wonder what they think of the fact that humans and chimpanzees are more closely related than rats and mice?