"I am NOT an animal"

[Zzyzx]

.
"I am NOT an animal"

Many who do not appear to have much knowledge of biology seem indignant when learning that H. sapiens are classified as animals (alternatives being plant and virus). I do not recall ever hearing a Non-Theist object. 1) Is there something about religion that causes this?

You see I am NOT an animal, never was and never in a billion years will I evolve to be one, my family tree all the way back to Adam don't have one ape in it.

2) Why be upset, indignant or in denial about a biological / taxonomic classification?

3) Since humans differ from other animals only in degree (some mental and physical characteristics), what is the objection to recognizing that they are animals?

4) Is anything other than religion (and possibly narcissism) involved?


In the quoted statement someone (whose theological position apparently defies description) claims knowledge of his family tree back to Adam – as though that proves the claimant is not an animal. However, if the hypothetical Adam was human (H. sapiens), he (Adam) classifies as an animal.

[squint]

[Replying to post 167 by Peds nurse]

The difficulty I'm having, Peds nurse, is that the scripture (according to squint) is telling us not to trust man, only trust god. And yet, we only know about god from scripture which comes from man. The very same creature the bible tells us is flawed and not to be trusted.

KenRU (aka:Keanu Reeves, Haha)!!!

I understand what you are saying, but I believe their is a misunderstanding. When the Bible tells us to not put our trust in man, but in God, what that translates to is faith. We are told to not to put our faith in man, but God. This means that when things get crazy in our lives, we don't ask of men, what we should be asking of God. "Should I divorce my wife? Is this the right spouse for me? I am so lonely that I want to give up on life. Should I try drugs? You get the point. We cannot only seek the advice of man, for God knows the plans he has for us, and sometimes who we ask, does not have our best interest in mind. And, when we do seek the advice of man, we run it by God first.

It would be silly for us to marry and never trust our spouse. However, we cannot put our spouse before God. We cannot expect our loved ones to fill the shoes of God...it sets everyone up for failure (from a Christian point of view).

Or is it, don't trust your fellow man, except it comes to Christianity? Then its ok?

We can trust our fellow man, if they are trustworthy...but we cannot trust them more than God (for believers).

And how do we know that the scripture/bible is accurate? Or, that our priests/pastors/reverends etc are speaking the truth regarding them?

According to squint, we should not be trusting our fellow man: from Post 109:
"Materialism, however intelligent, however "provable" will not over ride the reality of evil IN man, and as such MAN is not to be entirely trusted. "

We can only know the bible and scripture from man, yet, man should not be entirely trusted according to squint.

That is a contradiction, it seems.

Not at all. As Dirty Harry said, "A mans got to know his limitations."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VrFV5r8cs0

There is no presentation by any Apostle that they knew everything because they didn't. They all saw in part just as we do.

Any partial sight should be seen for what it proposes. At least in saying such the notion that any of these bore any semblance of Absolute Truth is ridiculous. They made no such claims. Anyone who claims differently has extended their boundaries by a considerable length into a territory that they don't have and never had to begin with.

When Pilate asked Jesus "what is truth" Jesus didn't bother to answer.

[Clownboat]

It's as if I'm saying "potato" and your saying "bowling shoes". Perhaps I am just not able to convey anything meaningful for you to understand. Either way, for me to continue to try to have a meaningful dialog with you would seem to be an effort in futility.

Many of you attempt to discuss scripture. Such discussions are all worthy of close examination of the basis of presentation upon which various sights are formed.

We tried the simplest approach possible, that "man" is internally good and evil and this information is internally empirically provable and available to anyone who examines their own conscience.

This makes scripture an internal matter.

All this hoo haa viewing from other directions are side bars, and largely irrelevant to what scripture has to say in Gods dealings with the evil quotients in the heart of the "man animal."

Squint, you can talk about the Bible all you want. You can continue to tells us just how impressed with it that YOU are too.

What you need to do though, is to provide the specific information that causes you to be so impressed with this book, or better yet, provide evidence that these religious claims you make (just like millions of other people do) are true.

Until then, you are just one of many millions of people making un-evidenced claims about the holy book they have chosen to place their faith in.

[squint]

It's as if I'm saying "potato" and your saying "bowling shoes". Perhaps I am just not able to convey anything meaningful for you to understand. Either way, for me to continue to try to have a meaningful dialog with you would seem to be an effort in futility.

Many of you attempt to discuss scripture. Such discussions are all worthy of close examination of the basis of presentation upon which various sights are formed.

We tried the simplest approach possible, that "man" is internally good and evil and this information is internally empirically provable and available to anyone who examines their own conscience.

This makes scripture an internal matter.

All this hoo haa viewing from other directions are side bars, and largely irrelevant to what scripture has to say in Gods dealings with the evil quotients in the heart of the "man animal."

Squint, you can talk about the Bible all you want. You can continue to tells us just how impressed with it that YOU are too.

And you can exercise caricaturist license.

What you need to do though, is to provide the specific information that causes you to be so impressed with this book, or better yet, provide evidence that these religious claims you make (just like millions of other people do) are true.

You'll have to identify whatever claim it is you think is being made. About the only claim I'd say the scriptures are spot on about is that mankind is good and evil internally and that is provable only to you by yourself, internally. If you make the same conclusion or not would be irrelevant to me anyway because I think the sights in this direction of scripture are valid, regardless.

Until then, you are just one of many millions of people making un-evidenced claims about the holy book they have chosen to place their faith in.

Evidence schmevidence. Are you going to cut somebody open and find good and evil? Spare me the notions of such theological approaches.

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 167 by Peds nurse]

The difficulty I'm having, Peds nurse, is that the scripture (according to squint) is telling us not to trust man, only trust god. And yet, we only know about god from scripture which comes from man. The very same creature the bible tells us is flawed and not to be trusted.

KenRU (aka:Keanu Reeves, Haha)!!!

I understand what you are saying, but I believe their is a misunderstanding. When the Bible tells us to not put our trust in man, but in God, what that translates to is faith. We are told to not to put our faith in man, but God. This means that when things get crazy in our lives, we don't ask of men, what we should be asking of God. "Should I divorce my wife? Is this the right spouse for me? I am so lonely that I want to give up on life. Should I try drugs? You get the point. We cannot only seek the advice of man, for God knows the plans he has for us, and sometimes who we ask, does not have our best interest in mind. And, when we do seek the advice of man, we run it by God first.

It would be silly for us to marry and never trust our spouse. However, we cannot put our spouse before God. We cannot expect our loved ones to fill the shoes of God...it sets everyone up for failure (from a Christian point of view).

Or is it, don't trust your fellow man, except it comes to Christianity? Then its ok?

We can trust our fellow man, if they are trustworthy...but we cannot trust them more than God (for believers).

And how do we know that the scripture/bible is accurate? Or, that our priests/pastors/reverends etc are speaking the truth regarding them?

According to squint, we should not be trusting our fellow man: from Post 109:
"Materialism, however intelligent, however "provable" will not over ride the reality of evil IN man, and as such MAN is not to be entirely trusted. "

We can only know the bible and scripture from man, yet, man should not be entirely trusted according to squint.

That is a contradiction, it seems.

Not at all. As Dirty Harry said, "A mans got to know his limitations."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VrFV5r8cs0

While Dirty Harry Callahan may very well spout the occasional witty philosophic anecdotes, I’m going to need a little more clarification than a movie quote from the 70’s.

There is no presentation by any Apostle that they knew everything because they didn't. They all saw in part just as we do.

Never thought they did.

Any partial sight should be seen for what it proposes. At least in saying such the notion that any of these bore any semblance of Absolute Truth is ridiculous. They made no such claims. Anyone who claims differently has extended their boundaries by a considerable length into a territory that they don't have and never had to begin with.

When Pilate asked Jesus "what is truth" Jesus didn't bother to answer.

You’ll note that I never thought, nor indicated otherwise. However, I am asking why it is that your faith in scriptures/priests/pastors/reverends is considered trustworthy, given your belief in man’s internal evil and unreliability?

Saying, because one discusses openly their own internal evil and untrustworthiness does not mean one automatically speaks the truth.

My apologies, this is still not making sense to me.

All the best,

[Clownboat]

Squint, you can talk about the Bible all you want. You can continue to tells us just how impressed with it that YOU are too.

And you can exercise caricaturist license.

Are you impressed with the Bible or are you not impressed with the Bible? (Allowing for exceptions of course).

What you need to do though, is to provide the specific information that causes you to be so impressed with this book, or better yet, provide evidence that these religious claims you make (just like millions of other people do) are true.

You'll have to identify whatever claim it is you think is being made. About the only claim I'd say the scriptures are spot on about is that mankind is good and evil internally and that is provable only to you by yourself, internally. If you make the same conclusion or not would be irrelevant to me anyway because I think the sights in this direction of scripture are valid, regardless.

I'll take this as admission that you cannot identify what it is about the Bible that impresses you. (I cannot be the good vs evil claim, because even a child can understand that people can be both good an evil. Unless you are that easily impressed of course, but I doubt that personally).
I also take this as an admission that you can not separate your religions claims from all the other millions of people on this planet also making religious claims.

Feel free to show otherwise if you are able.

Until then, you are just one of many millions of people making un-evidenced claims about the holy book they have chosen to place their faith in.

Evidence schmevidence. Are you going to cut somebody open and find good and evil? Spare me the notions of such theological approaches.

I will not cut someone open to find good and evil. I knew people were capable of both since I was a child. I also know that you will not find 'concepts' (good/evil) by cutting people open.

Did it really take reading it (people can be both good and evil) in a religious book before you realized something so obvious? Please answer this honestly, I believe it may reveal much.

[Blastcat]

There is no presentation by any Apostle that they knew everything because they didn't. They all saw in part just as we do.

So, why should we take their words as true? They might have been mistaken in parts, wrong in parts, or making things up in parts? Which parts are which?

Why assume that they had ANY partial truth at all? .. maybe they were COMPLETELY mistaken, COMPLETELY wrong, and made things up COMPLETELY.

Why just assume ANY of it is true? If PARTS of it are wrong, ALL the parts of it can be wrong, too. And if it's POSSIBLE that it's all wrong.. or mostly wrong, or kinda wrong and we can't know which parts are true and which parts are wrong..

Kinda begs the question.. WHY believe any of it?.. The believers could be wrong.

Do you agree ?

Any partial sight should be seen for what it proposes.

Not sure what you mean by this.. perhaps a bit of clarification on your part might help. However, can I take a guess?

Are you talking about internal consistency?.. Because by that criteria, ANY internally self-consistent system is true.

If I make up a totally fallacious but internally self-consistent system.. does it accurately reflect REALITY all of a sudden?

Internally self-consistent FICTIONS are all true?

At least in saying such the notion that any of these bore any semblance of Absolute Truth is ridiculous.

Good, we agree. Any claim to absolute knowledge made by beings without absolute intelligence or data is completely fallacious.

That would include religious claims to absolute knowledge by humans.

They made no such claims. Anyone who claims differently has extended their boundaries by a considerable length into a territory that they don't have and never had to begin with.

I'm not entirely sure that "they made no such claims". Hard to prove a negative like that.. if I ask you to PROVE that statement.. You'd pretty much have to show me everywhere they DIDN'T make that claim. And if I showed you ONE instance when they DID make that claim, your statement would be disproved. As it stands.. I'll stay neutral.

I wish people would say things they can demonstrate to be true and leave the rest at home.

But I agree with you that people who insist they have some absolute kind of knowledge are either lying, being logically incoherent.. or they are delusional. I'm happy you don't put yourself into these categories. [/quote]

When Pilate asked Jesus "what is truth" Jesus didn't bother to answer.

So, Jesus doesn't know anything absolutely?... Or wasn't recorded properly, or couldn't think of a witty comeback or maybe he had a really bad case of dry mouth.. I thought he was a god? Or part of the god that DOES know everything absolutely?

Hardly makes internally consistent sense to me .. Maybe that's why this three in one kind of god is so debated... for lack of internal self-consistency.

Or maybe.. None of the Jesus story is true at all?.. maybe it's a story, internally self-consistent to a debatable degree...but mostly or completely fictional?

How are we to know?

[KenRU]

I will not cut someone open to find good and evil. I knew people were capable of both since I was a child. I also know that you will not find 'concepts' (good/evil) by cutting people open.

Ignoring for the moment the silliness of cutting open people to find "good and evil", just out of curiosity, when you say people can be both good and evil, do you mean colloquially good and evil (all people in general are capable of both acts of kindness and cruelty) or do you mean people are intrinsically good and evil (as in all people have urges to commit murder, torture etc and acts of altrusim) as squint seems to intimate?

I have a hard time believing that everyone has urges/impulses/thoughts to climb a bell tower and just start shooting people out of a desire to be evil.

Just curious as to your stance,

all the best

[squint]

There is no presentation by any Apostle that they knew everything because they didn't. They all saw in part just as we do.

So, why should we take their words as true?

Any "truth values" would seem to be quantifiable by the examinations of claims. The "scriptures" propose some interesting conundrums to engage. Many in fact. And some interesting, simultaneous but opposing truths. It's just a whole lotta fun quite frankly.

