"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]

What theological positions are you referring to? Have we had any relevant exchanges to this point of any value? Do I listen to killers? Uh, no. I could care less what they have to say.

If I believe God loves and saves all people is that some kind of personal offense to you?

Do you take personal offense at Buddhists?

Do you perceive some kind of threat in such sights?

Buddhists don't go around proclaiming they are the only ones who know God, or claiming people hate God, or have scriptures like the one in my signature:

All depends on what you think you are seeing there Danmark.

[squint]

Perhaps that’s the way it was, but I can tell you in practice that is not the case now. As for whether what you say is Catholic Doctrine, I do not know.

You'd have to read the updated footnotes on these matters. I have. I just don't care to bother looking them up again. The RCC really doesn't change anything. They "append" to "slightly clarify" when the underlying basis doesn't compute and they squirt out a concession or 2 along the way sometimes, as in this case, laity being allowed to engage and "share" in a VERY limited range and extent. Not expansive in ANY way. You'd be surprised at how constricted "laity" really are in their system.

Fortunately, for many of us, we do not live in a theocratic society.

I'll ahmen to that brutha, even if it's an atheist or unbeliever saying it. The last thing I'd be interested in is a theocracy. I hope we've learned enough lessons on this front.

It is relevant to this conversation if you think that all Catholics believe they are infallible. They do not.

I don't recall even remotely inferring that.

BUT, if the pope EVER sits in the chair of St. Peter and declares publicly as Paul did, that he has evil present within him, a devil in his flesh and is the worst sinner on the planet, I WILL be the first guy in line to hear what he has to say. Not that I expect that to happen. Most of his flock would probably drop dead from shock. I'd give the biggest HOO RAY!!!

Scripture can be kinda funny in this way. It places things where people really don't care to look or own up to. It essentially prevents the "high and mighty scenarios." If one is swayed by the high and mighty, they went astray.

Other than you both believe each other to be wrong?

Being "wrong" is a universal condition of mankind. I still think they'll all be saved regardless of being "wrong." So yeah, maybe a different sight from my end that is beneficial only to me, my and my innards.

Other than your belief in Christ as the son of god? Other than your faith in Jesus’s message? Other than the holiness of the bible? Other than your belief in salvation? Need I go on?

There is no "perfect sight" of any of that nor do I portray to have any. Well I may enjoy engaging in some of the finer points of observations of those matters most people have little if any particular interests. I certainly don't "do it" as a matter of condemnation to any person.

They do believe in evolution (albeit a god-guided one), do you? Is that a difference or another similarity?

I believe that the text picks up the narrative of scripture from the point of Adam. This does NOT preclude other ages on earth or the existence of prior evolutions of man. Scripture is for the "now" age. Employing it beyond that is questionable and iffy territory at best. It's not that kind of text.

I am unaware of this assertion. Please enlighten me as where Catholics still assert this? I’m genuinely curious. Haven’t been to church in a while, lol.

"With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3011.htm


The above is also part of why the RCC is not opposed to the death penalty, officially.

"[Catechism online]
2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.

2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. "

They still remain seeking control of "the other sword" which is directive to civil authorities.

This is going to need further explanation. You’ve lost me.[/quote]

The RCC still seeks to have it's authority place ABOVE the civil governments and to have "that edge of the sword" of authority returned to their directives. It's generally referred to as the "two swords" doctrinal presentations as the RCC sees it:

"The Catholic Church has a similar doctrine called the doctrine of the "two swords," in the bull Unam Sanctam, issued by Pope Boniface VIII. In this bull, Boniface teaches that there is only one Kingdom, the Church, and that the Church controls the spiritual sword, while the temporal sword is controlled by the State, although the temporal sword is hierarchically lower than the spiritual sword, allowing for Church influence in politics and society at large."

[citing from somewhere in wikiland]

Which doctrine of course is basically how the whole "inquisition" thing evolved into such a killing torturing mess. When Protestants made their own religion and civil alliances those "civil swords" started killing back and the RCC lost their places, rightfully so.

I’ve been to church countless times. Rec’d 3 sacraments, gone to confessionals, rec’d Holy Communion and spent countless more days in CCD. Don’t recall getting any mandates to kill anyone. Please explain what you mean.

