Are humans animals?

Are humans animals?

No, humans were made in the image of Christ.

Christ, always existing, and always being the corporeal form of his consubstantial invisible father; means that humans were always meant to take the current form we're currently in.

Since animals are by definition, subject to the laws of evolution; and humans have always been guided by the hand of Christ throughout its biological history, destined to take our present form; humans are not animals by definition.

Biologically seen, trough evolution yes. I mean we all can clearly see we have every aspect of most animals.

>Do humans needs to consomme organics matters to creates their owns organics matters ?
>Yes
Congrats ! We're (by definition) animals !

animals don't have souls

Humans also need to consume the body of Christ, genius; something mere animals don't.

This is a /scihis/ thread, not a /xhis/ thread.

Plato wrote that animals don't have souls by definition. Aristotle that souls proved we were of divine make.

>Bird aren't animals because they haves feathers
Literally your argument.

no, the opposite really

Neither do we

No we don't

Yes

Prove it

Prove it

Prove it

And they were right because...?

They're classic, man

Amerindians are humans. The rest are subhumans that had to die when the universal deluge happened.

Edgy.

worse

HUMANS AS SUCH ARE NOT ANIMALS, BUT SOME HUMANS ARE ANIMALISTIC, THUS, SUBHUMAN, WHILST OTHER HUMANS ARE OVERLY HUMAN, THUS, SUPERHUMAN, WHILST OTHER HUMANS ARE BEYOND HUMANITY, THUS, METAHUMAN.

Yes, humans are objectively members of the animal kingdom.

Anyone saying otherwise is objectively wrong.

America was a mistake. What's with this stupid question? Do you think we are plants or rocks?

Do you even know what edgy mean ?

They used thought experiments and its a skill that can be used
QED

We're closer to plants, but only spiritually.

>religion belongs in /x/
pure edgy

You're making an ideological argument. My argument was thelogical and had to do with platonic form and aristotlian metaphysics so you're out of you're league.

We reproduce through procreation and can't synthesize food with our own internal processes, so yes.

what animals eat rarely counts as food

What I simply mean is that we can't photosynthesize (world hunger would be impossible if we could), we need to consume in order to obtain energy.

There are actually a very small number of animal species that actually can use photosynthesis. The pea aphid over millenia ate enough fungi that they somehow absorbed the dna strain that allows for photosynthesis to happen, and now they can do it too.

we use the sun to grow food so we do use phtosynthesis through farming