Science of Theological Taxonomy

[Neandertal Ned]

Biological taxonomy assumes and is designed to show so-called evolutionary relationships. Theological taxonomy neither assumes nor is designed to show so-called evolutionary relationships, yet all living things can be categorized and classified within a system of theological taxonomy.

The Science of Theological Taxonomy

The Kingdom of God on earth (Spirit and Science of Life) contains and consists of all of the kingdoms listed below.

The Kingdom of Man (Living Souls)
contains and consists of all of the kingdoms listed below.

The Kingdom of Animals (Humans excluded)
contains and consists of all of the kingdoms listed below.

The Kingdom of Plants
contains and consists of all of the kingdoms listed below.

The Kingdom of Fungi
contains and consists of all of the kingdoms listed below.

The Kingdom of Bacteria
contains and consists of all of the kingdoms listed below.

The Kingdom of Minerals
contains and consists of all of the kingdoms listed below.

The Kingdom of Molecules
contains and consists of all of the kingdoms listed below.

The Kingdom of Atoms
contains and consists of all of the kingdoms listed below.


What do you think of the spirit and science of theological taxonomy?

In which kingdom do you belong?

Do you think that taxonomy is a science?

Can you find anything wrong with the spirit and science of theological taxonomy?

[Atrax Robustus]

Ned

I'm fascinated by your ongoing campaign against the notion that humans are currently classified as members of the Hominidae (Great Apes) family and we are all therefore, albeit distant, cousins of today's modern apes.

While your case is presented from the perspective that this widely accepted taxonomical classification causes offence to various people - predominantly those who are pious followers of the Abrahamic religions, I have to admit that I am unconvinced by your display of empathy. Your crusade appears to be a far more personal one.

Please bear with me here - I am not trying to be confrontational . . . I am trying to gain an understanding of the basis of your dislike of the taxonomic classifications. I find it difficult to have a meaningful discussion with someone if I haven't taken the time to gain a clear understanding of the other person's point of view.

So . . . and please refrain from raising your concern regarding the offence that some people take from the notion - I'm aware of your position . . . would you mind explaining why you personally reject the taxonomical classification that places man as a member of the Great Apes family?

Thanks for your time.

It simply serves no purpose, does no good and makes no contribution to the welfare, happiness and prosperity of Christians, Jews and Muslims to include themselves in your Great Ape Family. It contradicts their claim to be the descendents of Noah and his family.

So, am I correct in assuming that this is your personal position? What I mean is that you see no purpose in the classification and you take personal offence in it - because it contradicts your claim to be a descendant of Noah. Would it also be correct to say, then, that you consider that pious Christians, Jews and Muslims would be similarly offended?

You can include everyone else who doesn't object to being called an ape though.

I find your fixation on being called an ape confusing. Wouldn't a pious Jew or Muslim take greater offence with the notion that they share a common ancestor with and are, in essence, distant cousins of pigs or dogs? Why would pious Jews or Christians give a jot about being cousins of the Great Apes when taxonomists have classified them as distant cousins of the unclean animals of Leviticus?

[Bust Nak]

I have seen this behavior before.
Ned, are you married to or dating a person of African descent? It's irrelevant as far as evidence goes here, but it could help us to further understand motive.

I don't know how it would helpunderstand Ned's motive, he is a creationist and that's pretty much explain everything, but for you information:
"...my fellow Christians are people of African descent, as are my wife and children."
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 940#503940

"My children are of mixed race."
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 259#484259

"My wife doesn't mind though, and she is a Negress. Not the scientific type, of course, since I had to explain why she could call me her wonderful Caucasoid husband any time she wanted to show me off to her Negro girlfriends."
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 999#482999

[Neandertal Ned]

The question makes sense from the point of view of a human being who objects to being called a Homo sapiens by you or anyone else. Homo sapiens is a derogatory term invented by biologists to associatie human beings with African apes.

It means wise man. I would take it as a complement, and find it amusing that you think of it as an insult.

