|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 8:01 pm
Quote: Mercy: going out of your way or feeling sory for a disadvantaged person or thing. Love: an emotional commitment that places other human(s) above yourself. Instinct' Priorities: 1: propogating 2: living 3: seeking pleasure. In that order. No where do you see putting other's first, because, aside from offspring, it goes against those top three prioties. I was thinking of love and mercy in the loosest senses of the words. Mercy, as in a conscience type thing, where if you're faced with doing something bad such as hurting someone or not hurting them you would choose not hurting them as a default. Love, as in caring about someone, but not nessecarily putting them above yourself. But in that sense, you are right. Quote: The fact that there were simply proves our need to classify ourselves apart from them. And humans with slightly-more-shapely foreheads was to long to say in latin. XD Well I didn't really have a point in the first place. Quote: Yeah, it does. Instinct tells us that the only other important people are our offspring, and love contradicts that. But apes can form caring relationships towards people and other apes who aren't their offspring. Maybe it is a survival instinct, but it still happens. Quote: No, proof that Apes can love. Love in what sense of the word? Quote: Anger is a feeling, not an emotion. I'm sorry you're still confusing me with this. Quote: I'm differentiating using pre-existing words. what Apes 'feel' is different than what humans 'feel'. I simply lacked the proper word to describe it, so I had to use pre-existing ones. I can see where you're going with 'feeling' vs. 'emotion' but it would really help me if you could explain to me how human emotion requires abstract thought.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 3:19 pm
Captain_Theoretical But apes can form caring relationships towards people and other apes who aren't their offspring. Maybe it is a survival instinct, but it still happens. Then, as you said, it's survival instinct, not love. Quote: Love in what sense of the word? Platonic love. Quote: I'm sorry you're still confusing me with this. Okay, let me try to explain it this way: Anger is simply a response. Some one hits you and you get angry. Action/reaction, simple as that. Emotion is taking it one step further. Emotion would you holding dislike against that person in the future (note: distrusting them would not be emotion, simply pavlovian response). Quote: I can see where you're going with 'feeling' vs. 'emotion' but it would really help me if you could explain to me how human emotion requires abstract thought. Simple, it's more that stimulus/response. Emotions require something more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 6:23 pm
Quote: Then, as you said, it's survival instinct, not love. Well then, what separates our platonic relationships from apes' platonic relationships? What is the defining element that makes our platonic relationships love and theirs survival instinct? If a person is mean to me or does me harm, I have reason to dislike them. If a person is kind to me, I have reason to like them. A person who is helping me is aiding my goal to live and reproduce and so on and so forth, and a person who is causing me harm is going against my goals. That's survival instinct. So, is what separates us the fact that we can make arbitrary desicions? As in, this person has not done direct harm to me, but they smell bad/act strange/don't like the same movies as I do so I don't like them? Or is friend-making a pleasure seeking instinct, so you would not want to be around people who make you feel uncomfortable? Quote: Okay, let me try to explain it this way: Anger is simply a response. Some one hits you and you get angry. Action/reaction, simple as that. Emotion is taking it one step further. Emotion would you holding dislike against that person in the future (note: distrusting them would not be emotion, simply pavlovian response). Oh I sort of see what you're getting at. As in "Not only has this person hurt me physically and I'm angry/sad/etc. because I am in pain and I will not trust them in the future because I have reason to believe they will cause me more pain, they hurt me emotionally and I think hitting is mean and reflects poorly on their character." ? Quote: Simple, it's more that stimulus/response. Emotions require something more. Okay, well tell me if I still don't have it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 1:31 pm
Captain_Theoretical Quote: Then, as you said, it's survival instinct, not love. Well then, what separates our platonic relationships from apes' platonic relationships? What is the defining element that makes our platonic relationships love and theirs survival instinct? If a person is mean to me or does me harm, I have reason to dislike them. If a person is kind to me, I have reason to like them. A person who is helping me is aiding my goal to live and reproduce and so on and so forth, and a person who is causing me harm is going against my goals. That's survival instinct. So, is what separates us the fact that we can make arbitrary desicions? As in, this person has not done direct harm to me, but they smell bad/act strange/don't like the same movies as I do so I don't like them? Or is friend-making a pleasure seeking instinct, so you would not want to be around people who make you feel uncomfortable? Quote: Okay, let me try to explain it this way: Anger is simply a response. Some one hits you and you get angry. Action/reaction, simple as that. Emotion is taking it one step further. Emotion would you holding dislike against that person in the future (note: distrusting them would not be emotion, simply pavlovian response). Oh I sort of see what you're getting at. As in "Not only has this person hurt me physically and I'm angry/sad/etc. because I am in pain and I will not trust them in the future because I have reason to believe they will cause me more pain, they hurt me emotionally and I think hitting is mean and reflects poorly on their character." ? Quote: Simple, it's more that stimulus/response. Emotions require something more. Okay, well tell me if I still don't have it. Look guys, how God and His Word says the world and everything in it was made was how it was made, it said that God made man from the DUST, NOT from APES or ANIMALS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 1:49 pm
