TT, let me just cut you off at the pass if I may...
Before you enter the thread and say, "I just don't believe it," please bring ample amounts of substance to the thread that is in the same waters that raum pitched his boat in just now...I'd love to read a rebuttal, even though I completely agree...
Do animals have souls?
-
AYHJA
- 392
- Posts: 37990
- Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 2:25 pm
- Location: Washington, D.C.
- Contact:
-
Cbasstn
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 4:19 am
QUOTE(raum)When we sleep, we replenish the soul: that is the truth of the Dream, where we enjoy the knowledge of the Nephesh as bound to the body. That which sleeps, dreams. That which dreams, has a soul.
Damn! I like that.
I can't give religious facts and quotes. I'm not that well read on the matter. But, I've lived my life on a farm surrounded by dogs, cats, and horses so it's difficult for me to look a horse in the face, to look in those eyes, and doubt that such an amazing creature possess a soul.
I've seen them born. I've watched as their personalities develop growing up. I've watched a mare grieve, refusing hay, almost to the point of starvation, all at the loss of her foal. There MUST be something there.
Damn! I like that.
I can't give religious facts and quotes. I'm not that well read on the matter. But, I've lived my life on a farm surrounded by dogs, cats, and horses so it's difficult for me to look a horse in the face, to look in those eyes, and doubt that such an amazing creature possess a soul.
I've seen them born. I've watched as their personalities develop growing up. I've watched a mare grieve, refusing hay, almost to the point of starvation, all at the loss of her foal. There MUST be something there.
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |
-
AYHJA
- 392
- Posts: 37990
- Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 2:25 pm
- Location: Washington, D.C.
- Contact:
For the sake of further clarity, I've added a poll to the thread, hope you don't mind gaara-san... /:D" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt=":D" />
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |
-
trashtalkr
- Sports Guru
- Posts: 7978
- Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 8:20 pm
- Contact:
QUOTE(AYHJA)TT, let me just cut you off at the pass if I may...
Before you enter the thread and say, \"I just don't believe it,\" please bring ample amounts of substance to the thread that is in the same waters that raum pitched his boat in just now...I'd love to read a rebuttal, even though I completely agree...
You know I can't write anything near to the same capacity as Raum, but....
If all truth is relative, then the statement "All truth is relative" would be absolutely true. If it is absolutely true, then not all things are relative and the statement that "All truth is relative" is false.
If there are no absolute truths, then you cannot believe anything absolutely at all, including that there are no absolute truths. Therefore, nothing could be really true for you - including relativism.
Relativism just contradicts itself
Before you enter the thread and say, \"I just don't believe it,\" please bring ample amounts of substance to the thread that is in the same waters that raum pitched his boat in just now...I'd love to read a rebuttal, even though I completely agree...
You know I can't write anything near to the same capacity as Raum, but....
If all truth is relative, then the statement "All truth is relative" would be absolutely true. If it is absolutely true, then not all things are relative and the statement that "All truth is relative" is false.
If there are no absolute truths, then you cannot believe anything absolutely at all, including that there are no absolute truths. Therefore, nothing could be really true for you - including relativism.
Relativism just contradicts itself
"If there were no eternal consciousness in a man, if at the bottom of everything there were only a wild ferment, a power that twisting in dark passions produced everything great or inconsequential; if an unfathomable insatiable emptiness lay hid beneath everything, what would life be but despair?"
Soren Kierkegaard
Soren Kierkegaard
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |
-
AYHJA
- 392
- Posts: 37990
- Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 2:25 pm
- Location: Washington, D.C.
- Contact:
QUOTE(trashtalkr)If all truth is relative, then the statement \"All truth is relative\" would be absolutely true.
It would be, if all truth was confined to statements...And *ding!* it is not...
whoops..! Thought you had me, didn't you..? I was ready for that one... /tongue.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":P" border="0" alt="tongue.gif" />
It would be, if all truth was confined to statements...And *ding!* it is not...
whoops..! Thought you had me, didn't you..? I was ready for that one... /tongue.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":P" border="0" alt="tongue.gif" />
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |
-
trashtalkr
- Sports Guru
- Posts: 7978
- Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 8:20 pm
- Contact:
That's not what it's saying. If all truth is relative, that means that there are no absolutes. The statement "All truth is relative" is an abosolute statement which goes against the idea of relativism
"If there were no eternal consciousness in a man, if at the bottom of everything there were only a wild ferment, a power that twisting in dark passions produced everything great or inconsequential; if an unfathomable insatiable emptiness lay hid beneath everything, what would life be but despair?"
Soren Kierkegaard
Soren Kierkegaard
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |
-
AYHJA
- 392
- Posts: 37990
- Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 2:25 pm
- Location: Washington, D.C.
- Contact:
No, it goes against the making of absolute statements, which do exist BTW...
And what does truth have to do with the perception of right and wrong, especially in the context that truth can be relative as well..?
And what does truth have to do with the perception of right and wrong, especially in the context that truth can be relative as well..?
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |
-
Aemeth
- Posts: 1280
- Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:37 am
I thought my theory of Absolute Relativism that I proposed last time settled this /sad.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad.gif" />
Absolute right and wrong exist, but they are different for every scenario and are known by you only. For example, if I shoot the guy about to shoot the family because I want to save the family, then that is "right". But if I shoot the guy because I hate the guy (couldnt care less about the family), then I think shooting him would be "wrong". Right and wrong must exist, for if they didnt, as C.S. Lewis says, we wouldnt know, because we would be acting sheerly out of instinct. I do not know if animals have "souls" (at least I wont opinionate about that right now), but I do not think they know right from wrong. A dog can realize he made a mistake, but he won't refrain from chasing down another neighbor's cat because it is morally wrong to take another's life, he will not do it cuz he doesnt wanna get beat to hell by the newspaper again.
