"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.

[Danmark]

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 got that exactly wrong and also demonstrate you don't know what 'literalism' means when applied to biblical interpretation. Even when I was a Christian, by at least the age of 12 I did not take the myths of Genesis literally.

Tho' there is some variance in the precise definition, in general it refers to those who believe the bible is literally the "Word of God," and therefore is without error; that myths and legends contained therein, like the Garden of Eden, Noah and the Flood, and the book of Job describe actual historical events rather than serving as fictional mythology designed to teach some higher truth.

When it comes to actual dialogue claimed to be spoken by someone about whom there is little dispute he actually lived [Jesus] it does violence to the meaning of the passages for you to interpret them however you want in order to make them agree with your own personal dogma.

That is why I have challenged you three times now [without an answer from you] to tell us how Jesus could have been more clear than he was when he said, in response to the question, "when will this happen," some "standing here" and "this generation" will 'not taste death' or will still be alive when the "Son of Man returns in all his glory" in the clouds.

When one picks and chooses when to be literal without regard to the particular genre of a book, any book, the person puts his own beliefs ahead of the actual meaning and is being intellectually dishonest.

[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 got that exactly wrong and also demonstrate you don't know what 'literalism' means when applied to biblical interpretation. Even when I was a Christian, by at least the age of 12 I did not take the myths of Genesis literally.

Tho' there is some variance in the precise definition, in general it refers to those who believe the bible is literally the "Word of God," and therefore is without error; that myths and legends contained therein, like the Garden of Eden, Noah and the Flood, and the book of Job describe actual historical events rather than serving as fictional mythology designed to teach some higher truth.

And I would disagree with the view that there was no 'literal' engagements, but also conclude with your end game and would add an "s" to truth, making it plural. The literal senses however contain dramatically "less" importance. How "literal" were a lot of those matters. Probably a LOT, but in the scheme of things it's importance is diminished in the bigger pictures, and certainly not focal points in most cases, for understandings.

When it comes to actual dialogue claimed to be spoken by someone about whom there is little dispute he actually lived [Jesus] it does violence to the meaning of the passages for you to interpret them however you want in order to make them agree with your own personal dogma.

I'll interpret within the arena of the field provided, thank you.

That is why I have challenged you three times now [without an answer from you] to tell us how Jesus could have been more clear than he was when he said, in response to the question, "when will this happen," some "standing here" and "this generation" will 'not taste death' or will still be alive when the "Son of Man returns in all his glory" in the clouds.

And I've addressed this notion of yours at length. In the field your sight is not in the field or if it is, it is only on the fringes and not in the main.

I've even gotten dinged several times just questioning if you even understand the points of observation "in the field." Whether or not you believe in the power of evil, as represented by the anti-Christ spirits or the "negative/evil internal human field" that scripture presents in these matters is really our main area of departure. Your ideas on these subjects are certainly not mainstream by any stretch. And calling them "my personal dogma" is to me, an insult, when the majority of any major fields of theology hold my observations as well as it pertains to "internal human evil" being a fact.

When one picks and chooses when to be literal without regard to the particular genre of a book, any book, the person puts his own beliefs ahead of the actual meaning and is being intellectually dishonest.

I've also made this observation many many times. Theology engages the "internal field and the conscience/consciousness." As such it is NOT a literal 5 sense engagement or a literal engagement as you propose. Not even close.

[Danmark]

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 got that exactly wrong and also demonstrate you don't know what 'literalism' means when applied to biblical interpretation. Even when I was a Christian, by at least the age of 12 I did not take the myths of Genesis literally.

Tho' there is some variance in the precise definition, in general it refers to those who believe the bible is literally the "Word of God," and therefore is without error; that myths and legends contained therein, like the Garden of Eden, Noah and the Flood, and the book of Job describe actual historical events rather than serving as fictional mythology designed to teach some higher truth.

And I would disagree with the view that there was no 'literal' engagements, but also conclude with your end game and would add an "s" to truth, making it plural. The literal senses however contain dramatically "less" importance. How "literal" were a lot of those matters. Probably a LOT, but in the scheme of things it's importance is diminished in the bigger pictures, and certainly not focal points in most cases, for understandings.

Neither this, nor anything else you've written in this post makes any sense to me; neither does it appear to say anything at all. Let's make it real simple, one issue at a time. Do you believe there was literally a first man, "Adam" and a first woman, "Eve" that started the human race as described in the Bible? Do you believe the details of the Garden of Eden story are historically accurate? Let's dispense with your new and idiosyncratic definitions of "literal engagements" and your other oddball definitions that are meaningless to everyone but you. If you insist on making up your own meanings for standard words, then further discourse is pointless.

