From an Abramic perspective, why did God bother to create animals? I mean what parts to little toads play in his plan? Were they just a weekend art project or something?
Interesting question. I suppose the theistic response would be one of aesthetics, and there may be an element of their serving our purposes. But a slight problem for any creationist types would be in the amount of suffering involved in the lives of many animals. Lions are basically “designed” in such a way as to be efficient killers, and gazelles to run away. It’s not desperately fair on the gazelles, if we assume they were teleologically created as is. This example, or something like it, formed part of Dawkins’ contribution to the problem of evil literature.
It’s all part of the food chain, which we are a part of. So, what kind of life would there be without diversity? Why are there so many integral parts to our bodies themselves? Why the need for us to develop beyond the stage of an amoeba? Indeed, the body is like a miniature eco-system unto itself.
I guess, my question would be what need is there for God to make the food chain so complex and varied? Why can’t there just be little plants to give us our full nutritional needs, some trees to shade us and provde lumber, and a few birds to spread the seeds of the trees and sing for us?
Is being bit into two by a hippo a test of faith? A convient way to silence blashpemers?
(Oh, and by the way Science vs. Religion is the most vicious false dicatomy in the western world today, follewed by Capitalism vs. Communism, and Country vs. Rock and Roll.)
Of course you do realize that without diversity there wouldn’t be much to think about, right? Neither would there be much to experience and/or praise God for.
By the way, what do you mean by false dichotomy? I see the relationship between religion and science as two separate and distinct entities (more like the left-brain vs the right-brain thing), which should have a lot more in common than they do. The problem is, people tend to rely on stereo-types and wind up flip-flopping back and forth between two extremes, in which case nothing really definitive comes out of the relationship.
So, then your takeing the aestetic position. That nature is a work of art meant for us to contempate?
Anyway a false diacotomy is where you present two options to hide the fact there are many more. I’m not saying this is what you are doing, but many people have been fooled to thinking everyone belives in Science or a Religion and that these are the only real positions. Sort of like takeing your girlfriend into a Ice Cream shop and asking her “Vanilla or Chocolate?”
No, what I’m saying is how can we grow without the diversity to support us, both mentally and physically.
It’s a shame though, that this is the way it’s “typically” presented.
Hadj, thats interesting. I am to understand then is Islam, animals are sorta “on the level,” that they quailify for salvation and all that? Don’t be offended if I missunderstood.
Frog Legs! Mmmmmmm good. You go froggin’ at night with a burlap bag and a flash light. You shine the light in the eyes of the frog and then you grap him around the back side, and toss him in the bag. When you have enough, you go home and wet down the bag so the frogs stay healthy until the next mornin’ when you harvest the legs. Then you fry them up with some butter and salt. Good eatin’. Man if you ain’t never had frog legs you ain’t lived. Course most of the frog gets wasted. You only eat the legs.
Animals are a resource for man. Also a source of meat, milk, eggs, wool, leather, fur, feathers, etc. What a ridiculous question! Explain yourself! Did not you not know what animals are used for? What did you think that your shoes were made of? Did you ever play baseball? What did you think the ball was made of? What did you think your ball glove was made of? When you see Couch leathers, where did you think the leather came from? When you see a Benz with leather seats, where did you think the leather came from? What about your warm wool coat and mittens? Didn’t you know that some sheep got sheared for you? This is a ridiculous topic. Take away every single thing made of animals or animal by products, and you cannot even shampoo your hair in the morning or wash your face with soap.
quite correct. How you must this in perspective one verse and one hadith from Islamic sources aren’t sufficient to make the complete image. If you have any specific questions: ask away.
Well Philosophic Caveman, it just seemed to me there would have to be an easyier way to make baseballs and confortable chairs, if your omnipotent. Not that those things are nessisarily critical with what he was trying to do. Which I assume is something like, I don’t know, teach us or test us or something. It just seems like a lot of extra bits to me, does he think nothing of efficentcy?
