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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I as well should be omitted from this ignorant "we" that hasn't had even a half way decent look at the different animals of the world and all the many behaviors of interactions and behaviors of animals.
If you feed a stray animal, and they keep coming to your home for food, and eventually you allow them in your house as your pet, you don't have to be a genius to figure out the animal wants to be there.
If a man kills a woman's kids and rape her, do you consider that act wrong? Or would you judge him by the same standard you would judge a lion.
My scenario is based on real life events
Do you understand the difference between a lion vs a house cat; even though they are both in the cat family? If so, you should understand the difference between a human and a modern ape; even though they are both in the ape family.
Completely irrelevant to what I asked you for.
I've already pointed out the flaw in your analogy. Unless both are sociopaths, your analogy fails. There is no point in pursuing it.
The problem with your logic is there is no such species as "modern ape." Let me simplify this in terms you might better understand.
Do you recognize the difference between a house cat vs a lion; even though they are both in the cat family? If so, then you should understand the difference between a human vs an ape even though they both are in the ape family.
I've already addressed your confusion in the preceding post. Repeating the same error doesn't make it correct.
Ape is a loaded term; because when people think of apes, they think of modern apes; not the great ape which hasn't been around for a million years. The apes that are around today are not human.
Do you believe humans to be superior to all other animals? I do. I base this on the fact that humans are intelligent; what I mean by intelligent is we learn from those who came before us, and add to it; then we teach our young what we learned and they take that knowledge even further. Non humans don’t do that; they just learn from their parents, and they don’t take it any further. That’s why if it were possible to bring a dog from 500 years ago, to the present; that dog would fit right in with today’s dogs. But you take a human from 500 years ago, and bring to the present, he would be lost among modern humans. IMO our ability to expand knowledge from one generation to the next makes us better than those creatures unable to do it.
When I say ape, I'm talking about those you find in cages at the zoo; not humans.
What's *****?
No it isn’t; when a dog chooses to go to my house, and even enter my house, I call that consent.
No; you obviously didn’t understand my analogy. If you are gonna hold humans to a higher moral standard than you hold non humans, you may say we are all equal, but your actions prove otherwise.
When I say “ape” I’m talking about those creatures you find in cages at the zoo.
Yeah; but if we're gonna have a conversation, there needs to be an understanding concerning what we are talking about. If you're talking about an ape at the zoo, and I think you're talking about the man who lives next door, there is gonna be confusion so there needs to be a distinction between the two when we talk; otherwise our conversation will not get very far. Does this make sense to you?
Though I can agree with that, That's not what we were talking about.
And if I don't know the difference between a baboon vs an orangutan? It might be easier for me to just refer to them as apes.
This absurdly reminded me of the quote from Aliens where Ripley says, about the Aliens to Burke, who just betrayed them to earn a profit off the aliens:Denial doesn't change what you did.
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.
I wasn't aware that you "use" a dog to enter your house. You've lost your train of thought somewhere along the way here. We were talking about "using" animals with their consent.
As I said, it's about intent. Your analogy fails because you were unable to demonstrate identical intent.
Then you should specify non-human apes so we can understand what you mean.
Quite simply, no.
This says more about our ability to conceive of symbolic language (and thought) and as to how we have managed to pass on knowledge gained from generation to generation via the various technologies that we have invented, especially parchment and paper, and hence why it has only been since the invention of such that recorded history has been available to us, even if we can't rely on this to be accurate. Religious texts, take note.
I think you might have to prove that, given that any human that had no contact with other humans (born and left in the wild and which survived such) would hardly be able to converse with any other humans or probably even fit into society, given that all humans go through a lengthy period of training to become humans. Someone from the past as you mentioned might do this equally as well, having much the same brain as us now.
Superior in some ways but far inferior in many ways too. Hard to tell really, but most humans wouldn't survive in the wild without any aids or special knowledge. Most animals seem to though.