Are humans animals? (from 20Q pt4)

[DeanM]

Are humans animals?

What is your definintion of animal?

"Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what sets us apart from the animals . . . except the weasel."-Homer Simpson

Here's what Dictionary.com says:

an·i·mal
1.any member of the kingdom Animalia, comprising multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and usually limited growth, can move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow them to respond rapidly to stimuli: some classification schemes also include protozoa and certain other single-celled eukaryotes that have motility and animallike nutritional modes. 2.any such living thing other than a human being. 3.a mammal, as opposed to a fish, bird, etc. 4.the physical, sensual, or carnal nature of human beings; animality: the animal in every person. 5.an inhuman person; brutish or beastlike person: She married an animal. 6.thing: A perfect job? Is there any such animal? –adjective 7.of, pertaining to, or derived from animals: animal instincts; animal fats. 8.pertaining to the physical, sensual, or carnal nature of humans, rather than their spiritual or intellectual nature: animal needs.


Even this definition is unclear. Humans are mammals. Mammals are animals, yet somehow, there's a loophole in the definition.

What are your thoughts?

[tapero]

Are humans animals?

What is your definintion of animal?

"Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what sets us apart from the animals . . . except the weasel."-Homer Simpson

Here's what Dictionary.com says:

an·i·mal
1.any member of the kingdom Animalia, comprising multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and usually limited growth, can move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow them to respond rapidly to stimuli: some classification schemes also include protozoa and certain other single-celled eukaryotes that have motility and animallike nutritional modes. 2.any such living thing other than a human being. 3.a mammal, as opposed to a fish, bird, etc. 4.the physical, sensual, or carnal nature of human beings; animality: the animal in every person. 5.an inhuman person; brutish or beastlike person: She married an animal. 6.thing: A perfect job? Is there any such animal? –adjective 7.of, pertaining to, or derived from animals: animal instincts; animal fats. 8.pertaining to the physical, sensual, or carnal nature of humans, rather than their spiritual or intellectual nature: animal needs.


Even this definition is unclear. Humans are mammals. Mammals are animals, yet somehow, there's a loophole in the definition.

What are your thoughts?

No humans are not animals. God created the animals and created Adam and Eve. We are all descendants of Adam and Eve, I'm sure you know of Genesis where creation is written.

Blessings,
tapero

[Dies3l]

Are humans animals?

What is your definintion of animal?

"Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what sets us apart from the animals . . . except the weasel."-Homer Simpson

Here's what Dictionary.com says:

an·i·mal
1.any member of the kingdom Animalia, comprising multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and usually limited growth, can move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow them to respond rapidly to stimuli: some classification schemes also include protozoa and certain other single-celled eukaryotes that have motility and animallike nutritional modes. 2.any such living thing other than a human being. 3.a mammal, as opposed to a fish, bird, etc. 4.the physical, sensual, or carnal nature of human beings; animality: the animal in every person. 5.an inhuman person; brutish or beastlike person: She married an animal. 6.thing: A perfect job? Is there any such animal? –adjective 7.of, pertaining to, or derived from animals: animal instincts; animal fats. 8.pertaining to the physical, sensual, or carnal nature of humans, rather than their spiritual or intellectual nature: animal needs.


Even this definition is unclear. Humans are mammals. Mammals are animals, yet somehow, there's a loophole in the definition.

What are your thoughts?

I am convinced that human beings are animals, and I don't believe that this categorization is contradicted by Scripture. For example, take a look at the Creation account referenced by tapero:

Day 5 -- Gen 1:20-23 -- God creates "living creatures" of the water and of the sky (seemingly birds, fish, and possibly amphibians, all of which are "animals").

Day 6 -- Gen. 1:24-25 -- God creates "living creatures" of the land, including "livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals . . . ."

Day 6 -- Gen. 1:26-30 -- God created humankind.

The only reference to "animals" in all of this is the reference to "wild animals" in verse 24. But, if we assume that these are the only "animals" that God created then we would have to argue that birds, fish, snakes, and livestock are not animals. Nothing in the context suggests that "animals" includes a class of creation that excludes humankind. In fact, the context seems to lack any explanation of the word "animal." Thus, the idea that a human being could be an animal is not precluded by the Creation account in Scripture. So, since there is nothing unscriptural about the scientific definition of animal, which clearly includes humans, this is the most logical definition, imho, to use.

