Where did we come from? A question that has been pondered by a great number of theologians, scientists, and regular people. Often times science and religion views are very much divided and one will usually be for one side or the other. However, there are a few who have considered the belief that evolution was a part of the creation story. One of those people is Sallie McFague who talks about this model as well as how to live life embodied in it in her book “The Body of God.” There are many problems we face today that were not as big in the time of Jesus, which can make it difficult for Christians to know what to do in these situations and relate it back to what was said in scripture. Some modern day problems we have to deal with now include …show more content…
As humans we rely both on plants and animals to be able to take care of us. “…many of us still see other animals as bodily things with no mind or spirit” (McFague, 119). I have always interpreted other creation as something that was made for our benefit, so that humans could be fed and replenished. While it does serve this purpose, it is important to realize that this comes from God and that having this amenity should not be abused. “On our planet we are the self-conscious aspect of the body of God, the part of the divine body able to work with God, the spirit who creates and redeems us, to bring about the liberation and healing of the earth and all its creatures” (McFague, 124). These beings should be taken care of because they too come from God, and I think that part of our job is to be able to care for other creatures and treat them well. I’m not against killing animals for meat, as long as it does not cause the animal to endure too much pain. However, I cannot stand the thought of animal abuse and I feel as though that is something that should not be tolerated whether the animals are raised to be killed or not. “While our analysis of ecological sin will focus on the more neglected areas of our relations with other animals and nature, proper relations with our nearest and dearest kin, our own species, must be first in consideration and importance” (McFague, 116-117). What she is saying here is significant. Even though it is crucial for us to care for the plants and animals on this planet for the wellbeing of humans, we have to consider the needs of our own species first. I think that we cannot be greedy or over consumptive, but we must take what we need and only that. It isn’t quite that simple, but living a life as God would want one to, it seems to me that would allow for that
The bond between humans and nature, it is fascinating to see how us has humans and nature interact with each other and in this case the essay The Heart’s Fox by Josephine Johnson is an example of judging the unknown of one's actions. She talks about a fox that had it's life taken as well as many others with it, the respect for nature is something that is precious to most and should not be taken advantage of. Is harming animals or any part of nature always worth it? I see this text as a way of saying that we must be not so terminate the life around us. Today I see us a s experts at destroying most around us and it's sad to see how much we do it and how it's almost as if it's okay to do and sadly is see as it nature itself hurts humans unintentionally
The long-term aim is to develop an approach to ethics that will help resolve contemporary issues regarding animals and the environment. In their classical formulations and as recently revised by animal and environmental ethicists, mainstream Kantian, utilitarian, and virtue theories have failed adequately to include either animals or the environment, or both. The result has been theoretical fragmentation and intractability, which in turn have contributed, at the practical level, to both public and private indecision, disagreement, and conflict. Immensely important are the practical issues; for instance, at the public level: the biologically unacceptable and perhaps cataclysmic current rate of species extinctions, the development or preservation of the few remaining wilderness areas, the global limitations on the sustainable distribution of the current standard of living in the developed nations, and the nonsustainability and abusiveness of today's technologically intense crop and animal farming. For individuals in their private lives, the choices include, for example: what foods to eat, what clothing to wear, modes of transportation, labor-intensive work and housing, controlling reproduction, and the distribution of basic and luxury goods. What is needed is an ethical approach that will peacefully resolve these and other quandaries, either by producing consensus or by explaining the rational and moral basis for the continuing disagreement.
Paragraph four cites the Bibles and how it supports the author’s main claim on the use of animals for the sake of humans. It states that humans are supposed to be closer to the divine than animals due that humans were made in God’s image. Steiner also refers to the anthropocentrically thoughts of two Christian thinkers that agreed that animals have been devaluated through
Charles Darwin, the Father of Evolution, was a British scientist who laid the foundations of the theory of evolution, transforming the thinking of the entire world about the living things around us (Charles Darwin (1809 – 1882)). After working on his theory for nearly 20 years, he published On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection in 1859. As soon as the book was released, the controversy began with each sides gaining followers until the climax on July 10, 1925. The idea that animals could “evolve” and change into new species, including humans, was one that challenged not only how people thought about the natural world, but challenged the story of the creation from the Bible itself. Even though Darwin himself never said that humans “evolved” from apes, everyone took it as a logical extension of his new theory. It went against the idea of argument for design that had unified theology and science for decades (Moran 5). This new threat to Christianity and the social culture of the time was one that would transform state laws on their educational curriculum.
We should treat nature with the same respect that us humans should give another human or any other living thing, but instead of doing that we ignore
---."The Theos-Rights of Animals." Animals and Christianity. Ed. A.Linzey et al. New York: Crossroad, 1990.
