• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Human Animals?

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
That's a good question. I think at some point we considered ourselves "separate/above" the animals, and many still do, unfortunately.

So people seem to think animals are beneath them, which is not a healthy attitude.
This attitude probably arose in tandem with human domestication. In its natural state (pardon the phrase for a moment here) humanity would've been in such constant and intimate contact with non-humans that, well... animism resulted. Animism is a direct response to experiences and constant close contact with non-humans - it was just normal to understand that only some people walked on two legs while others used four, none, or had roots or fins or wings. Life was so much less settled... so much more obviously dependent on this network of the greater-than-human. But I digress...

It is kind of ironic to consider that humans domesticating non-human persons - the rise of agriculture - led to their own domestication in turn. I'm skeptical our ancestors would have even thought about these things in such lofty, domesticated, intellectual terms.
 

Kfox

Well-Known Member
That's a good question. I think at some point we considered ourselves "separate/above" the animals, and many still do, unfortunately.
I think you're confusing "animal" with beast. Humans are animals, but we are not beast.
So people seem to think animals are beneath them, which is not a healthy attitude.
Beasts are beneath us; we use them as we see fit, no other animal does this. (other than for food)
 

Kfox

Well-Known Member
In what other language would you define terms?
Doesn't matter; I didn't define any terms.
You're right. Because we're not. It's your ego that leads you to think that we are.
So why are we the only animal that uses other animals for transportation, as machines, for our entertainment, and whatever trivial task we impose on them? Why are we able to do this, but other animals aren't?
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
If a human mates with a non human animal, we consider it a perversion; any other animal does it; nobody cares.

What has this to do with humans animals being/not being beast. According to the definition of beast we qualify, the definition make no comment on mating habits
 

SalixIncendium

अहं ब्रह्मास्मि
Staff member
Premium Member
Doesn't matter; I didn't define any terms.
Denial doesn't change what you did.

So why are we the only animal that uses other animals for transportation, as machines, for our entertainment, and whatever trivial task we impose on them? Why are we able to do this, but other animals aren't?
Please don't include me in your "we." I don't.

But in answer to your question, humans use other animals because humans can be cruel, egotistical, merciless creatures, and in my book that puts them below other animals, especially from a moral perspective.

Other species work together to accomplish a result rather than use each other.

main-qimg-16618b0ce38a11c73693b3eeb620a670-lq

3-34ae1220fdd040dc9b842c7d6bb4ab0d.jpg

3-afdde5f17f6c42ca876bb12d50350904.jpg

clown-fish-523220498-15b4365cdf8d4dc9acebb7105b53d990.jpg
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Are humans really animals?
The biological definition of an animal isn't very meaningful to most people. An animal is any multicellular eukaryotic organism that lacks cell walls and includes a blastula stage in its development, that is, is at one stage a hollow ball of cells. They also generally consume organic matter as food, are aerobic (require oxygen), reproduce sexually, and can actively move. This describes man, hence man is an animal biologically speaking.

But there are other definitions. It seems that many consider an animal what you find in zoos, which excludes man and probably insects. We've seen the metaphorical definition referring to brutish people.
are we some kind of Spiritually blessed non-animal entity?
That's a religious notion, especially Abrahamic religion with its soul theology. What we are "blessed" with is the use of symbolic thought - language - and reasoning in language, so we can notice, think about, and talk about our psychological experiences, which makes us distinct from the remainder of the animal kingdom, and so we invent notions to exalt ourselves, especially beginning with the advent of a concept of intelligence. Man's history evolves from worshiping actual animal gods to imagined pantheons of half man, half animal gods (therianthropic), to anthropomorphic gods to the monotheistic superman. I understand that to mean that man once felt that the beasts who were strong and faster were their superiors to eventually realizing that they were superior to the beasts, and with it, theologies of man being a distinct entity from the rest of the animal kingdom. Many are still offended at being linked to the rest of the tree of life: "I ain't no monkey's uncle!"

What's called spirituality by many is the human ability to experience a warm sense of connection and belonging often associated with feelings of awe, wonder, mystery, and gratitude. Many understand this as a connection to another reality populated by spirits (gods, angels, ghosts, demons), but to me, it's a mental state generated by the brain that has adaptive value when it is experienced as a connection with nature and community, but not when it is reassigned to a ghost living outside of nature, especially one that allegedly issues commandments and threats. That concept has been maladaptive and is actually antithetical to authentic spirituality as I've defined it.
 
Top