Members of laity aren't going to hear these things in the pulpits. Good grief no. That's not the place for it. The members of the laity are only engaged in the RCC systems to a very certain and QUITE LIMITED extents as provided for in the RCC laity structures. The power plays are only for the big boyz to engage.

Kinda like "politics" and the "masses" who think they have a say so by voting.

[Danmark]

What theological positions are you referring to? Have we had any relevant exchanges to this point of any value? Do I listen to killers? Uh, no. I could care less what they have to say.

If I believe God loves and saves all people is that some kind of personal offense to you?

Do you take personal offense at Buddhists?

Do you perceive some kind of threat in such sights?

Buddhists don't go around proclaiming they are the only ones who know God, or claiming people hate God, or have scriptures like the one in my signature:

All depends on what you think you are seeing there Danmark.

I suppose it does depend on that, Squint. Based on your analysis as previously presented on many occasions here,

"Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee?
I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies"

... might be seen by you as:

"Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you...."

After all, your claim is that scripture does not mean what it says, but depends upon how you see it, thus 'black' may mean 'white' and 'hate' may mean 'love,' according to The Gospel according to Squint.

[squint]

What theological positions are you referring to? Have we had any relevant exchanges to this point of any value? Do I listen to killers? Uh, no. I could care less what they have to say.

If I believe God loves and saves all people is that some kind of personal offense to you?

Do you take personal offense at Buddhists?

Do you perceive some kind of threat in such sights?

Buddhists don't go around proclaiming they are the only ones who know God, or claiming people hate God, or have scriptures like the one in my signature:

All depends on what you think you are seeing there Danmark.

I suppose it does depend on that, Squint. Based on your analysis as previously presented on many occasions here,

"Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee?
I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies"

... might be seen by you as:

"Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you...."

After all, your claim is that scripture does not mean what it says, but depends upon how you see it, thus 'black' may mean 'white' and 'hate' may mean 'love,' according to The Gospel according to Squint.

The fact that you have a penchant for literalism applied to scripture is no surprise. It goes hand in hand with strict materialist frameworks.

Even science has abandoned and continues in the process of abandoning strict materialism, donchaknow? Material after all really isn't material nor is classical space/time all that relevant anymore.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-prue ... 42730.html

[KenRU]

What theological positions are you referring to? Have we had any relevant exchanges to this point of any value? Do I listen to killers? Uh, no. I could care less what they have to say.

If I believe God loves and saves all people is that some kind of personal offense to you?

Do you take personal offense at Buddhists?

Do you perceive some kind of threat in such sights?

Buddhists don't go around proclaiming they are the only ones who know God, or claiming people hate God, or have scriptures like the one in my signature:

All depends on what you think you are seeing there Danmark.

I suppose it does depend on that, Squint. Based on your analysis as previously presented on many occasions here,

"Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee?
I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies"

... might be seen by you as:

"Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you...."

After all, your claim is that scripture does not mean what it says, but depends upon how you see it, thus 'black' may mean 'white' and 'hate' may mean 'love,' according to The Gospel according to Squint.

The fact that you have a penchant for literalism applied to scripture is no surprise. It goes hand in hand with strict materialist frameworks.

You does not have to be a "literalist" to expect pasages to say what they mean.

Reading Hamlet, one doesn't come away with the notion that Hamlet was fine with his father's death and bears no ill will to Claudius.

One can read deep and complex passages but come away with different but related meanings. You don't (usually) get contradictory messages unless the intent is to show confusion or a conflicted and torn character.

Literalism isn't the problem here as I see it. It is multiple translations that don't agree with each other yielding scriptures with completely different possible meanings - all bundled together with an "I'm right and you're wrong" mentality.

The result: no one agrees with anything - and scores of Christian sects are borne.

[squint]

What theological positions are you referring to? Have we had any relevant exchanges to this point of any value? Do I listen to killers? Uh, no. I could care less what they have to say.

If I believe God loves and saves all people is that some kind of personal offense to you?

Do you take personal offense at Buddhists?

Do you perceive some kind of threat in such sights?

