No one can definitively answer the "soul" question. It boils down to a matter of religious beliefs; we can't fault people for holding beliefs different than our own on this subject. Nothing is “ridiculous” here.However, whether or not you believe that animals have souls (or humans do not) has absolutely no bearing on the biological functionality of humans as compared to "animals." This also has no bearing on the composition of breast milk (but I don't limit this observation to such a narrow point). In other words, even if you don't think that we're "animals," it's still useful to categorize us as mammals. We function like other mammals, and our physical form is analogous to other mammals. Thus, they are our brethren in function and form even if not in spirit. There is no reason why faith and science should clash on this point.
-
breast milk... (Moved from Female section)
-
all dogs go to heaven
-
As a natural sciences major (Biological sciences) I agree that there is little difference in the biological function between humnas and other mammals except for a few differences, the biggest of course being thought process and decision making ability as well as free will (back off this topic now). However, many views that animals and humans are the same are essentially null and void, why else would we be so much more advanced (again another back off topic).I assume you knew my point was merely in defense of suckikittens view point from simply being dismissed by some as "ridiculous" as it is my viewpoint.I have had to find a fine line between my future profession and religious beliefs as I have a prof that hasn't (devout atheist and biology teacher).
-
Yes, my statement stems from a religious belief. To further make some of you think I'm a moron (go ahead, I do too sometimes ) I also don't believe in evolution (aside from the natural development of species - mammoth-->elephant, etc.). As to where pets go when they die, I don't think they "go to heaven" or to any afterlife. They kinda just exist as part of the world around us. Like plants or stones. A great example of this is in the "Wheel of Time" books if any have read them. In "Tel'aran'rhiod" (or the world of dreams) humans can be there, but animals are a part of the place.
-
Even kitties?
-
Let me clear something up. I wasn't specifically responding to you, Worried (the Re:Worried was only a product of me replying to the last post). In fact, I whole heartedly agreed with your point that Sucki's view wasn't ridiculous. Take no offence- none was intended my friend My point was more responsive to the initial post. Let me condense it into one sentence: The view that humans have souls does not logically imply that humans are not animals in “any sense,” nor does it imply that thinking about analogous anatomical structures (mammary glands in other mammals as compared to humans) is invalid. In my opinion (this point is not directed at Worried), Christian fundamentalists have created an artificial, and unnecessary dichotomy between biology and religion. Why do empirical observations about the similarities between other animals and humans create such controversy? Is it because evolution differs from creationism? But what compels literalism in creationism when it literalism is shunned in so many other areas? There are a thousands of points in which biblical text diverges from current human practices and empirical observations (the age of the planet, for instance). There are hundreds of points in which biblical text is internally contradictory (for example, according to the Gospels, there are 4 different views on Jesus’ last words- they can’t all be the “gospel truth”). I have no idea why fundamentalists Christians have chosen to take a stance on this particular issue while calling for a less literalist reading on other issues. The same can be said of the text allegedly condemning homosexuality- why take a stance here? Why not advocate the stoning of adulterers (Leviticus 20:10), for instance. I’m not condemning Christianity, but simply concluding there’s no need to throw away science to preserve an inconsistent literalist stance.
-
Oooohh, I see. No offense was taken at all, I tend to agree with you on a lot of things.That was my point as well. In my belief, God gave us science for a reason. There is absolutely no doubt that humans have evolved, the fossils and bones are proof enough. However, people often times take what Darwin said out of context. He DID NOT say that we evolved from fish or monkies, he said that fit survive and ther are changes over time, we know this absolutely true.Creationism as a science:Is it a science, it could be. To many it is, to many it's not...to each his own.Now to conclude, my biology prof., Prof. X to protect the dumb, used to be a minister. His wife died and he whole-heartedly turned his back oin his beliefs. Now to understand my p.o.v., I WOULD NEVER DO THAT!!! He is one of the top Bio profs in the country, but in order to get a Letter of Recomendation students had to sign a letter disavowing ANY belief in God, specifically the Christian God, in order to get it. Needless to say this ended up in the Texas Sup. Court and they said he couldn't do this. This is the problem that I have with all this.
-
yes, even kitties, though they may have all the personality in the world, do not have souls or a heaven to go to.
-
Well, my idea of heaven has kitties in it.
-
And just what is a soul?? Other religeons such as the Hindus believe in reincarnation. Reincarnation can take the form of other lifeforms. Who's to say that animals don't have this "life energy".