Edit: I would suggest that the dictionary.com definition is somewhat inadequate, as I am pretty sure that most scientists would not exclude humans from the definition of animals. Perhaps, we do so in everyday speech, to avoid confusion or to avoid the appearance of insult, but I don't think that this use is scientific. I would also add on a theological note, that I don't see any reason that this characterization precludes the possibility that, in human beings, there is a unique aspect of the divine that does not exist in other parts of creation. "Animals" is simply one broad characterization of a portion of creation that just happens to include human beings.

[tapero]

I am convinced that human beings are animals, and I don't believe that this categorization is contradicted by Scripture. For example, take a look at the Creation account referenced by tapero:

Day 5 -- Gen 1:20-23 -- God creates "living creatures" of the water and of the sky (seemingly birds, fish, and possibly amphibians, all of which are "animals").

Day 6 -- Gen. 1:24-25 -- God creates "living creatures" of the land, including "livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals . . . ."

Day 6 -- Gen. 1:26-30 -- God created humankind.

The only reference to "animals" in all of this is the reference to "wild animals" in verse 24. But, if we assume that these are the only "animals" that God created then we would have to argue that birds, fish, snakes, and livestock are not animals. Nothing in the context suggests that "animals" includes a class of creation that excludes humankind. In fact, the context seems to lack any explanation of the word "animal." Thus, the idea that a human being could be an animal is not precluded by the Creation account in Scripture. So, since there is nothing unscriptural about the scientific definition of animal, which clearly includes humans, this is the most logical definition, imho, to use.

Edit: I would suggest that the dictionary.com definition is somewhat inadequate, as I am pretty sure that most scientists would not exclude humans from the definition of animals. Perhaps, we do so in everyday speech, to avoid confusion or to avoid the appearance of insult, but I don't think that this use is scientific. I would also add on a theological note, that I don't see any reason that this characterization precludes the possibility that, in human beings, there is a unique aspect of the divine that does not exist in other parts of creation. "Animals" is simply one broad characterization of a portion of creation that just happens to include human beings.

And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.


Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=1&version=31#fen-NIV-26b)] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."


the LORD God formed the man [e (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=2&version=31#fen-NIV-38e)] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.


But for Adam [h (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=2&version=31#fen-NIV-51h)] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs [i (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=2&version=31#fen-NIV-52i)] and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib [j (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=2&version=31#fen-NIV-53j)] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23 The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman, [k (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=2&version=31#fen-NIV-54k)] '
for she was taken out of man." 24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.


Not clear how someone can miss that man is not an animal.

Any reading of Genesis on this makes it clear.

God is not an animal, and we are made in His image, not so with animals.

blessings,
tapero

[Dies3l]

.



Not clear how someone can miss that man is not an animal.

Any reading of Genesis on this makes it clear.

God is not an animal, and we are made in His image, not so with animals.

blessings,
tapero

You are right in saying that God is not an animal, but it seems that He did create one in His image. God is not a human being, but it would be absurd to say that we are not human beings, simply because we are "made in His image."

I am really not quite sure how this passage is supposed to show that man is not an animal. Considering how sure you are that the text somehow says this and how sure I am that it clearly does not, I guess it all comes down to the assumptions and presuppositions we bring to the text.

I can accept that you bring different understandings to the text than I do. To me, whether or not human beings are animals is not an important theological concept, so it probably isn't worth an in depth argument that is likely going to be come down to assumptions, rather than Scripture. But, I don't see any reason to argue with the scientists that say that we are animals. I don't see any reason to disagree with that.

[tapero]

You are right in saying that God is not an animal, but it seems that He did create one in His image. God is not a human being, but it would be absurd to say that we are not human beings, simply because we are "made in His image."

I am really not quite sure how this passage is supposed to show that man is not an animal. Considering how sure you are that the text somehow says this and how sure I am that it clearly does not, I guess it all comes down to the assumptions and presuppositions we bring to the text.

I can accept that you bring different understandings to the text than I do. To me, whether or not human beings are animals is not an important theological concept, so it probably isn't worth an in depth argument that is likely going to be come down to assumptions, rather than Scripture. But, I don't see any reason to argue with the scientists that say that we are animals. I don't see any reason to disagree with that.

Hi, you are miunderstanding what it means to be made in God's image. We have some of attributes of God, such as feelings, emotions, spititual capacity, etc.