Maybe god made apes out of dust and then allowed them to evolve into humans. It's fully possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 6:04 pm
It's interesting... we've been studying this kind of stuff in my psychology class and basically everything that we try to use to distinguish humans from animals we end up finding to be false. Apperance? There are so many different varioatiosn of human genes, we can't consider that. Plus is you want to bring the "created in God' image" into it, then, to me, taking that as strictly physical seems ridiculous. It's like putting God in a box- something we can't do. Language can't seperate us either. Other animals communicate with one another, and children who have been lived in extream isolation and were deprived of language often have a difficult time learning langauge. One girl, Genie, we deprived of almost all human interaction until age 13. She was eventually found by social workers and they attempted to reabilitate her, however he language is a lot more like a parrot. I mean, Koko the gorilla knows more words than she does.
It's interesting, because there's a very fine line, if any, between human and animal. I honestly have no opinion on the whether we developed from apes or not thing. I mean, I know God made me and that's all the matters. I'm special because he made me the way I am. I don't think it matters if a million years ago my ansecestors resembled apes. It's irrelivent, I think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:33 pm
Scientificallly, the 'real' difference between humans and animals is a written language.
But, they are teaching orangutans computer language so that they can communicate with us.
There was this one orangutan that hid a broken piece of paperclip under his lip and then, when no one was looking, taught himself how to pick the lock and escaped from his enclosure.
I don't know about any of you guys, but I certainly wouldn't have thought of that, let alone have been able to teach myself how to pick the lock.
God has special plans for humans, but that doesn't mean He doesn't love the other animals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 7:05 pm
Oh, no one's saying He doesn't love animals, it's just that He didn't die for them; He died for us, and from what I understand, that's the greatest exhibition of love. He did the greatest act of love for us, not for animals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
High-functioning Businesswoman
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 7:42 pm
Okay, see that can make sense to me. But by that time we were already humans, if you do believe we eveolved from ape like creatures. So whether or not we evolved from apes or not, he still died for humans.
I'm not saying we did or didn't, I'm just saying. Hahah XD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:39 pm
Alright, this is probably a dumb request, but could you give the verse(s) about Chirst dying for our sins. I would look it up, but I hate reading the Bible. It actually sickens me a bit, so could you do me a favor and find that for me?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High-functioning Businesswoman
|
Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 4:54 pm
Oh, gosh, there's so many. confused Let me see:
Romans 5:8 ...but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (the implication here being that we should have died because we have all sinned, but Jesus died in the place of every sinner, and we therefore don't have to.)
Hebrews 9:22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.
These are just a few; like I said before, there are so many.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 5:11 pm
This is my favorite, and I'm probably going to mess it up because this is from memory and I don't remember where it came from but it goes something like
No man hath greater love than this, that a man would give up his life for his friends.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:11 am
Those are great verses, but none of them actually specify who he died for; it is simply "us." Of course, I don't have much a point to make, but it is highly possible that "us" encompasses whatever animals you could name. I would say more, but I'm a little oressed for time here, so I'll be going now. Bye.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:31 pm
Dr. Kool Those are great verses, but none of them actually specify who he died for; it is simply "us." Of course, I don't have much a point to make, but it is highly possible that "us" encompasses whatever animals you could name. I would say more, but I'm a little oressed for time here, so I'll be going now. Bye. 'humanity' is implied in the 'us' just as 'man & woman' is implied in 'all men are created equal'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 5:15 pm
Quote: 'humanity' is implied in the 'us' just as 'man & woman' is implied in 'all men are created equal'. Well, that wasn't the orginal intention. But there were no women writing the Declaration of Independance, Constitution, or Bill of Rights. Nor were there animals writing the Bible. As much as I believe that animals have souls and all that, humanity is implied in that. Only America (as a democracy) can amend the Constitution, and only God can amend the Bible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
