D
Deleted member 93706
Guest
B R U HDoes this mean any kind of meat we eat can be called "soul food".?
B R U HDoes this mean any kind of meat we eat can be called "soul food".?
This doesn't answer my question, Mark. I need to know these things >:vB R U H
This doesn't answer my question, Mark. I need to know these things >:v
Wholesome :3The answer to your question is, not unless it's prepared with love.
A false dichotomy invented by those with huge egos and small minds.Humans souls are worth more than animal souls. You don't need to be religious to agree with the notion that a human life is worth more than the life of an animal.
What a presumptuous statement.A false dichotomy invented by those with huge egos and small minds.
A false dichotomy invented by those with huge egos and small minds.
I have yet to see much to convince me otherwise.What a presumptuous statement.
I have yet to see much to convince me otherwise.
I have yet to see much to convince me otherwise.
Well, either way, I've known you on the forums for a while, and I've seen you really care about animals. Because of this, I know your argument isn't aiming at placing animals in a bad light, so I respect your opinions fully.I have yet to see much to convince me otherwise.
My point is that I have yet to see any compelling evidence that the Abrahamic religions have been a net positive for human treatment of other animals. All signs seem to point to the opposite.Well, either way, I've known you on the forums for a while, and I've seen you really care about animals. Because of this, I know your argument isn't aiming at placing animals in a bad light, so I respect your opinions fully.
Well, I have learned of one example, Saint Francis of Assassi. He was Christian monk who advocated for the respect and compassion of animals, and the environment, from a religious perspective.My point is that I have yet to see any compelling evidence that the Abrahamic religions have been a net positive for human treatment of other animals.
That seems to be the ONE example people can come up with.Well, I have learned of one example, Saint Francis of Assassi. He was Christian monk who advocated for the respect and compassion of animals, and the environment, from a religious perspective.
My point is that I have yet to see any compelling evidence that the Abrahamic religions have been a net positive for human treatment of other animals.
As I like to say, there's no good deed you can perform with religion that you can't without it. Bad deeds, however, are another story.To some extent, I feel inclined to agree. My closest friend, who happens to also be a Christian, considers target practicing his AR-15 on live squirrels to be a fun passtime.
To me, it is a show of woeful disregard for the creations of God, not to mention wasteful.
That seems to be the ONE example people can come up with.
At this point we're getting into religious debate versus spiritual debate which is an entirely different (and much uglier) beast.
I'm also pretty sure it falls under forum rules not to get into...or was that just political stuff?
The question of whether or not animals have souls is a question of the value of animals in comparison to human beings. Such a question cannot be answered lightly, as it depends on every individual's spiritual beliefs. Discounting or disallowing the discussion of the stance of any responder based on whether their stance is predicated on their personal religion defeats the purpose of the thread, unless you're just looking for yes/no answers.
TLDR; Don't ask deep questions if you only want shallow answers.
I agree with the message but I think you can give a deep answer without insulting others' religious beliefs.
Not to brag or nothing, but I thought my answer was pretty detailed and gave a good amount of insight without stepping on others toes.
TLDR; Agreed, but depth doesn't equate to disrespect.
I agree with this in its entirety, and I do not believe I have here failed to act in accordance with this notion.
saw a comment online saying that single cell organisms are smarter than multicell ones because they need more cells.
by that logic do they think we don't have souls?
essentially humans to bacteria are like heards of cattle to a farmer.
they can affect the world by their numbers but that doesn't make them smart.
it was in response to the fact that certain bacteria have been found to balance their numbers to stop from overpopulating and killing their host and maintain a harmoneous balance of chemicals in the host for the optimum health.
essentially bacteria cultivate their host like crops.