I agree, no reason to debate this. Either you believe what God says about man or don't as pertains to creation and that we are indeed not animals but are man.

Should you desire to take particular scientists, who do not believe in God, nor that God created man, as truth over what Gods states, that's your right to do so.

Scripture I gave you and each I bolded makes it very clear that we are not animals.

As you read through the bible you'll not God speaks to us not the animals in all we are to do and learn from God's word.

From Genesis to Revalation it's all about man.

And do you know of many animals that leave there father and mother and become one with their wife? And scripture later comes back and speaks to this, Jesus does about Moses permitting divorce. Do animals get divorced? Can animals confess with their mouth that they know Christ and believe in Christ?

And why would God give animals to rule other animals, no he gave man to rule over animals..It's all very clear in scripture.

Animals do not sin.

When comes time for judgement in Revelation note only every human being is judged, not animals.

We are in no way animals. We are made in God's image, he did not breathe into each animals nostrils the breath of life, as he did to Adam, breathing part of Him into man.

He simply created the animals, just as he created the trees and all other things, but to man, he breathed into man life.

blessings,
tapero

[Dies3l]

I agree, no reason to debate this. Either you believe what God says about man or don't as pertains to creation and that we are indeed not animals but are man.




This is clearly not the statement of someone who is trying not to argue! This statement is snide and disingenuous. Just because I do not accept your presuppositions about this issue does not mean that I reject biblical teachings on this issue. The fact is that I have not seen anything in the Bible that indicates a proper position to take on this issue, and you have not shown me any passages of Scripture that do so. What you have shown me is an understanding of Scripture based on your own assumptions and presuppostions. While there is nothing wrong with understanding Scripture in light of your own assumptions, I would caution you to be careful about presuming that Christians who do not share your presuppositions are thereby rejecting Scriptural teaching .

[tapero]

This is clearly not the statement of someone who is trying not to argue! This statement is snide and disingenuous. Just because I do not accept your presuppositions about this issue does not mean that I reject biblical teachings on this issue. The fact is that I have not seen anything in the Bible that indicates a proper position to take on this issue, and you have not shown me any passages of Scripture that do so. What you have shown me is an understanding of Scripture based on your own assumptions and presuppostions. While there is nothing wrong with understanding Scripture in light of your own assumptions, I would caution you to be careful about presuming that Christians who do not share your presuppositions are thereby rejecting Scriptural teaching .

Hi, hugs, no arguing, it's just a statement. There are many Christians who believe many different things. Some don't believe in creation at all.

I should have qualified, as was not meaning to argue (just used your word), as posts are not arguing but discussion.

But, again, hugs, didn't mean anything by either one belives what God says about man or don't, any more than what that sentence means.

I didn't say you reject scripture. But it's not my understanding at all, it's clearly stated.. He created animals..one day..created man another.

but as said, do know people have all differnt types of understandings as said some don't believe in creation story given, so hence they do not believe what scripture clearly states on it..

got to go..
tapero

[Dies3l]

Hi, hugs, no arguing, it's just a statement. There are many Christians who believe many different things. Some don't believe in creation at all.

I should have qualified, as was not meaning to argue (just used your word), as posts are not arguing but discussion.

But, again, hugs, didn't mean anything by either one belives what God says about man or don't, any more than what that sentence means.

I didn't say you reject scripture. But it's not my understanding at all, it's clearly stated.. He created animals..one day..created man another.

but as said, do know people have all differnt types of understandings as said some don't believe in creation story given, so hence they do not believe what scripture clearly states on it..

got to go..
tapero

I appreciate your response on this.

What I have been trying to show you is that this issue is only clear to you because you presuppose that humans are not animals. I am not saying that it is wrong to bring this presupposition. But, I am saying that it is not as clearly endorsed by Scripture as you seem to think it is. I don't think that the text of Scripture clearly says anything one way or the other in answer to this question.

The reason that I reacted the way that I did to your statement is that I have heard such statements used by many Christians to belittle those whose understanding is different than their own. Essentially the way the statement comes across is "either you agree with me or you are calling God a liar." I like to think that we Christians can disagree without claiming to be the voice of God on the issue. I do believe that there are some things that are clear from Scripture. On the other hand, there are many doctrines, those which Christians argue about the most intensely, for which Scripture does not provide a clear and definite answer. For such questions, we are left to read Scripture in the light of the Holy Spirit's direction in our lives, our own experience, and the experience of others. But, when we assume that our perspective is the only one that is justifiable in Scripture, then we instantly lose the benefit of learning from those who disagree with us.

