Indeed, many competent and experienced trainers of dogs and other animals are very wary of, and strong in their admonitions against anthropomorphism, or ascribing human thoughts and emotions onto animals...not from a religious or theological perspective, but from a practical and biological standpoint. To read human attributes onto a dog, for example, will inevitably result in a misinterpretation of the dog's motives, instincts and drives, and ultimately, can be very psychologically unhealthy for the animal.
But that is a circular absurd argument. You might as well just say we owe animals nothing because they aren't people. To say they lack "individual personality" to me implies that they lack individuality. That they are automatons. It's observably false.
I understand your point about inappropriate projection of human characteristics onto animals. That's not what we're talking about here.
I see Joe’s point here.
“Person” ality. I stand corrected.
I also agree that it is folly to place human traits onto animals and expect a meaningful interpretation. I never got the dead animal gift thing myself.
If you want to call it their own “animality” that’s fine. I think you know what I am meaning here when I used “pesonality” to describe individual, uniqueness of a particular animal.
I just want to be clear many people use the distinction they aren’t people as the REASON they can be mean or treat them poorly and “reserve” better treatment for people. Angels are not created in the image of God, yet they are stronger than us, and at the current time, are HIGHER than us. Do they sit around and believe because we are lower (and currently have sin natures some of us are fighting) we ought to be treated lesser than they are because they are in a higher position? The only ones who treat us badly and encourage us to treat other people and animals badly are being tempted by the evil, fallen angels, appealing to the weaknesses and pain of people. Which ought to tell you why this line of thinking isn’t what God had in mind, to treat the non-human creatures He’s created, poorly because “they aren’t people”. Slippery slope. Treating animals well doesn’t mean you’re treating people worse or somehow neglecting them, or elevating them to people status, it’s not a zero-sum situation.
Scripture says you can find out a lot about a person in how they treat their animals. Because it translates over into how he treats people, especially those he believes are in a lesser station than he is.
Second it Joe.
We cannot give human thoughts and emotions to animals. We CAN and MUST take good care of the animal creation God has given to us to take good care of.
As of now, will add these words,pray for the people and animals affected in the Gulf by the oilspill. What has happened in the Gulf is a disaster that not only has effect the Gulf of Mexico itself, the people of that area, but also the wildlife there.
I also believe if you are going to take being anti-anthropomorphist, for lack of a better term, I believe for consistencies’ sake, you also need to stop referring to Jesus Christ as the “Lamb of God”, the Holy Spirit being depicted as a dove, and Christ’s followers as “sheep” - in order to not anthropomorphize those animals in any way. If your goal is to be that strict about avoiding it, to not be hypocritical you need to be that consistent.
Even though God Himself refers to Christ as the “Lamb of God”, even though the Holy Spirit has manifested Himself as a dove.
I believe the vast majority of people can use the term “personality” applied to their domestic pet animals and not infer “human rights/animal rights” as liberal extremists may, just as we call Christ the “Lamb of God”, and envision the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, and Christians as “sheep”, and not have that negatively affect how we relate to lambs, doves and sheep and anthropomorphize them more than we otherwise would any other animals.