[Zyx]

From what source did you get this about the angels bowing or being ordered to bow to men?

It'd be wherever one can see the stories of Lucifer's rebellion and castaway to Hell.

Awkwardly, this doesn't appear to be in the Bible, though it's a regular staple of Christian learning. I once attended a Christian play in the Midwest and this story was retold as if common knowledge. It explains why Lucifer pushes Eve to eat the apple. What did you learn?

When Nergal was supposed to bow before the person sent to a party for Ereshkigal and didnt, he was sent to Kur/Irkalla (hebrew sheol, not really analougous to hell though) and ended up living there and being its ruler.

Interesting. This is likely the basis of the Christian story.

Umm....God was made in the image of mankind, while mankind was reflecting upon what God might look like if they were able to see him.

One of the ancient Greek philosophers pointed out that if Horses were able to make art, they'd make images of their deities look like Horses.

[Figlio di Moros]

It'd be wherever one can see the stories of Lucifer's rebellion and castaway to Hell.

Actually, the story of Luciphers descent varies according to time and sect; the typical Catholic view is that he lead the rebellion prior to the creation of the earth or man, whereas some protestant sects believe he tempts man in order to test their faithfulness to God. The idea he refused to bow to man is an Islamic view and not one I've heard of in any Christian church.

One of the ancient Greek philosophers pointed out that if Horses were able to make art, they'd make images of their deities look like Horses.

Except that horses can't make art, nor are all of our dieties completely anthropomorphic; the vital qualities we impart in our gods is a purified form of what makes us unique from beasts, i.e. a suprasapiency.

[Lightman]

Humans have the capacity for self-reflection. In my opinion, any organism which can fulfill that criteria must be treated with respect.

[Suska]

What Separates Animals From Humans?

Nothing actual. We are predators. Even if we were to switch to an all vegan diet this would be a predatory effort and without such efforts we don't exist. We are much within that category but our animals have the correct opinion of us and know as well as we know other things what we're about in important matters.

[Zyx]

The idea he refused to bow to man is an Islamic view and not one I've heard of in any Christian church.

Then Midwestern Christians are Muslims. :roll:

If you can rationalize why Lucifer rebelled, be our guests. You'll find that it's because man was put above the Angels.

Except that horses can't make art,

That was the point. My you are smart today.

the vital qualities we impart in our gods is a purified form of what makes us unique from beasts, i.e. a suprasapiency.

Romantic nonsense. The Greek observed that Africans had African Gods and the Chinese had Chinese Gods. Gods were created in the images of the dreamer.

[Figlio di Moros]

Except that horses can't make art,

That was the point. My you are smart today.

Seemed your point was that god's are just anthropormophic figures built to fit our ego, despite a number of ancient religious dieties being shaped like animals, homonid with destinctly animal features, or simply lacking form. If you point was that gods feature a distinctly human sapience, then I guess we have no point in arguing...

the vital qualities we impart in our gods is a purified form of what makes us unique from beasts, i.e. a suprasapiency.

Romantic nonsense. The Greek observed that Africans had African Gods and the Chinese had Chinese Gods. Gods were created in the images of the dreamer.

Nope, it seems you were just trying to say gods were made to look human because we're egocentric after all... I suggest you take a second look at Egyptian, Semetic, and Hindu dieties, as well as the non anthropomorphic Judeo-Christian one.

[Zyx]

I suggest you take a second look at Egyptian, Semetic, and Hindu dieties, as well as the non anthropomorphic Judeo-Christian one.

It wouldn't matter. It's still dealing with the human experience. If you make a lion with a human face or a dog with a human body or even just a plain wolf, you'll notice that it's all present imagery, not touching on something superhuman but something on the plain of humanity.

The Universe is incredibly, incredibly vast and biodiversity is immeasurably without our earthly experience: that the deity even remotely resembles what we observe speaks to how artificial man's deity is.

Were the deity a mere abstract with powers unpronounced then the tale could be believable, but the entire representation, powers limited to making water into wine and images of metal-worked swords for tongues, pssh, it's all human fancy! Always has been, always will be.

[Suska]

You can say the words "dealing with the human experience" as if it were mundane when the profundity is too much, or you can say it as if it were profound if there is some feeling behind it.

What's wrong is saying someone else's experience cannot be more profound than yours so that if you feel it is mundane everyone else must or they are fools. The difference isn't an absolute in the universe, it lives, it bleeds and dies, if you don't know what these things mean nothing at all can seem to matter.

And it is a stock response for a good reason, I cannot impart this to you, but you will know, and if your solution - the way you deal with killing to survive, or the prospect of you yourself dying - if your solution is too sophisticated to explain simply and someone doubts you... Yeah, you'll say, I know something I can't teach you, but have faith its good, look for that and when you can generate that goodness yourself. And ritual is only a way of attempting to transmit this with the profundity of it intact, just like music is, among many other things.

And if as I am overcome I say the word God, and this suggests to me the unquantifiable depth of my hearts feeling - a depth created in me and a movement I feel swept up within uncontrollably, and you attach to that some story you heard about men with the faces of dogs, and scoff in my direction you will get nothing less, well whats a person worth to me that considers my life meaningless..?


..

[Agent Steel]

What separates animals from humans?

Or is man just an animal?

And if he is an animal, what is it that makes man so dominant even against creatures which are superior in physique?

Is it fair to consider man 'above' animals, or is man merely 'different?

The primary characteristic that separates humans from animals is that humans have the ability to make tools, something which no other species on the planet can do (with the exception of some chimps that are able to make spears).

There are many others too. We are the only species that are able to speak (again, whales might possibly be an exception to this, some scientists think they may have a language of their own).

I'm sorry that you did not know these things; they should have taught you them in school.

