Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by James S Saint on May 9, 2009 at 11:40am

"God gave man dominion over the creatures of Earth, man is therefore responsible for the welfare of all living creatures. "

Man isn't even taking care of the welfare of humans. What makes you think he is response-able for animals?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jeff H on May 9, 2009 at 12:08pm

supposed to be responsible my friend... where did you miss the part where I said we had abdicated it along time ago. Most of man's behavior has been failure to do what we were created to do.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James S Saint on May 11, 2009 at 12:34pm

Yeah, I know. My point was merely that to be "responsible" you must be "response-able" or have the capability to respond to the need. The ability to respond is largely dependent upon what understandings are held as to how to handle the rest of life as well. If one thing takes too much mind time, the thing you are to respond to gets left a bit short handed.

As long as Man finds the need to war, conflict, or even intimidate his own kind, he cannot respond well to others not of his kind.

A man attends to life far more greatly when he finds the harmony within that allows him to attend less to himself. Mankind is no different.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jeff H on May 11, 2009 at 12:45pm

perhaps less emphasis on oneself is found in more emphasis on others, human or animal. Our focus has to be somewhere, and it will most naturally fall on ourselves. We have to work to place it on others.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BastetAsshur on May 15, 2009 at 7:54pm

It would be nice if we used the terms people, humans, us, our rather than man, men, him, he when referring to all people. This would include women who comprise half the population.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jeff H on May 15, 2009 at 9:58pm

I try to use humankind most of the time, but got stuck in the terminology used in the Genesis quote and couldn't get out... My apologies.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Roy Farver on May 15, 2009 at 11:31pm

Since reality is created in our brains, and our understanding is percieved as experinces either thoughs or actions.
Then does all life have a spirit? YES This is needed to percieve life.

The spirit and the soul are not the samething there is no way yet to say who or what has a soul. Is a soul a myth or is it the means to talk with a creator. I have no ideal if my dog prays or not? Sometimes it feels like it and seem to be true.

This would be stereo typing without a study. Some people have souls some don't, some plants have souls and some don't, some aminal have souls and some don't. its not a matter of the type or group.
Then does all life have a soul? NO some do and some don't.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BastetAsshur on May 16, 2009 at 12:57am

That's cool. Quotes can't really be altered. I just wanted to throw a bit of awareness of that issue in to the discussion :-)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jeff H on May 16, 2009 at 10:21am

It isn't up to us to decide who has a soul and who doesn't, just like it isn't up to us to invent God, or Gravity. We observe and report what we find revealed to us, both through our own investigation, and that which is revealed to us by entities other then ourself.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BastetAsshur on May 20, 2009 at 9:47pm

I agree with this. Sweeping judgements don't help anyone. Though our beliefs sit there through investigation and learning anyway :-)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Susanna on May 29, 2009 at 3:27pm

I agree with BastetAsshur. I believe that everything that is ALIVE is in a special state of being, and has a soul. I think they are equal with us in that our kinds of intelligence are merely different. They are, in essence, non-human races.

I, for one, love animals and have had interesting experiences with them since I was a tiny girl - like the wild horse that would kick anyone who came near it, but ate out of my hand. I've always been able to understand the emotions of the creatures around me and calm them, which makes me think we aren't alone in some special state. I don't think we are special in any other way than that we have a distinctly progressive mind. We are imaginative, creative, and have the tools to do just about anything. Still, other species have their own ways of looking at things, their own gifts and kinds of wisdom - of that I'm sure.

That said, I don't believe we are "a special creation, entrusted with the task of bringing care and order to the world protecting the animals and environment." Rather, I think that is a course of prudence to protect our future interests. Throughout all the generations of human existance, species have gone extinct. It will happen, and is natural. New ones always seem to pop up (whatever that implies), and I don't believe we will EVER have a shortage of kinds of animals. Of course we will mourn the losses, especially those that we caused. Because we have empathy. We don't want that to happen to our species, and we can put ourselves in their place. It's particularly frustrating when the species was valuable to us, and we squandered what could have been a great resource, if protected.

But as you see, I think the reasons for doing right by animals and the environment are logical, not religious. The spiritual connection is something else altogether. Quite a few animals speak to me on a symbolic level: Raven, Cheetah, even Mouse. I don't want to confuse personal symbolism and instinctive emotion with some God-ordained duty.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Susanna on May 29, 2009 at 4:35pm

The Astrologer said:

On the whole Susanna I agree with your comments, surely though it is every-ones duty to protect and preserve animals and the environment for our offspring.

As a Christian (an aging one of no fixed church movement) I remember the old stance Christians had with animals, believing that they had no souls and humans could do with them whatever they felt necessary,,, I always had a problem with the animal thing was one of the two hundred or so reasons that I could not settle into a fixed religious group, I had thoughts (Biblically based) that did not fit with traditional Christian thinking. They read something into Genesis and Psalms that I couldn't see?

Modern Christian thinking however, is largely sympathetic to animals and less willing to accept that there is an unbridgeable gap between animals and human beings.

Although most theologians don't accept that animals have rights, they do acknowledge that some animals display sufficient consciousness and self-awareness to deserve moral consideration. The growth of the environmental movement has also radically changed Christian ideas about the role human beings play in relation to nature.

Few Christians nowadays think that nature exists to serve humanity, and there is a general acceptance that human dominion over nature should be seen as stewardship and partnership rather than domination and exploitation. I personally do believe that humankind was charged with the duty to protect the environment, even if one doesn't believe that, humankind has a duty to the planet that is home and unlike you, I don't believe that other animals will continue to pop up as a replacement to those lost, no matter how humankind treats the planet...

Well, Astrologer, I think we are seeing the same thing from different angles. I DO believe we have such a duty, and I gave my reasons (which I know are different from most.) I like knowing that that desire to protect is backed up by logic, not just emotion. I think that we are charged with that duty, not by some higher power, but by the very real need for it - our need and the earth's natural balance (which it is also in our best interest to maintain.) We are unique in that we have the ability to impact anything this much...but who knows, maybe the dinosaurs had that same destructive ability in another way - such as the amount they ate!

I don't know if species are perpetually being created...it just doesn't seem logical to me to mourn the loss of, say, the monk seal more than the loss of the sabretooth tiger and other things that are now gone. If this has been happening for billions of years, as some say, than wouldn't we have run out by now? If not, isn't that just the way of the world? We definitely SHOULD do our best not to negatively impact the world around us for our own good and that of the children. It would be great if we could keep the world static...but sometimes our ideals - such as that of eternal temperature stability and no more species being lost - are just unrealistic. It takes a balanced view, really.

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page