[squint]

Neither this, nor anything else you've written in this post makes any sense to me;

Unfortunate. I see God alive and active in allegorical patterns. You don't.

neither does it appear to say anything at all.

Basic concepts of scripture pass by a lot of people.

Let's make it real simple, one issue at a time. Do you believe there was literally a first man, "Adam" and a first woman, "Eve" that started the human race as described in the Bible?

Yep. That doesn't however preclude other ages on earth prior to the beginning of the text.

Do you believe the details of the Garden of Eden story are historically accurate? Let's dispense with your new and idiosyncratic definitions of "literal engagements"

Do I believe everything that transpired in the Garden is literal? Not in the materialist sense, no. There was no "material tree" that "material fruit" the eating of which would grant eternal life or had eternal life in it for example, nor was there a material slithering talking snake nor was "temptation" a material external event of said material talking snake engagement with Eve. I wouldn't even speculate on any particular "location" of said Garden that is comprehensible in geographic terms. The account, in short is filled with allegorical conveyances.

and your other oddball definitions

The fact that you have no comprehension of allegorical conveyances has been rather obvious for quite some time and you resort to personal slurs rather than any attempts at looking in that direction.

God engages the world in allegorical terms, expressions and actions. An entire "world" with "occupants" is in fact missing from "your eyes" and it might appear to me it will remain that way in your eyes.

There is "an evil world" within the hearts of mankind that you do not see or comprehend. And God IS and remains in both resistance and contention with "that world."

that are meaningless to everyone but you. If you insist on making up your own meanings for standard words, then further discourse is pointless.

Your insistence is that everything God is, does or engages in MUST be materialistic in nature and materialistically proven.

And I'd observe that entire insistence is a rather inane materialist/literalist insistence. You are welcome to exert your own insistence on the texts and that sight will remain at less than half mouthful of understanding.

Every person who has had an "experience" with God in Christ "experiences" the LOVE of God within them. Are you able to put that under a microscope?

God actively resists the evil "within" people and will remain doing so. All understanding is quite effectively blocked from anyone who doesn't understand or come to grips with the "fact" that they consist of evil internally within their THOUGHTS and CONSCIENCE.

Materialists will never understand the scriptures and weren't meant to see anything at all.

And I don't expect that will change. In the patterns of resistance such will actually see less and less until they discount the matters altogether, exactly as the path of materialist sights will take them.

Ecclesiastes 3:11
He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.

You don't even SEE that world. You don't understand how an "entire world" can be set within a HEART.

That world is a world of good and evil, and it is INTERNAL.

[Clownboat]

Neither this, nor anything else you've written in this post makes any sense to me;

Unfortunate. I see God alive and active in allegorical patterns. You don't.

Your posts still often don't make any sense and please see the definition of Apophenia.

neither does it appear to say anything at all.

Basic concepts of scripture pass by a lot of people.

Your words defy you. If they were so basic, they would not pass by a lot of people.

God engages the world in allegorical terms, expressions and actions. An entire "world" with "occupants" is in fact missing from "your eyes" and it might appear to me it will remain that way in your eyes.

Please explain how you came about to have this special knowledge. Perhaps you can also explain why Danmark has no issue conveying his ideas so that we can all understand what he means, unlike some others here. Explain how he is missing from "his eyes" that there is a world with "occupants". Perhaps this is another example of you not being able to convey meaning when you use words. Odd that you would then expect us to believe you are a special messenger of a god or what have you when there is obviously not a god on your side helping you to relay meaning.

There is "an evil world" within the hearts of mankind that you do not see or comprehend.

More claims of special knowledge?

And God IS and remains in both resistance and contention with "that world."

So much for being all knowing and all powerful.

that are meaningless to everyone but you. If you insist on making up your own meanings for standard words, then further discourse is pointless.

Your insistence is that everything God is, does or engages in MUST be materialistic in nature and materialistically proven.

Please re-read. He stated that if you continue to make up your own meanings for standard words, that discourse for any of us would be pointless. I was able to gather his meaning by reading his words. It's very handy.
(I want to see you go head to head with arian!)

Every person who has had an "experience" with God in Christ "experiences" the LOVE of God within them. Are you able to put that under a microscope?

Perhaps? Please describe an experience with a god that we can consider examining. If you cannot, I must wonder what your words here mean.

God actively resists the evil "within" people and will remain doing so. All understanding is quite effectively blocked from anyone who doesn't understand or come to grips with the "fact" that they consist of evil internally within their THOUGHTS and CONSCIENCE.

Materialists will never understand the scriptures and weren't meant to see anything at all.

Should people that claim to speak on behalf of god concepts be believed?