All that said, I apologize if the tone of my last post was excessively harsh, and I appreciate your response.

God Bless.

[New_Wineskin]

Are humans animals?

What is your definintion of animal?

"Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what sets us apart from the animals . . . except the weasel."-Homer Simpson

Here's what Dictionary.com says:

an·i·mal
1.any member of the kingdom Animalia, comprising multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and usually limited growth, can move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow them to respond rapidly to stimuli: some classification schemes also include protozoa and certain other single-celled eukaryotes that have motility and animallike nutritional modes. 2.any such living thing other than a human being. 3.a mammal, as opposed to a fish, bird, etc. 4.the physical, sensual, or carnal nature of human beings; animality: the animal in every person. 5.an inhuman person; brutish or beastlike person: She married an animal. 6.thing: A perfect job? Is there any such animal? –adjective 7.of, pertaining to, or derived from animals: animal instincts; animal fats. 8.pertaining to the physical, sensual, or carnal nature of humans, rather than their spiritual or intellectual nature: animal needs.


Even this definition is unclear. Humans are mammals. Mammals are animals, yet somehow, there's a loophole in the definition.

What are your thoughts?

Of course , humans are animals . They have the appearance , function , chemicals , and growth of animals .

[MoNiCa4316]

I believe that we were created in God's image and animals weren't...so it doesn't really seem like humans are animals. However, you can say that we are half animal (body) half spirit (us). :) Or, if you like, spiritual animals :P

[tapero]

I appreciate your response on this.

What I have been trying to show you is that this issue is only clear to you because you presuppose that humans are not animals. I am not saying that it is wrong to bring this presupposition. But, I am saying that it is not as clearly endorsed by Scripture as you seem to think it is. I don't think that the text of Scripture clearly says anything one way or the other in answer to this question.

The reason that I reacted the way that I did to your statement is that I have heard such statements used by many Christians to belittle those whose understanding is different than their own. Essentially the way the statement comes across is "either you agree with me or you are calling God a liar." I like to think that we Christians can disagree without claiming to be the voice of God on the issue. I do believe that there are some things that are clear from Scripture. On the other hand, there are many doctrines, those which Christians argue about the most intensely, for which Scripture does not provide a clear and definite answer. For such questions, we are left to read Scripture in the light of the Holy Spirit's direction in our lives, our own experience, and the experience of others. But, when we assume that our perspective is the only one that is justifiable in Scripture, then we instantly lose the benefit of learning from those who disagree with us.

All that said, I apologize if the tone of my last post was excessively harsh, and I appreciate your response.

God Bless.

Hi, went to bed worry about this exchange last night, and then remembered why I had stated why i did, so I'll write that here, and maybe you can understand why I wrote that:

You wrote:


But, I don't see any reason to argue with the scientists that say that we are animals. I don't see any reason to disagree with that.


and you quoted me as what to I wrote:

I agree, no reason to debate this. Either you believe what God says about man or don't as pertains to creation and that we are indeed not animals but are man.

Then you wrote:

This statement is snide and disingenuous. Just because I do not accept your presuppositions about this issue does not mean that I reject biblical teachings on this issue.

and then you wrote last post:


The reason that I reacted the way that I did to your statement is that I have heard such statements used by many Christians to belittle those whose understanding is different than their own. Essentially the way the statement comes across is "either you agree with me or you are calling God a liar."


So, from the top down, you have put your trust in scientists and what they say, rather than what I said, either you believe what God says about man or not.

Makes sense to me, as is your own statements.

That's the point of this whole post, I'm writing now.

I stated of course a scientist who does not believe in God having created man apart from the animals, will of course come to the conclusion; some; that humans are animals.

Or to take facts from scientists as truth, from those who do not believe in God, makes little sense to me.

Now to clarify, as just realizing now how you may have also taken that earlier. I surely don't mean you are not a Christian for thinking we are animals. But I can assure you that the scientists writing such more than most to likely do not believe in God, so again, it's taken a scientists word over what God plainly states.

It's not a either you agree with me or calling God a liar. I post tons on the board mainly in non c areas, and they certainly don't agree with me, and I don't think they are saying God is a liar.

I did not say that because you disagree with me, that you in effect are saying God is a liar. Yup, just checked, I didn't say such.

You are of course free to believe whatever you like, and you from above believe what scientists say rather than what scripture says; which is plainly clear that God created man, and animals, and all of creation.

As such is what you wrote.

The scripture about God creating this and that etc, is not like salvation scriptures or predestination scriptures which can be viewed differntly by many.

It's plainly stated He created man.

It's plainly stated He created animals, and that He had Adam name the animals as well.

So, I'll go back and say that some Christians don't believe the creation story at all, some dont' take it literally at all as well as other things in the bible.

So, it matters not what you believe on this matter, I am replying to what you wrote.

I am not being snide, or in anyway saying then you are calling God a liar.

Either you believe the creation bit, or you don't, or believe portions of it or you don't. It's no biggie.

But to say all you've added that I'm saying, such as being snide, and if you don't agree with me etc., I never said such.

So, If that's what you feel from what I wrote I'm sorry. I believe you read into what I never stated.

It really doesn't matter what anyone believes about creation, as has nothing to do with our salvataion.

However, in the 3 or so years on CF, never read that we were animals before being stated by a Christian; is first time saw it, so replied.

It may well be discussed much in what used to be creationism forum, whch I never went to which was christian only in past, and may well have been many Christians said such. I just never seen it before.

But do reply here, for the sake of the readers reading such.

As in no way are we animals, bible is plain..no chance of mistake in this scripture. For people to believe we are animals means they most likely believe other things on the creation to lead them to such a belief.

Such as the Christians who believe creation is a myth or such.

It does not matter what one believes on such. First time I've seen such written (man is animal) and so spoke to it.

And back to the scientists, you believe what they say, and you don't see to argue against such, so that is where you stand.

Again, not an important issue as pertains to eternity at all, for God does not say one must believe this, this and this, etc. to be saved. Only faith in Christ saves alone.

So is not a big issue, as has no eternal value, only Christ does and belief in Christ does.

But, I do wish to say, you took things as a personal attack or felt need to put me down, when I just read what you wrote and replied to it.

You said scientists say thus, hence that's what I believe.

And again lastly, that scripture is in no way confusing or have other scriptures countering it, so is very plain, and so one either disbelieves it, or believes it.. And again, makes little difference at all..but since others are reading this thread I clearly point out scripture, which clearly shows in my mind, don't even need understanding as is very clear, we are not animals.

The saying God is a liar as you felt I was saying, was not said and is your feelings alone.

Ah, I don't presuppose man is not animal, I know we are not animals, as Gods word is abundantly clear on this.

blessings,
tapero

[Dies3l]

Hi, went to bed worry about this exchange last night, and then remembered why I had stated why i did, so I'll write that here, and maybe you can understand why I wrote that:

You wrote:


and you quoted me as what to I wrote:



Then you wrote:



and then you wrote last post:



So, from the top down, you have put your trust in scientists and what they say, rather than what I said, either you believe what God says about man or not.

Makes sense to me, as is your own statements.

That's the point of this whole post, I'm writing now.

I stated of course a scientist who does not believe in God having created man apart from the animals, will of course come to the conclusion; some; that humans are animals.

Or to take facts from scientists as truth, from those who do not believe in God, makes little sense to me.

Now to clarify, as just realizing now how you may have also taken that earlier. I surely don't mean you are not a Christian for thinking we are animals. But I can assure you that the scientists writing such more than most to likely do not believe in God, so again, it's taken a scientists word over what God plainly states.

It's not a either you agree with me or calling God a liar. I post tons on the board mainly in non c areas, and they certainly don't agree with me, and I don't think they are saying God is a liar.

I did not say that because you disagree with me, that you in effect are saying God is a liar. Yup, just checked, I didn't say such.

You are of course free to believe whatever you like, and you from above believe what scientists say rather than what scripture says; which is plainly clear that God created man, and animals, and all of creation.

As such is what you wrote.

The scripture about God creating this and that etc, is not like salvation scriptures or predestination scriptures which can be viewed differntly by many.

It's plainly stated He created man.

It's plainly stated He created animals, and that He had Adam name the animals as well.

So, I'll go back and say that some Christians don't believe the creation story at all, some dont' take it literally at all as well as other things in the bible.

So, it matters not what you believe on this matter, I am replying to what you wrote.

I am not being snide, or in anyway saying then you are calling God a liar.