See, I think if absolutes existed, and we were able to understand them, we would be able to judge others, as God can. But only God knows the heart, so how are we able to say that since Johnny stole that bread, he has sinned? What if he stole it to feed a starving girl who was going to die in 30 seconds? But relativism (as the naturlist's define it) cannot hold up, for how can we have right and wrong, if there is nothing we can base it off of (again, the C.S. Lewis point). Right and wrong would be instinctive, and therefore, wouldnt really exist, for we would have no real choice, no free will. All of our ethical choices would be determined by our instinct. And let's face the facts, humans dont just operate on instincts. We are more than animals. In this book I'm reading called How Now Shall We Live it references to Denmark where some Naturalists put some humans for display in a zoo (hey, theyre animals too, right?). After a week the exhibit was closed, labeled a complete failure.
To sum it up, an absolute right and wrong do exist every time an individual must make an ethical choice. This is technically relativism, but not quite. Naturalists say right and wrong cant exist absolutely because they, in reality, dont exist at all (there is no right, there is no wrong). But I say right and wrong cant exist absolutely outside of the individual, becuase if they did we would be able to judge others accurately, and only God can do that.
Buy or sell?
Absolute right and wrong exist, but they are different for every scenario and are known by you only. For example, if I shoot the guy about to shoot the family because I want to save the family, then that is "right". But if I shoot the guy because I hate the guy (couldnt care less about the family), then I think shooting him would be "wrong". Right and wrong must exist, for if they didnt, as C.S. Lewis says, we wouldnt know, because we would be acting sheerly out of instinct. I do not know if animals have "souls" (at least I wont opinionate about that right now), but I do not think they know right from wrong. A dog can realize he made a mistake, but he won't refrain from chasing down another neighbor's cat because it is morally wrong to take another's life, he will not do it cuz he doesnt wanna get beat to hell by the newspaper again.
See, I think if absolutes existed, and we were able to understand them, we would be able to judge others, as God can. But only God knows the heart, so how are we able to say that since Johnny stole that bread, he has sinned? What if he stole it to feed a starving girl who was going to die in 30 seconds? But relativism (as the naturlist's define it) cannot hold up, for how can we have right and wrong, if there is nothing we can base it off of (again, the C.S. Lewis point). Right and wrong would be instinctive, and therefore, wouldnt really exist, for we would have no real choice, no free will. All of our ethical choices would be determined by our instinct. And let's face the facts, humans dont just operate on instincts. We are more than animals. In this book I'm reading called How Now Shall We Live it references to Denmark where some Naturalists put some humans for display in a zoo (hey, theyre animals too, right?). After a week the exhibit was closed, labeled a complete failure.
To sum it up, an absolute right and wrong do exist every time an individual must make an ethical choice. This is technically relativism, but not quite. Naturalists say right and wrong cant exist absolutely because they, in reality, dont exist at all (there is no right, there is no wrong). But I say right and wrong cant exist absolutely outside of the individual, becuase if they did we would be able to judge others accurately, and only God can do that.
Buy or sell?
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |
-
bd55
- Posts: 308
- Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 8:39 pm
Personally I believe whatever life is (the difference between organic material and actual living beings) is a soul, therefore animals do have souls.
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |
-
trashtalkr
- Sports Guru
- Posts: 7978
- Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 8:20 pm
- Contact:
A, what you said sounds good but I don't think it's right.
QUOTEAbsolute right and wrong exist, but they are different for every scenario and are known by you only.
If the absolute changes with every scenario, then it isn't absolute. Absolute means that it's the same in every situation.
QUOTEA dog can realize he made a mistake, but he won't refrain from chasing down another neighbor's cat because it is morally wrong to take another's life, he will not do it cuz he doesnt wanna get beat to hell by the newspaper again.
That's why I don't think animals have souls. I think it's your soul that gives you that moral compass.
QUOTEBut only God knows the heart, so how are we able to say that since Johnny stole that bread, he has sinned? What if he stole it to feed a starving girl who was going to die in 30 seconds?
That's something that I'm struggling with right now. I do think it is morally wrong to steal but I'd prolly do it anyway to save someone's life. That's why I kind of like absolute utilitarianism. But that's another story....
QUOTEIn this book I'm reading called How Now Shall We Live
Is that the book by Chuck Colson? If it is....it's a great book. I really enjoyed reading it
QUOTEAbsolute right and wrong exist, but they are different for every scenario and are known by you only.
If the absolute changes with every scenario, then it isn't absolute. Absolute means that it's the same in every situation.
QUOTEA dog can realize he made a mistake, but he won't refrain from chasing down another neighbor's cat because it is morally wrong to take another's life, he will not do it cuz he doesnt wanna get beat to hell by the newspaper again.
That's why I don't think animals have souls. I think it's your soul that gives you that moral compass.
QUOTEBut only God knows the heart, so how are we able to say that since Johnny stole that bread, he has sinned? What if he stole it to feed a starving girl who was going to die in 30 seconds?
That's something that I'm struggling with right now. I do think it is morally wrong to steal but I'd prolly do it anyway to save someone's life. That's why I kind of like absolute utilitarianism. But that's another story....
QUOTEIn this book I'm reading called How Now Shall We Live
Is that the book by Chuck Colson? If it is....it's a great book. I really enjoyed reading it
"If there were no eternal consciousness in a man, if at the bottom of everything there were only a wild ferment, a power that twisting in dark passions produced everything great or inconsequential; if an unfathomable insatiable emptiness lay hid beneath everything, what would life be but despair?"
Soren Kierkegaard
Soren Kierkegaard
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |