These comments are in reference to: Toward a Theology of Animals
Thank you for responding.
When you mention social dialect, are you referring to human speech? If not, we see a huge range of developed social dialect within animal communities, and in animal human relationships.
We also don't understand why you consider some animals to have material polarity, and others as having immaterial polarity. Please explain.
Physiologically, humans are really not omnivores, though they can tolerate some non-plant foods; they are really fruitivores, and are much more healthier when eating a whole plant food diet. Even so, it does not give us the right to inflict pain and suffering upon any other living being, as is the case with flesh foods, eggs and dairy. Furthermore, it is virtually impossible not to get enough protein from plant foods.
In order to eat animal foods, humans must harden their hearts to the extent that they no longer have empathy for the animals that suffer and die for their desires. Your reasoning in this area seems contradictory.
We also see Descartes, as being responsible, or the excuse for more hardening of the human heart and suffering in the world than anyone else in human history.
In the Love of the Lord,
Frank and Mary