Not all human beings consider themselves to be a "wise man" like you and some snooty biologists do, so the obvious exclusion of women, and children from the "exclusive" and high-fallutin Latin terminology makes it highly offensive and insulting to the common man whose common sense tells him that women and children are also human beings and should be addressed and categorized as such.

All men and women are human beings, not apes.

Let try role reversal: So a tiny minority of humans (creationists) define humans as non apes on the superficial basis of their religion, everyone else in the word has to agree with them?

Of course not. It's a matter of choice.

Who other than this tiny minority of creationist has to classify and think of themselves as non-animals?

None other. It is a matter of choice and free will. If you choose to distinguish yourself from those who call themselves apes, you are welcome to join those of us who are neither apes nor Homo sapiens. it doesn't cost anything.

Is there any law requiring people to subscribe to theological taxons which they find offensive?

Of course not. Nor should there be. However, there are rules and regulations governing ad hominem attacks, slander and libel. You can't just go around insulting and offending people without expecting some form of disciplinary response even if you are a biologist.

Am I forced to be a member of your non-ape classification or can I just remain a member of the human race as a human being and an ape?

Of course. It is your prerogative. You can classify and call yourself as whatever animal you want just as long as you don't offend other people by calling them the same thing.

Then you have no respect for anyone else who objects to being called an ape by you.

There is a difference between no respect, and not enough respect to cater to all their wishes. I have enough respect to continue this conversation with you, enough respect to treat you as an adult, for example.

You need to show a little more respect if you want similar respect in return. You can't just demand that others ascede to your terminology and choice of words when it comes to categorizing and classifying all human beings. Christians might say that all human beings are sinners but that would not necessitate your agreeing with them and considering yourself to be a sinner, would it?

We do have equal rights, neither of us are entitled to decide what the context is. The context is not a matter of opinion.

If we have equal rights then I can say that context is a matter of opinion and that we are equally entitled to decide what the context is or is not. If the context is that "all humans are apes," then the context itself is offensive.

Who decides it is objective? I say it is subjective.

Nobody decides, that's the point of objective measument. It's takes human bias out of the picture. Or are you going for the English language is defined by human and is ultamately subjective angle?

I'm going by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle regarding the subject's influence on the object. Objectivity is subject to the perspective and relativity of the subject to the object. Do you hold to a different opinion?

Do are you going to stop insulting me and apologize?

Depends. Are you going to stop insulting me and apologize?

No, it doesn't. It depends on whether the person feels offended and insulted. You originally said that you were not offended by my calling you an ape but are now insulted by "everything" I said. In both cases, the person on the receiving end of the remark is the one to claim being offended or not.

So you accept that everything you said is an insult?

Only if you claim it to be.

Do you have no repect for me?

I have enough respect to continue this conversation with you, enough respect to treat you as an adult and a fellow human being, for example. I have more than enough respect for apes to keep my distance from them.

The context is someone calling you a rat or a pig.

Then clearly according to the context it's an insult.

Exactly. Just as someone calling you or me an ape is an insult.

I'm not going to call you a rat or a pig because it would be an ad hominem affront just like calling someone an ape is an ad hominem affront.

There is no other context.

Yes there is - for example, when I classiying all human as ape the context is biological classification.

Classifying all humans as apes is offensive to human beings who are not apes and find the exclusive and discriminatory Latin term, Homo sapiens, inapplicable to them.

[Neandertal Ned]

It simply serves no purpose, does no good and makes no contribution to the welfare, happiness and prosperity of Christians, Jews and Muslims to include themselves in your Great Ape Family. It contradicts their claim to be the descendents of Noah and his family.

So, am I correct in assuming that this is your personal position?

Of the same kind and to the same degree that yours is also a personal position.

What I mean is that you see no purpose in the classification and you take personal offence in it - because it contradicts your claim to be a descendant of Noah. Would it also be correct to say, then, that you consider that pious Christians, Jews and Muslims would be similarly offended?