Buddhists don't go around proclaiming they are the only ones who know God, or claiming people hate God, or have scriptures like the one in my signature:

All depends on what you think you are seeing there Danmark.

I suppose it does depend on that, Squint. Based on your analysis as previously presented on many occasions here,

"Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee?
I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies"

... might be seen by you as:

"Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you...."

After all, your claim is that scripture does not mean what it says, but depends upon how you see it, thus 'black' may mean 'white' and 'hate' may mean 'love,' according to The Gospel according to Squint.

The fact that you have a penchant for literalism applied to scripture is no surprise. It goes hand in hand with strict materialist frameworks.

You does not have to be a "literalist" to expect pasages to say what they mean.

Reading Hamlet, one doesn't come away with the notion that Hamlet was fine with his father's death and bears no ill will to Claudius.

One can read deep and complex passages but come away with different but related meanings. You don't (usually) get contradictory messages unless the intent is to show confusion or a conflicted and torn character.

Literalism isn't the problem here as I see it. It is multiple translations that don't agree with each other yielding scriptures with completely different possible meanings - all bundled together with an "I'm right and you're wrong" mentality.

The result: no one agrees with anything - and scores of Christian sects are borne.

It is a foregone logical conclusion that any particular 'subjective' view is only going to yield an equally obvious subjective sight and nothing more than that. I wouldn't expect any other than numerous subjective sights based on the reality of the subjective observers.

That being said, in the observation of scripture it can easily be proven "by the scriptures" themselves that the entire account is allegorical, parabolic, similitude in nature.

I'd be happy to provide the proof sets for same.

[KenRU]

What theological positions are you referring to? Have we had any relevant exchanges to this point of any value? Do I listen to killers? Uh, no. I could care less what they have to say.

If I believe God loves and saves all people is that some kind of personal offense to you?

Do you take personal offense at Buddhists?

Do you perceive some kind of threat in such sights?

Buddhists don't go around proclaiming they are the only ones who know God, or claiming people hate God, or have scriptures like the one in my signature:

All depends on what you think you are seeing there Danmark.

I suppose it does depend on that, Squint. Based on your analysis as previously presented on many occasions here,

"Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee?
I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies"

... might be seen by you as:

"Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you...."

After all, your claim is that scripture does not mean what it says, but depends upon how you see it, thus 'black' may mean 'white' and 'hate' may mean 'love,' according to The Gospel according to Squint.

The fact that you have a penchant for literalism applied to scripture is no surprise. It goes hand in hand with strict materialist frameworks.

You does not have to be a "literalist" to expect pasages to say what they mean.

Reading Hamlet, one doesn't come away with the notion that Hamlet was fine with his father's death and bears no ill will to Claudius.

One can read deep and complex passages but come away with different but related meanings. You don't (usually) get contradictory messages unless the intent is to show confusion or a conflicted and torn character.

Literalism isn't the problem here as I see it. It is multiple translations that don't agree with each other yielding scriptures with completely different possible meanings - all bundled together with an "I'm right and you're wrong" mentality.

The result: no one agrees with anything - and scores of Christian sects are borne.

It is a foregone logical conclusion that any particular 'subjective' view is only going to yield an equally obvious subjective sight and nothing more than that. I wouldn't expect any other than numerous subjective sights based on the reality of the subjective observers.

That being said, in the observation of scripture it can easily be proven "by the scriptures" themselves that the entire account is allegorical, parabolic, similitude in nature.

I'd be happy to provide the proof sets for same.

So the varying and vastly differing Christian denominations out there are a result of this "equally obvious subjective sight and nothing more than that"?

None are more right than any other in your opinion? They all have value becuase the subject matter is subjective, right?

[squint]

What theological positions are you referring to? Have we had any relevant exchanges to this point of any value? Do I listen to killers? Uh, no. I could care less what they have to say.

If I believe God loves and saves all people is that some kind of personal offense to you?

Do you take personal offense at Buddhists?

Do you perceive some kind of threat in such sights?

Buddhists don't go around proclaiming they are the only ones who know God, or claiming people hate God, or have scriptures like the one in my signature:

All depends on what you think you are seeing there Danmark.