[Godstud]

The primary characteristic that separates humans from animals is that humans have the ability to make tools, something which no other species on the planet can do (with the exception of some chimps that are able to make spears).

There are many others too. We are the only species that are able to speak (again, whales might possibly be an exception to this, some scientists think they may have a language of their own).

I'm sorry that you did not know these things; they should have taught you them in school.

Be polite, especially since you're incorrect.

Tool use is not limited to man. (eg. Apes, chimps, otters, some birds, etc.)
Every creature has its own language. (eg. sub-vocalizations, body language, grunts, squeaks, whistles, calls, etc.)

If you mean written language, then yes, but that's more to do with intelligence.

Intelligence is the primary characteristic that allows us to make the tools and make tools for every situation. Self-awareness is perhaps the most important characteristic, but this likely ties into the intelligence factor. We got intelligence, instead of speed, armour, razor sharp fangs, or teeth.

[grassroots1]

Is it fair to consider man 'above' animals, or is man merely 'different?

Man is different, but we are still an animal. We are an animal that has been able to learn, as all animals do, but we have done so in a much grander context than any other animal that currently resides on our planet. We have a long history of knowledge that has been piled on knowledge, of wrong guesses that finally led us to right answers about how the world works, and now we have many diversified modes of production as a result of that learning. Because of that, we have many different specialties for people to fill: scientists, engineers, historians, politicians, etc. In that way, we are different from animals. I would say that the central thing that separates man from animals is a recorded collective history.

[Vera Politica]

Tool use is not limited to man. (eg. Apes, chimps, otters, some birds, etc.)
Every creature has its own language. (eg. sub-vocalizations, body language, grunts, squeaks, whistles, calls, etc.)

This is incorrect or perhaps entirely misleading. Second stage-tool making (and anything beyond) is limited to man.
Not every creature has language. The only creature that seems to have developed remnants of syntactical structure are whales - but even those who admit there is some organization in whale songs admit it is far inferior to the syntactical complexity of human language. Human language is, perhaps, the definitive demarcation between animals and humans. Thus, it is not that our language is written, it is that our language has a complex hierarchy of syntactical organization that is not seen elsewhere. Surely, the complexity of mathematical language is not just a reflection on the fact that it is written but, rather, a reflection on its unique complexity that reflects a very sophisticated syntactical structure in human language.

One does not need to admit any deity or external cause to explain a demarcation between man and animal. Even emergent evolutionism looks to explain this difference. Human behavior and organization cannot be studied only at the abstract level of biology which is true of nearly every other species. The inability to reduce social sciences to the physical sciences demonstrates an acute and unique complexity that cannot be ignored.

[Agent Steel]

This is incorrect or perhaps entirely misleading. Second stage-tool making (and anything beyond) is limited to man.
Not every creature has language. The only creature that seems to have developed remnants of syntactical structure are whales - but even those who admit there is some organization in whale songs admit it is far inferior to the syntactical complexity of human language. Human language is, perhaps, the definitive demarcation between animals and humans. Thus, it is not that our language is written, it is that our language has a complex hierarchy of syntactical organization that is not seen elsewhere. Surely, the complexity of mathematical language is not just a reflection on the fact that it is written but, rather, a reflection on its unique complexity that reflects a very sophisticated syntactical structure in human language.

This

I wasn't incorrect after all. Thank you for backing me up.

[Suska]

I like this, yes the difference between people and other animals is pronounced, especially by the use of symbolism, and in the result of civilization, we are complex to a game changing degree. Who can deny it? But the things we need and desire most acutely are not substantially different than what other animals want.

A time may come when that ceases to be the case, maybe one day we'll be immortal.

[Vera Politica]

But the things we need and desire most acutely are not substantially different than what other animals want

I'm not sure I agree with this. Humans have the capacity to create discrete socio-organizational structures and parametrically determine their wants, needs and desires within that organization. In a sense, the human being can shift its needs and desires - they become socio-historically specific. An animal cannot do this.

[Suska]

Using proxies (specializing) doesn't alter the goals of the endeavor. We are mortal and fragile, require sustenance, society, and sexuality like any other mammal. I'm not suggesting we are limited to those things, but that they are so far unaltered by our other interests and remain central to everything we do. Even if a Guru decides to forsake food they are limited by the animal need and will die. We exist in as much as nature accepts us - on her terms, not the other way around.

[Vera Politica]

Using proxies (specializing) doesn't alter the goals of the endeavor. We are mortal and fragile, require sustenance, society, and sexuality like any other mammal. I'm not suggesting we are limited to those things, but that they are so far unaltered by our other interests and remain central to everything we do. Even if a Guru decides to forsake food they are limited by the animal need and will die. We exist in as much as nature accepts us - on her terms, not the other way around.

Biological necessity is not limited to animals and includes plants, fungus, bacteria, etc. The argument here is not whether humans are biological organisms. The Human being seems to be the only organism that can create socio-historically specific needs which are needs that go beyond biological necessity.

[Suska]

socio-historical? We organize to better fulfill our animal interests. All animals have facets that go beyond necessity because there is always time, especially in mammalian life, when nothing is particularly necessary. Lions lay about in the sun, we drink lattes at the cafe.

[Vera Politica]

socio-historical? We organize to better fulfill our animal interests. All animals have facets that go beyond necessity because there is always time, especially in mammalian life, when nothing is particularly necessary. Lions lay about in the sun, we drink lattes at the cafe.

The needs to sustain the proletariat is quite different from the needs to sustain a serf. Humans have redefined necessities as socio-historically specific. We no longer sustain ourselves qua biological organisms but as social individuals. We are the only species that progresses - i.e. that increases in productivity (i.e. in physical production per capita) and this involves a constant shift in needs.

[Suska]

Nothing your talking about lifts humans out of an animal category.