They should be, whether pious or not. What good is having your own national and religious heritage, family tree and genealogy if some biologist reduces your status to that of an ape and says that your ancestors were tree-swinging and knuckle-walking African monkeys or apes? Gee willikers! Don't you have any pride in your family's ancestral heritage?

You can include everyone else who doesn't object to being called an ape though.

I find your fixation on being called an ape confusing. Wouldn't a pious Jew or Muslim take greater offence with the notion that they share a common ancestor with and are, in essence, distant cousins of pigs or dogs? Why would pious Jews or Christians give a jot about being cousins of the Great Apes when taxonomists have classified them as distant cousins of the unclean animals of Leviticus?

That is why I maintain that all Jews, Muslims and Christians should take personal offence to being categorized as Homo sapiens, apes, pigs or any other animals! I believe that Muslims are more sensitive to having Prophet Mohammad and themselves called apes or pigs than Jews or Christians may, but I think that all Jews, Christians and Muslims may take equal offense to having Abraham and Moses referred to as apes whose own ancestors were tree-swinging and knucklewalking, hairy African beasts.

[Bust Nak]

Not all human beings consider themselves to be a "wise man" like you and some snooty biologists do, so the obvious exclusion of women, and children from the "exclusive" and high-fallutin Latin terminology makes it highly offensive and insulting to the common man whose common sense tells him that women and children are also human beings and should be addressed and categorized as such.

Equivocation fallacy. The term man means more than adult male.

Of course not. It's a matter of choice... It is a matter of choice and free will. If you choose to distinguish yourself from those who call themselves apes, you are welcome to join those of us who are neither apes nor Homo sapiens. it doesn't cost anything... Of course not. Nor should there be [law requiring people to subscribe to theological taxons.]

Then why are you demanding that others ascede to your terminology and choice of words when it comes to categorizing and classifying all human beings? Darwinsts might say that all human beings are apes but that would not necessitate your agreeing with them and considering yourself to be an ape, would it?

However, there are rules and regulations governing ad hominem attacks, slander and libel. You can't just go around insulting and offending people without expecting some form of disciplinary response even if you are a biologist.

That's why I don't go round insulting people.

Of course. It is your prerogative. You can classify and call yourself as whatever animal you want just as long as you don't offend other people by calling them the same thing.

Why not? You classified others as non-animal all the time.

You need to show a little more respect if you want similar respect in return. You can't just demand that others ascede to your terminology and choice of words when it comes to categorizing and classifying all human beings. Christians might say that all human beings are sinners but that would not necessitate your agreeing with them and considering yourself to be a sinner, would it?

Lets see if role reversal works.

If we have equal rights then I can say that context is a matter of opinion and that we are equally entitled to decide what the context is or is not.

That makes no sense. That would make us unequal and give you special rights.

If the context is that "all humans are apes," then the context itself is offensive.

This makes no sense either. How is that a context?

I'm going by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle regarding the subject's influence on the object. Objectivity is subject to the perspective and relativity of the subject to the object. Do you hold to a different opinion?

I told you, it's not a matter of opinions. That's the whole point of using objective standard.

Depends. Are you going to stop insulting me and apologize?

Loaded question. I cannot stop insulting you until I start insulting you.

Only if you claim it to be.

Well I did.

I have enough respect to continue this conversation with you, enough respect to treat you as an adult and a fellow human being, for example. I have more than enough respect for apes to keep my distance from them.

Does that mean role reversal is working? Do you now understand the difference between no respect and not enough respect to cater for all my wishes?

Exactly. Just as someone calling you or me an ape is an insult.

Incorrect. Not just like calling someone as ape because the context may be different.

Classifying all humans as apes is offensive to human beings who are not apes and find the exclusive and discriminatory Latin term, Homo sapiens, inapplicable to them.

Red herring. This doesn't address the point that there are contexts other than simply wanting to call someone an ape.