“An Animals’ Place” by Michael Pollan is an article that describes our relationship and interactions with animals. The article suggests that the world should switch to a vegetarian diet, due to the mistreatment of animals. The essay includes references from animal rights activists and philosophers. These references are usually logical statement that compare humans and non-human animals in multiple levels, such as intellectual and social.
Frankenstein was written by a woman named Mary Shelley. This story is considered to be one of the earliest examples of science fiction. Mary Shelley did not have a good life. There were always bad events occurring in Shelley’s life. Before the age of 30, Mary Shelley had lost her mother, sister, father, husband, and three of her four children. She battled depression all of her life and finally died in London at the age of fifty-four. After all of these terrible things that happened to her, people can probably understand how she came up with such a horror story like Frankenstein. In this novel, the main character is Victor Frankenstein. After Victor mother dies, he leaves and goes to England. In England is where he created this monster that he soon regrets. Victor abandons the creature, and the creature makes it his duty to find his creator and wreak havoc along the way. This horrifying sci-fi story could only be written and told by Mary Shelley, an individual that had such a horrible life.
We have all heard about the evolution vs. creation debate. Two sides opposing each other in fits of heated passion. One group believes that humans developed from monkeys, and the other group is a bunch of religious fanatics. Does this sound somewhat familiar? This is one of the most stereotypical views of the dispute, but is, unfortunately, how many people believe it to be. So what is it all about? What makes these groups (there are actually quite a few more than two) so determined to fight and try to win others over to their belief? In the answers to these questions lie the truth about why humans take this aspect of science so personally.
Armstrong, Susan Jean, and Richard George Botzler. The Animal Ethics Reader. London ;New York, NY: Routledge, 2008. Print.
... our way when we are trying to do something such as deforestations. We should respect living creatures in our world because they have a life they should enjoy. People never want to see the dark side of an industry which is why society doesn’t seem to care or be informed. What this reminds me of personally is the show Scooby Doo which is about monsters and teenagers investigating them, trying to figure out what it is and at the end of every show it’s always a human which gives a powerful message because at the end of the day humans are the monsters, are we the monsters today? We need to open our eyes before it's too late. Life is valuable and we need to cherish every moment.
Vegetarians are uncomfortable with how humans treat animals. Animals are cruelly butchered to meet the high demand and taste for meat in the market. Furthermore, meat-consumers argue that meat based foods are cheaper than plant based foods. According to Christians, man was given the power to dominate over all creatures in the world. Therefore, man has the right to use animals for food (Singer and Mason, 2007). However, it is unjustified for man to treat animals as he wishes because he has the power to rule over animals. This owes to the reality that it is unclear whether man has the right to slaughter animals (haphazardly), but it is clear that humans have a duty to take care of animals. In objection, killing animals is equal to killing fellow humans because both humans and animals have a right to life. Instead of brutally slaying animals, people should consume their products, which...
“The ascent of money has led to the ascent of man.”. The greatest question many have sought to answer is the creation vs. evolution debate. How did we get here? Were we created or did we evolve randomly?
Thomas Aquinas for example, used this view to rebuke the criticisms of anthropocentrism, “We refute the error of those who claim that it is a sin for a man to kill brute animals. For animals are ordered to man’s use in the natural course of things, according to divine providence. Consequently, man uses them without any injustice, either by killing them or employing them in any other way” (Desjardins, 99). Not only has Aquinas claimed that animals are subject to man as a “natural course”, but also that anyway in which they are used is justified because of this. Aristotle takes this idea one step further, and claims that the sole basis for plants and animals’ existence is to serve humans. He later goes on to say that if nature makes nothing without purpose, then nature has made everything specifically for the sake of humankind. Both Aristotle and Aquinas based these beliefs upon the idea that only human beings are worthy of moral standing. This is due to the belief that humans alone have a “soul” capable of thinking and choosing. Since they thought animals not to have such a soul, animals must be morally irrelevant (Desjardins, 99). In this first example, the basis for environmental responsibility comes entirely from the belief that said the environment is meant to serve humans. Meaning that any obligations man has towards nature is entirely
...ncts instruct people that harming animals is immoral and unethical; however, it is not immoral or unethical because of the inherent sense of rights that an animal should have or even because inflicting pain or killing is by some means ethically wrong, but because of the influences and impacts that these habits have on the nature of our ethical sensibilities. The abuse of animals supported by humans is ethically wrong because of the malformations it causes in our ethical culture. The acts and ethical concepts that people is part of and that they witness, affect the outlines of their moral evolution, and therefore, it affects humanity as a whole. The only possible way to fulfil our instinctual obligations and to maintain our moral and ethical concepts is through proper behaviour, which should include the respect and recognition of all living beings treated equally.