OT: For those who are opposed to hunting.

[Walden]

To me, the difference between humans and animals is quite as drastic as that between animals and plants. Totally different types of creatures.

An even greater difference than between recorders and whistles.

My understanding, and I think that most concerned with this issue are aware what perspective I'm coming from, is that man and beast alike are created of the earth, but that man's soul, unlike the soul of animals, is God-breathed, and eternal, or everlasting.

Man has the animal in him, as we have seen time and again in lynch mobs and in utopian movements gone mad, but the ideal is to control the fleshly, animal instincts, rather than letting the fleshly animal instincts control the eternal soul. Saint Paul stated, "For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace."

Here, again, I'm trying to illustrate my point that nothing is all good or all bad. Things are complicated.

Rather, I would say, most things are not all good or all bad.

Indeed, predatory ancestors that were prey.

I've often wondered why we're so smart.
That is, I've observed monkey troops and
it really seems that if they were a little
smarter they would discover agriculture
and settle down. You don't need a brain
that can do physics and calculus to be a hunter
gatherer, or to make a living under the
circumstances under which our ancestors evolved.

So what made us so smart? Being hunted
by something smart, in groups, with
complex strategies. And what would be smart enough
to be doing that hunting? Us. Dodging and hunting
human animals would provide the evolutionary
condition for an intellectual arms race.

So my hypothesis is that human intelligence
is significantly the result of cannibalism. Only the
wickedly intelligent could survive and prevail
under conditions of constant raiding.Best

Man has been a very warlike creature, even when cannibalism wasn't in the picture. It's sad, "man's inhumanity to man."

[Ridseard]

Bible believers take the position that there is a fundamental difference between human beings and animals in that the former (which are in the image of God) have souls and the latter do not. However, the (Hebrew) word used for 'man' in the relevant Biblical references is 'adam,' and in some of its occurrences it requires interpretation to determine whether it refers to the first man (whose name was Adam) or to any man. Moreover, even in the latter case, it is not clear whether "man" refers to the entire human race. I.e., perhaps adam (man) who is made in the image of God, is a subset of the set of all human beings. This is the belief of the Gnostics: some people have the "divine spark" (soul) and some don't. This would mean that some people are essentially just lower animals, while others are distinguished from the lower animals by having a soul. This further muddies the distinction between people and animals.
By the way, the first reference to adam (Gen 1:26) is interesting when translated literally: "And gods (elohim, plural) said, let us (plural) make adam (man) in our (plural) image...."

[TelegramSam]

Jim, that's an interesting theory, the cannibalism stuff. Can you cite any evidence or references?

[TelegramSam]

Many gnostics also believe that the God who created this universe was a flawed lesser-god and that is the reason there is suffering, and historically (not sure if they're still around) there was a certain subset of them that worshipped the serpent from the garden of Eden as a "bringer of light" and a messanger from the "true god" who is seperate and aloof from our world rather than a bringer of sin and death. The Gnostics are kind of funny like that. Certainly an interesting bunch. I'd study them more, but it's hard to dig up good info on them, especially since there are so many different bunches.

[Jerry Freeman]

Even without cannibalism, tribal warfare seems a fairly universal human activity dating back to prehistory. That would fit Jim's theory just as well.

The frozen man found a few years ago in an Italian glacier died about 4,000 years ago, if I remember the reports correctly. They've now done DNA testing on his weapons and found blood from four different people besides himself. They think he got pinned down in an area contested by competing tribes.

Best wishes,
Jerry

[lixnaw]

if history tells us that there always has been warfare,(wich i don't believe), we would just have to keep on fighting??
i think in future, there'll be a long peace comming, as it has been in the past. life's a circle like the seasons of the year.

[Ridseard]

Many gnostics also believe that the God who created this universe was a flawed lesser-god and that is the reason there is suffering, and historically (not sure if they're still around) there was a certain subset of them that worshipped the serpent from the garden of Eden as a "bringer of light" and a messanger from the "true god" who is seperate and aloof from our world rather than a bringer of sin and death. The Gnostics are kind of funny like that. Certainly an interesting bunch. I'd study them more, but it's hard to dig up good info on them, especially since there are so many different bunches.

Certainly true. My main gripe with the Gnostic groups in general is their radical dualism. I am, for example, totally incapable of conceiving of the 'soul' as something distinct from the body. (I hope it's not because I don't have one. ) Moreover, both creation ('good') and destruction ('evil') are needed to keep the world going. Without the dynamism provided by opposite forces, everything would just wind down and eventually become static (which is death).