[Clownboat]

I have seen this behavior before.
Ned, are you married to or dating a person of African descent? It's irrelevant as far as evidence goes here, but it could help us to further understand motive.

Is race now a matter of concern to psychobiologists?

I thought race was a social construct and not scientifically classifiable or subject to motivational research by psychobiologists. Another evolutionary myth?

Um, Ned. You are the only one here to reference race.
You also failed to answer the question.

People of African descent comprise a racial group in the US.

Again, YOU bring race into it. We are all members of the great ape family together. If you want to go further and think of people by race, that's on you.

Do you not live in the US?

I don't see the relevancy.

Besides, your question is an ad hominem and you were already warned about making such remarks by the moderator. Don't you pay attention to moderator comments?

I did not make any remarks, I asked you a question for a very specific reason. It is up to you to answer it or not. I do think the fact that you would call that question an ad hominem is further evidence that you are way to hung up on what race your fellow humans belong to.

I encourage you to think of your fellow humans as equals and to forget about race or in what way race can or should/shouldn't be a factor when talking about your fellow humans.

[Clownboat]

I have seen this behavior before.
Ned, are you married to or dating a person of African descent? It's irrelevant as far as evidence goes here, but it could help us to further understand motive.

I don't know how it would helpunderstand Ned's motive, he is a creationist and that's pretty much explain everything, but for you information:
"...my fellow Christians are people of African descent, as are my wife and children."
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 940#503940

"My children are of mixed race."
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 259#484259

"My wife doesn't mind though, and she is a Negress. Not the scientific type, of course, since I had to explain why she could call me her wonderful Caucasoid husband any time she wanted to show me off to her Negro girlfriends."
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 999#482999

I was all but sure, so thank you.

Carry on Ned, carry that torch high.
Fight this false battle of racism (all humans are apes), because as of yet, you have failed to show me that there is any racism intended and I feel you care more about fighting for a religion than for arriving at any truth.

[Atrax Robustus]

It simply serves no purpose, does no good and makes no contribution to the welfare, happiness and prosperity of Christians, Jews and Muslims to include themselves in your Great Ape Family. It contradicts their claim to be the descendents of Noah and his family.

So, am I correct in assuming that this is your personal position?

Of the same kind and to the same degree that yours is also a personal position.

Thanks for the up-front answer. I haven't provided anyone with my position or opinion on the subject.

What I mean is that you see no purpose in the classification and you take personal offence in it - because it contradicts your claim to be a descendant of Noah. Would it also be correct to say, then, that you consider that pious Christians, Jews and Muslims would be similarly offended?

They should be, whether pious or not.

You say that they should be offended, what if they don't share your opinion?

What good is having your own national and religious heritage, family tree and genealogy if some biologist reduces your status to that of an ape and says that your ancestors were tree-swinging and knuckle-walking African monkeys or apes? Gee willikers! Don't you have any pride in your family's ancestral heritage?

I have great pride in my family heritage and have a record of my lineage that goes back six generations. What science tells me about the evolutionary origins of my ancestors cannot detract from that pride.

You can include everyone else who doesn't object to being called an ape though.

I find your fixation on being called an ape confusing. Wouldn't a pious Jew or Muslim take greater offence with the notion that they share a common ancestor with and are, in essence, distant cousins of pigs or dogs? Why would pious Jews or Christians give a jot about being cousins of the Great Apes when taxonomists have classified them as distant cousins of the unclean animals of Leviticus?

That is why I maintain that all Jews, Muslims and Christians should take personal offence to being categorized as Homo sapiens, apes, pigs or any other animals! I believe that Muslims are more sensitive to having Prophet Mohammad and themselves called apes or pigs than Jews or Christians may, but I think that all Jews, Christians and Muslims may take equal offense to having Abraham and Moses referred to as apes whose own ancestors were tree-swinging and knucklewalking, hairy African beasts.

You keep saying that they SHOULD take personal offence. Isn't this a case of you projecting your opinion onto others?