They might have been mistaken in parts, wrong in parts, or making things up in parts? Which parts are which?

I think any proposal that is honest has value. Scripture proposes that mankind is evil internally, without fail and without exceptions.

I find that information very valuable to keep in mind.

Why assume that they had ANY partial truth at all?

Uh, because it's true? I don't need a rocket scientist or a quantum theorist to empirically prove that mankind is evil internally. That to me is one of the most OBVIOUS lessons of humanity that we all "learn" from a very early age.

.. maybe they were COMPLETELY mistaken, COMPLETELY wrong, and made things up COMPLETELY.

There is no mistake made in the observations that mankind is internally evil (oh, yeah, and GOOD) and that we are finite. Scripture doesn't leap off the pages of logic and reason in these regards. I think you and I could make the same reasonable conclusions without the scriptures as with them and that we could reasonably conclude these as "present realities" of man in the semi-empirical senses.

Why just assume ANY of it is true?

I would only say that from the opening salvos of these matters, that scripture has MORE interesting inspections to be made from those basic elements. NOT that I think anything is going to work out any differently, regardless. Mankind is still going to contain evil internally and individuals are still going to be finite.

If PARTS of it are wrong,

You perhaps are missing a point. It's not the parts that are wrong, but the PLAYERS definitely have issues. The basic elements look not much differently than a Taoist twist of these same matters, good and evil intertwined. With a little eye of white in the black and black in the white. Wish I knew how to insert a picture at this site.

These matters have been pondered by man from the beginning, long before what we have as "the written Word" today. As has the quest of transcendence been pondered.

These are in fact 'basic elements' of our constructs.

ALL the parts of it can be wrong, too. And if it's POSSIBLE that it's all wrong.. or mostly wrong, or kinda wrong and we can't know which parts are true and which parts are wrong..

There is little use in straining against what we are built of.

Kinda begs the question.. WHY believe any of it?.. The believers could be wrong.

Assuredly WRONG. No one is "that right." No one. No material scientist is any MORE right either. We're all on the same ground in these regards.

In Buddhism just as in Christianity, a PERFECT PICTURE is invoked to set our "images" by. And in neither case is there A TANGIBLE PICTURE.

There are only images to ponder. And in that there IS change, spare change as it may be.

Do you agree ?

Generally speaking, yes. I don't buy a lot of things nor do I have to believe anything I don't believe or find value in. I do accept proposals of BETTER sights even if they are not had "in the moment."

There is more to be had than meets the eye. I do NOT believe that these pieces of s**t we have for political/monetary/judicial systems are all that we can muster OR that the same pieces of worse that passes for christianity are ALL that is there to be had.

Trancendency and CHANGE are far more valuable prospects.

Any partial sight should be seen for what it proposes.

Not sure what you mean by this.. perhaps a bit of clarification on your part might help. However, can I take a guess?

Are you talking about internal consistency?.. Because by that criteria, ANY internally self-consistent system is true.

I don't propose that scripture presents that "mankind" is going to get past the realities of our internal construction. And in fact it is the worse aspects of these matters that seem to continually RISE to the surface is it not? What does that transmit to you, personally? What "reality" assessments might we gain from those observations?

Christianity in it's finest form is all about AMPLIFICATION, DISRUPTION and PROTEST of these "lesser" but "ruling" internal invisible natures that always spring to the surface to claim their holds, victims and entire societies, if not the "whole world." And in that direction Christ is active, promising that there are NO SECRETS available nor are there "hiding places." And there are definitely present consequences to be had on both sides of the ledgers.

If I make up a totally fallacious but internally self-consistent system.. does it accurately reflect REALITY all of a sudden?

Christianity doesn't propose that anyone can make themselves "like" Christ or Christ like. If there is any such making to be had it is certainly not in "our" hands to make.

Internally self-consistent FICTIONS are all true?

Christianity doesn't propose that we BS ourselves about ourselves, that is for sure.

At least in saying such the notion that any of these bore any semblance of Absolute Truth is ridiculous.

Good, we agree. Any claim to absolute knowledge made by beings without absolute intelligence or data is completely fallacious.

In the Absolute Sense? It will never happen. And yes, such claimants are blatant LIARS. But that is NOT the proposition anyway. That does NOT mean that partial sights do not contain value prospects. Science is always incomplete. Theology is no different.

God in Christ held Himself out on a stick for a very short period of time. We are to not to know Him in that way any longer but He Is Here to be known, in the now and only in part.

