Do animals have souls? Your thoughts!

[Deleted member 93706]

Does this mean any kind of meat we eat can be called "soul food".?

B R U H

 

[Nexus Cabler]

B R U H

This doesn't answer my question, Mark. I need to know these things >:v

 

[Raever]

This doesn't answer my question, Mark. I need to know these things >:v

The answer to your question is, not unless it's prepared with love.
Also it needs to be filling. All soul food is filling.

 

[Nexus Cabler]

The answer to your question is, not unless it's prepared with love.

Wholesome :3

 

[Kit H. Ruppell]

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.

A false dichotomy invented by those with huge egos and small minds.

 

[Deleted member 93706]

A false dichotomy invented by those with huge egos and small minds.

What a presumptuous statement.

 

[Raever]

A false dichotomy invented by those with huge egos and small minds.

Life /= Soul.

So, I'm tempted to agree with @MarkOfBane in a way. I'd rather run over a squirrel than swerve to miss it and crash the car...I do not think my "soul" is worth more or less than anything else's. What we value physically and what we value spiritually are (or should be) separate due to them being inherently distinct from one another.

 

[Kit H. Ruppell]

What a presumptuous statement.

I have yet to see much to convince me otherwise.

 

[Raever]

I have yet to see much to convince me otherwise.

Aight' bois let's keep it in your pants yeah?
No need to start locking groins for a d*** measuring contest on this thread's accord.

 

[Deleted member 93706]

I have yet to see much to convince me otherwise.

Take care not to assume in the meantime. Prejudice is an ugly thing.

 

[Nexus Cabler]

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.

 

[Kit H. Ruppell]

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.

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.

 

[Nexus Cabler]

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.

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.

 

[Kit H. Ruppell]

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.

That seems to be the ONE example people can come up with.

 

[Deleted member 93706]

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.

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. Of course, you can find plenty of such disregard amongst the a-religious as well.

 

[Kit H. Ruppell]

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.

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.

 

[Raever]

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?

 

[Nexus Cabler]

Yeah, I'll drop the subject too.

 

[Deleted member 93706]

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.

 

[Raever]

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.

 

[Deleted member 93706]

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 that I have here failed to act accordingly.

 

[Raever]

I agree with this in its entirety, and I do not believe I have here failed to act in accordance with this notion.

I just noticed things getting into religious debate and wanted to point it out before someone inevitably became a keyboard warrior (as it so often happens here on FAF lol). Since you responded, I responded to you, I'm not necessarily stating anything you did in particular (that I'm aware of) but I'm thankful for your choice of wording up to this point all the same.

Anyway, getting back on topic...
...crap. Now I want soul food.
*as close to the topic as my hunger will let me get ^*

 

[Netanye Dakabi]

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.

 

[Fallowfox]

Talking about whether human lives are 'worth' more than the lives of other animals isn't really something we can do impartially as humans.

There is a great variety of animals as well. Maybe a whale has thought processes comparable in depth to a human being for example (if this is our metric for worth), but a gerbil probably doesn't.
But then again, what if the gerbil is among the very last of her species? Would we then value her life more than an animal which is not endangered?



Edit, regarding the entire *rest* of the discussion about religious perspectives...a very wide variety of claims are being made that cannot really be demonstrated.
If souls exist, why would they need to be 'saved'?
Why would we believe that the existence of a soul is intrinsically related to moral quality? This is widely believed by people, but it's a non-sequitur.
Various claims about souls being 'corrupted' by evil entities. I feel this claim is actually so strange that it's not really compatible with any meaningful definition of what a 'soul' would be.

 

[Raever]

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.

I've never felt so educated and yet so.....violated.