He made it so complex because he is testing ya, buddy. Don’t get so caught up in trying to figure out what you are not suppose to…at least not yet. You’re chasing a dollar attached to a fish hook and a rod lol
Break away from your prejudices and you will see that the planet has brought forth more life forms than any one of us could imagine. Do you regard human beings as so complete as to be able to do without the lessons that animals have taught us since the beginning? Just looking at technology and the amount of machines that had their origins in observed abilities of animals gives an idea of the genius behind creation.
The ‘plan’ of God seems to be to promote life in every way possible - including the short life spans of animals who become the prey of others. What we human beings tend to do is see ourselves at the centre of the universe and judge everything from our perspective. Perhaps we are not the only species capable of reflection and others have been critically oggling us all along…
I believe that our greatest ‘sin’ has been to loose contact with Mater Earth and to try to create an artificial life-sphere for which everything else is sacrificed. The latest nature news is that even more species are to be sacrificed for short termed profit, the protective strata are fading, drinking water is becoming rare and the refuse-spewing societies are likely to render our planet inhabitable some day. The animals usually die first.
Shalom
Bob
Without animals, Beastiality couldn’t be a sin.
Well this question is just a small one out of a set of similar. You might propose that we learn from animals how to build machines, but then I only want to ask why does God want us to build machines? I guess what I really want to ask is what inspired God to create anything at all. I know when I “create” anything like a work of art, or little invention- it is only in response to the world around me.
I agree with you, except I’d say second biggest- right after faith.
Peace
Exactly, when you do that, you are being you. When God creates Life-Forms he is being God. The proverbial ant can’t understand your ‘response’ to the world around you, much less get your perspective. That is the difference.
Considering the jewish cult of animal sacrifice, you could say no. But the prophets give us an insight that the ‘sweet fragrance’ of a sacrificed animal wasn’t what God required, but “kindness I desired, and not sacrifice, and a knowledge of God above burnt-offerings” (Hosea 6:6) This means that the the purpose hallowed the means - but once it failed to achieve the purpose the sacrifice of animals was rejected.
A careful exegesis also reveals that all that is obnoxious about sacrificing an animal was intended to underline what sin was about. The requirement of sacrificing the best, not the worst is regarded as a projection of the thought that cost Jesu his life - even though it must be said that is was absolutely forbidden to sacrifice human beings.
Faith can’t be a sin - even though I know what you are saying - faith is essentially the inward opposition to despotic leaders and brutality. You may be right that some dogmen could be regarded as sin - but that isn’t essentially ‘faith’ or as Jesus put it, ‘trust’ in God. It is the attempt to create eternal truths against which there can supposedly be no contradiction.
Shalom
Bob
That seems to be more a sense of justice, or perhapse compassion.
Faith always seems to involve takeing a proposition without due justification- at least in the English language I know.
faith
n.
- Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
- Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
- Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one’s supporters.
- often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God’s will.
- The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
- A set of principles or beliefs.
I know that faith has been defined in the way you describe but ‘emunah’ is a trusting, confident belief in an absolute being, a creator, a deity, a divine being, divinity, holiness, a holy spirit, an infinite spirit, Jhvh, the Lord, the maker, a numen, a prime mover, or however you want to name the Mystery you percieve.
In Chassidut we find the saying that the “simple faith” (emunah peshutah) of the “simple Jew” (yehudi pashut) links him to the “simple (absolute) unity” (achdut peshutah) of God’s Atzmut (Essence, above the revelation of His infinite light, or en sof).
The Torah gives a guiding line for our own behaviour in this simple faith. Christ looked for such faith in opposition to the more juristic ‘Belief’ of some of his brothers and found it surprisingly in some of the ‘goyim’ (a disparaging term for one who is not a Jew) in the land.
Shalom
Bob
What dictionary is that from? (I have an interestest in these sorts of things.)
My usage is similiar to 2. but not identical, and has a bit of 1. mixed in.
N has faith in X, iff
- N belives strongly in X
- N does not have sufficent proof of X. (No point to throw in any silly empiricism)
- N’s belief of X is consistent over time.