Either you believe the creation bit, or you don't, or believe portions of it or you don't. It's no biggie.

But to say all you've added that I'm saying, such as being snide, and if you don't agree with me etc., I never said such.

So, If that's what you feel from what I wrote I'm sorry. I believe you read into what I never stated.

It really doesn't matter what anyone believes about creation, as has nothing to do with our salvataion.

However, in the 3 or so years on CF, never read that we were animals before being stated by a Christian; is first time saw it, so replied.

It may well be discussed much in what used to be creationism forum, whch I never went to which was christian only in past, and may well have been many Christians said such. I just never seen it before.

But do reply here, for the sake of the readers reading such.

As in no way are we animals, bible is plain..no chance of mistake in this scripture. For people to believe we are animals means they most likely believe other things on the creation to lead them to such a belief.

Such as the Christians who believe creation is a myth or such.

It does not matter what one believes on such. First time I've seen such written (man is animal) and so spoke to it.

And back to the scientists, you believe what they say, and you don't see to argue against such, so that is where you stand.

Again, not an important issue as pertains to eternity at all, for God does not say one must believe this, this and this, etc. to be saved. Only faith in Christ saves alone.

So is not a big issue, as has no eternal value, only Christ does and belief in Christ does.

But, I do wish to say, you took things as a personal attack or felt need to put me down, when I just read what you wrote and replied to it.

You said scientists say thus, hence that's what I believe.

And again lastly, that scripture is in no way confusing or have other scriptures countering it, so is very plain, and so one either disbelieves it, or believes it.. And again, makes little difference at all..but since others are reading this thread I clearly point out scripture, which clearly shows in my mind, don't even need understanding as is very clear, we are not animals.

The saying God is a liar as you felt I was saying, was not said and is your feelings alone.

Ah, I don't presuppose man is not animal, I know we are not animals, as Gods word is abundantly clear on this.

blessings,
tapero

Think about the nature of the statement "either you believe what God says . . . or you don't." If someone clearly doesn't believe "what God says" then that person either believes (a) God is wrong or (b) God is a liar. There is no other way to interpret this statement. When you add to that "God's Word clearly says [what I believe]" then you are essentially saying "Either you agree with me (what God says), or you don't believe God." This means that you would be accusing the recipient of the statement (i.e., a person who disagrees with you on the topic) of believing that God is either wrong or that He is a liar. I can tell from your follow up posts that the snide tone was not intentional and that you didn't mean the statement to come across that way, so I am not upset about it. But, I would still like you to see how such statements would have a tendency to shut down meaningful conversation, and why such statements carry with them a tone of arrogance and disingenuousness.

The reason that I don't agree with your assessment that this issue comes down to either agreeing with God's Word or not is that the Bible is not as clear as you suggest that it is. As far as I can tell, the Bible does not define "animal." As I explained in a prior post, by the reasoning that says "God created animals, and then He created man," we would also have to conclude that birds, cattle, snakes, and fish are not animals, either, because all of these are listed separately as objects of creation than "wild animals," which is the only mention of the creation of a being that is called an animal. On the other hand, the phrase in the Genesis account is "wild animal," which implies that there are other animals that do not fall into this category, which imho includes animals such as livestock (domesticated animals) and human beings (domesticating animals).

I am not interested in changing your mind on this particular issue. I really don't think that it is that important. But, what is important is that we learn to distinguish between what the text of the Bible "clearly states" and our interpretation of what the Bible says. We all bring assumptions and presuppositions to our understanding of the Bible; this is unavoidable. The problem arises when we begin to believe that our interpretation is the only one that is supported by the text. This is good issue to illustrate this point, because the text of the Bible says nothing about whether human beings are animals. But, if you begin with the assumption that "animal" means something less than human, it is not unlikely that you will read such a belief into the text. This is an important distinction to understand if you are going to have conversations with other Christians. There are some issues about which Christians reasonably disagree that are much more intensely argued and much more theologically important than this one. If we are unable to differentiate our interpretations (which may be supported by an entirely reasonable inference or set of inferences) from what the the text actually says, then we effectively shut ourselves off from meaningful conversation about such issues.

I appreciate the thought that you are putting into this. Now that I am beginning to understand your perspective, I am sorry that I initially came off as somewhat abrasive and defensive.

Blessings,

D

[Starcrystal]

No, but sometimes they act like Animals, or worse!