I suppose it does depend on that, Squint. Based on your analysis as previously presented on many occasions here,

"Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee?
I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies"

... might be seen by you as:

"Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you...."

After all, your claim is that scripture does not mean what it says, but depends upon how you see it, thus 'black' may mean 'white' and 'hate' may mean 'love,' according to The Gospel according to Squint.

The fact that you have a penchant for literalism applied to scripture is no surprise. It goes hand in hand with strict materialist frameworks.

You does not have to be a "literalist" to expect pasages to say what they mean.

Reading Hamlet, one doesn't come away with the notion that Hamlet was fine with his father's death and bears no ill will to Claudius.

One can read deep and complex passages but come away with different but related meanings. You don't (usually) get contradictory messages unless the intent is to show confusion or a conflicted and torn character.

Literalism isn't the problem here as I see it. It is multiple translations that don't agree with each other yielding scriptures with completely different possible meanings - all bundled together with an "I'm right and you're wrong" mentality.

The result: no one agrees with anything - and scores of Christian sects are borne.

It is a foregone logical conclusion that any particular 'subjective' view is only going to yield an equally obvious subjective sight and nothing more than that. I wouldn't expect any other than numerous subjective sights based on the reality of the subjective observers.

That being said, in the observation of scripture it can easily be proven "by the scriptures" themselves that the entire account is allegorical, parabolic, similitude in nature.

I'd be happy to provide the proof sets for same.

So the varying and vastly differing Christian denominations out there are a result of this "equally obvious subjective sight and nothing more than that"?

None are more right than any other in your opinion? They all have value becuase the subject matter is subjective, right?

No sight can logically be anything more than entirely subjective because of the nature of the observer. I'd propose that every last believer that ever lived or lives have ALL, down to the last observer, all had individually subjective sights, no sight equal to any other, every sight unique in this way.

What we see in "denomination" is merely coalesence of some larger or smaller subsets of subjective sights and they can be nothing more than that by their nature.

[KenRU]

What we see in "denomination" is merely coalesence of some larger or smaller subsets of subjective sights and they can be nothing more than that by their nature.

Got it. I asked your opinion about whether one religion is (or can be) more or less correct than another due to biblical interpretive differences. And your response is that all denominations are "merely [a] coalesence of some larger or smaller subsets of subjective sights and they can be nothing more than that by their nature".

Therefore, one can never be more right or wrong than any other.

Did I get that right?

[squint]

Got it. I asked your opinion about whether one religion is (or can be) more or less correct than another due to biblical interpretive differences.

All such engagements are observations of various "rules" that they may have, rules that they may not have, and the conclusions they make. All of these are various "field" disciples and make for interesting dialog and comparisions. Often overlapping. But all subjective by their nature regardless. The notion of denominational capture or anything more than subjective capture I would find logically inconsistent. There is no such thing as "all truth" denominational captivity for example because all such truth is factually held in subjectivity. This is why for example it's easy to see that "claims" from the RCC to have and contain "all truth" is simply not possible or even achievable. The holders of such claims are themselves provably subjective in and by their own constructed natures. However "right" they will be or claim to be can only be "subjectively" right.

And your response is that all denominations are "merely [a] coalesence of some larger or smaller subsets of subjective sights and they can be nothing more than that by their nature".

Therefore, one can never be more right or wrong than any other.

Using measures in the field of engagements it is just as easy to prove everyone equally wrong/subjective.

Did I get that right?

No accumulation of subjective sights is capable of capturing God. Those who makes such claims are logically delusional imho, and merely deploy an inflamed degree of personal subjective importance and nothing more. And this exercise has proved itself more detrimental to theology and also detrimental to others than beneficial.

But engagements in various forms of systematic theology will find this same exercise deployed across the spectrum. A believer such as myself for example who doesn't believe God burns a single person alive forever in hell or eternally kills them would find place in ZERO schools of theology.

In other words they all have an entry price I would not be interested in paying or bowing to. That doesn't mean that any of these particular systems hold no interesting or valid matters in the field that I would disagree with.

The reality dictates of subjectivity only allow limited cohesion in any case.