[Marko]

ok i know i'm joining in late but....
I have difficulty arguing with people who's arguement requires you to subscribe to their religous beliefs. so if you dont "believe" in evolution, please stop reading now.
given that apes and humans have a common ancester in relatively recent past, did this ancester have a soul? Did this ancester have "human" rights? and furthur down the line, did any of the decendents of this common ancester have souls and therefore, rights? I imagine the only satisfactory answer to this is that when we came along and invented civilisation, that was when the "rights" came into it. Working through this line of thought, if for some reason one of our ancesters since that common ancester was alive today, their DNA only fractionally different to ours, would they have rights, or could we hunt them, kill them, and make handbags from their skin? I believe we are animals, and have no specific "born" rights over and above those of other animals, and the ones we define and enforce upon ourselves.
just proof that you can support any argument by taking a borderline case and expanding it

[jim stone]

I know that Aristotle thought that plants have souls,
but in the ancient world, 'soul' didn't denote a ghostly
immaterial entity, but an inner principle that
brings an animal or plant into being, guides its
development, and manifests itself in the adult
form. Aristotle might well have identified
an animal's soul with its DNA, if he
had known about it. The soul is the
functional organization of the living
body of a plant or animal.

Aristotle thought that human animals have
three kinds of souls, a vegetative soul, which
takes nutrition, an animal soul that locomotes,
and a rational soul that thinks, reasons, etc.
He thought the rational soul might be able
to survive the death of the physical animal.
So while other creatures have souls, they
may not have rational souls--though given
what we know about them, some of them
probably do.

I really don't know what 'soul' is supposed
to mean in the Bible, though.

But I doubt that it's a ghostly disembodied
entity that thinks and feels--that idea of soul
comes along much later, I think.

Also I don't know why if I have a 'soul'
and Rover doesn't, that matters morally,
frankly. Also I don't know why if I'm 'created
in God's image' and Rover isn't, that
should deprive Rover of the rights I enjoy.
It may be that because I have what Aristotle
called a rational soul I can survive physical
death and if Rover lacks it, then he can't
survive. All the more reason to protect
his life. Best

[jim stone]

Forgot to answer Sam's question about whether
there's evidence for my cannibalism theory.
No, it's speculation. Something made us
much smarter than one would think we would
need to be to make a living--and it would have
existed hundreds of thousands of years ago,
even millions of years ago. And it would have
been very important. You can be successful
hunter gatherers with much less intelligence
than we have.

Another question is why we have an aesthetic
sense and why we love music.
Best

[Doc Jones]

What a great thread. :LOL:

I think it’s fantastic that people of such wildly-divergent opinions can be united by something as humble as the pennywhistle.

As to the hunting thing, here’s my two-bits:

1. We really ought to lay off the hunters. It’s not their fault that thousands of years of cultural and natural pressures have selected for men who like to go out and kill things to bring home and eat. All the “enlightened” cavemen that wanted write poetry and stage protests starved to death and thus passed on no genes. Give it a few more generations and I think we’ll “evolve” out of it.
2. I think the deer could care less whether they get chased, killed or maimed by human hunters or less-advanced predators (ie.. wolves, lions etc…) They end up in someone’s belly either way. :roll:
3. If animals don’t have souls why then are there so many “beasts” in heaven (see Book of Revelation in the bible).
4. If animals DO have souls won’t they be happier in heaven rather than mucking around down here getting chased by wolves and guys in orange hats?
5. If animals do have souls wouldn’t it make sense to have dog heaven and cat hell in the same place? You could send all the bad meter readers and mail carriers there too. Seems like it would save a lot of space. Also mouse hell could be in cat heaven etc… Ah, but I digress.
6. People who think deer shouldn’t be eaten shouldn’t eat meat or wear leather because I really don’t think the cows, pigs and chickens are having much fun either.
7. I raise turkeys to eat because I think the way poultry is raised commercially is bad and mean. I talk nicely to my turkeys every day. I give them lots of yummy food and clean water, wide open spaces, shelter and protection from fierce predators (notably my cocker spaniel who is considerably less-evolved and enlightened than myself.) When they least expect it I lop off their heads and eat them up. Some of my children call me a murderer at such times. When we go to McDonald’s I am forced to remind them that they are accessories to murder. I get the McFish McSandwich because I believe fish are dumb and don’t care if I eat them.


Glad I could help to clarify these complex issues. Carry on.

Doc

[peeplj]

Doc,

It just may be you have more sense than all of the rest of us put together.

That was a great post.

--James

[jim stone]

Actually I just remembered some evidence of prehistoric cannibalism, not that it goes very far. Neanderthals were master butchers, apparently, and there were 'rooms' in caves that were butcher shops--lots of skeletons of deer, etc, expertly taken apart, the bones broken to get the marrow. In the bone pile have been found human (Neanderthal) skeletons treated the same way. Best

[cowtime]

Thanks Doc. I've been wondering where you were.

[Doc Jones]

Doc,

It just may be you have more sense than all of the rest of us put together.

That was a great post.

--James

Ah yes, well it's probably all those McFish McBurgers...great brain food you know.


Doc