That would include religious claims to absolute knowledge by humans.

Undoubtedly. God is the endgame when it comes to human knowledge as the Eternal Unknown. Science is quickly coming to the same event horizon is it not?

The Mystery of the Unknown is always more tantalizing to all of us and we are always drawn into it in various ways. Familiarity breeds contempt if I recall the saying. Once one mystery is solved, on to the next. This too is part of our nature. I respect the prospects of the Eternal Mystery far moreso than any given temporal powers.

They made no such claims. Anyone who claims differently has extended their boundaries by a considerable length into a territory that they don't have and never had to begin with.

I'm not entirely sure that "they made no such claims". Hard to prove a negative like that.. if I ask you to PROVE that statement.. You'd pretty much have to show me everywhere they DIDN'T make that claim.

There is no claim to be had on The Eternal Mystery. Other mysteries will have their endings, such as the "mystery" of iniquity. There is an END to that chapter.

And if I showed you ONE instance when they DID make that claim, your statement would be disproved. As it stands.. I'll stay neutral.

There is not one presenter in the scriptures that holds out tangible evidence and says/claims "this is God." That never happened. Even Jesus Christ was a defined man/Image IN WHOM was "the Spirit without limit." The Great Objective BOUND within an Image of His Choosing.

So yeah, what He had to say I pay very close attentions to.

I wish people would say things they can demonstrate to be true and leave the rest at home.

But I agree with you that people who insist they have some absolute kind of knowledge are either lying, being logically incoherent.. or they are delusional. I'm happy you don't put yourself into these categories.

I'd like to think that theology contains enough room to entertain and engage us all. I find similar delights in philosophy or material discoveries as well. I would even propose that we all step off our respective subjective control boxes and make the computers run the world and make all our decisions for us while we sit back, enjoy life and save the planet in the process. Imagine that? Wouldn't that be just GRAND?

When Pilate asked Jesus "what is truth" Jesus didn't bother to answer.

So, Jesus doesn't know anything absolutely?... Or wasn't recorded properly, or couldn't think of a witty comeback or maybe he had a really bad case of dry mouth.. I thought he was a god? Or part of the god that DOES know everything absolutely?

Interesting contemplation ain't it? Here you have a guy asking God in the flesh what is truth and He had no reply. Funny.

But there are deeper scriptural principles behind this matter.

Hardly makes internally consistent sense to me .. Maybe that's why this three in one kind of god is so debated... for lack of internal self-consistency.

Or maybe.. None of the Jesus story is true at all?.. maybe it's a story, internally self-consistent to a debatable degree...but mostly or completely fictional?

If you understand that scripture presents we are 'bound' with strangers that God doesn't KNOW you'd see why Jesus didn't answer.

How are we to know?

Part of us already knows and hears. And part of us never will know or hear. That's how we're all put together.

[Clownboat]

I will not cut someone open to find good and evil. I knew people were capable of both since I was a child. I also know that you will not find 'concepts' (good/evil) by cutting people open.

Ignoring for the moment the silliness of cutting open people to find "good and evil", just out of curiosity, when you say people can be both good and evil, do you mean colloquially good and evil (all people in general are capable of both acts of kindness and cruelty) or do you mean people are intrinsically good and evil (as in all people have urges to commit murder, torture etc and acts of altrusim) as squint seems to intimate?

I have a hard time believing that everyone has urges/impulses/thoughts to climb a bell tower and just start shooting people out of a desire to be evil.

Just curious as to your stance,

all the best

This: (to use your words) people in general are capable of both acts of kindness and cruelty.

Thanks for asking for clarification.

[squint]

I will not cut someone open to find good and evil. I knew people were capable of both since I was a child. I also know that you will not find 'concepts' (good/evil) by cutting people open.

Ignoring for the moment the silliness of cutting open people to find "good and evil", just out of curiosity, when you say people can be both good and evil, do you mean colloquially good and evil (all people in general are capable of both acts of kindness and cruelty) or do you mean people are intrinsically good and evil (as in all people have urges to commit murder, torture etc and acts of altrusim) as squint seems to intimate?

I have a hard time believing that everyone has urges/impulses/thoughts to climb a bell tower and just start shooting people out of a desire to be evil.

Just curious as to your stance,

all the best

This: (to use your words) people in general are capable of both acts of kindness and cruelty.

Thanks for asking for clarification.

Did we just get 3 people to actually agree on something basic here? wow