Ecclesiastes 3:11
He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.

You don't even SEE that world. You don't understand how an "entire world" can be set within a HEART.

Please describe what is meant with the word "heart" here.

That world is a world of good and evil, and it is INTERNAL.

Derp. The oceans are full of water, and they are wet. Did I do it right? What do I win?

[squint]

Your posts still often don't make any sense and please see the definition of Apophenia.

God engages whether it's accepted/understood, or not.

Your words defy you. If they were so basic, they would not pass by a lot of people.

The Gospel is meant to be rejected. See the results of Jesus' physical life for an easy example.

Please explain how you came about to have this special knowledge.

The text has interesting and unique construction. If you "personally" bow to it's requirements, then and only then will it unfold. Otherwise, no dice. It's quite fascinating in it's engagements in this way.

Perhaps you can also explain why Danmark has no issue conveying his ideas so that we can all understand what he means, unlike some others here.

His conyance presumes upon itself to be "thee true one and only" sight available, and then from that erroneous point, presumes again to claim erroneous conclusions. Simple premise. Not saying that what he sees isn't there to be seen. There are similar surface setups throughout the text i.e. those who want to see "freewill" will see freewill. Those who want to see "determinism" will see that and any other number of given setups.

These all have "counter" proof sets as well i.e. for each of those setups there are counter setups to disprove them. This proposal/counter proposal construct and the rules of engagement is what keeps theologians and believers fascinated with the scriptures for lifetimes.

Explain how he is missing from "his eyes" that there is a world with "occupants".

Already did several times. If you have interest in the data presented and you may appear to be from following the posts, then you've already seen it.

Perhaps this is another example of you not being able to convey meaning when you use words.

The counters were proposed. Then Danmark left the pages/scriptures are reverted to outside of field data personal appeal.

Odd that you would then expect us to believe you are a special messenger of a god

You can attempt to bait me, but I've never EVER claimed that position.

or what have you when there is obviously not a god on your side helping you to relay meaning.

I'd consider the engagements more along the lines of procedural law that engages this particular field of study, which is also the "basis" of most denominations.

There is "an evil world" within the hearts of mankind that you do not see or comprehend.

More claims of special knowledge?

I've said any common nitwit can personally test this premise. But that is one of the openers for basics.

And God IS and remains in both resistance and contention with "that world."

So much for being all knowing and all powerful.

Scripture, common sense and reality shows we are in the condition called "subjectivity." There is no escaping that conclusion.

that are meaningless to everyone but you. If you insist on making up your own meanings for standard words, then further discourse is pointless.

Not being able to grasp or discourse simple observations doesn't eliminate or dismiss the matters.

Your insistence is that everything God is, does or engages in MUST be materialistic in nature and materialistically proven.

Please re-read. He stated that if you continue to make up your own meanings for standard words,[/quote]

Uh, no, that was never his claim nor is it yours by specifics.

that discourse for any of us would be pointless. I was able to gather his meaning by reading his words. It's very handy.
(I want to see you go head to head with arian!)

I've made this observation here several times. IF someone wants to employ or examine any premise within the field of the scriptures then there are rules of that field to engage. Using the rules of chess or material science rules don't apply because they are different fields with different rules. If you want to say that material science is the only board and only the rules therein apply there are hundreds of other fields of engagements that reject that premise.

Every person who has had an "experience" with God in Christ "experiences" the LOVE of God within them. Are you able to put that under a microscope?

Perhaps? Please describe an experience with a god that we can consider examining. If you cannot, I must wonder what your words here mean.[/quote]

I've already noted that such matters can be "witnessed" to but they are internally perceived, and as such would be meaningless to your or anyone else in a personal way just as your mother or father's love to you would be meaningless to me in a personal way, not having "experienced" it.

So it suffices to say it is experienced and people of faith "live" in/within that experience just as you "live" knowing your mother or fathers love without any particulars for others to know. They simply "have it" for you.

God actively resists the evil "within" people and will remain doing so. All understanding is quite effectively blocked from anyone who doesn't understand or come to grips with the "fact" that they consist of evil internally within their THOUGHTS and CONSCIENCE.

Materialists will never understand the scriptures and weren't meant to see anything at all.

[/quote]Should people that claim to speak on behalf of god concepts be believed?[/quote]

Theodicy, the study of evil, is one of the more engaging subjects of the scriptures. Employ the "love" example above in a reverse way for brevity.

[Clownboat]

Your words just don't convey any meaning. I'm sorry for that. I believe that if there was a god concept involved in your life that this would not be the case.

Therefore at this time I must reject anything you say for fear that you might just be delusional. I am open to being shown incorrect on this matter of course, but then I would expect your words to not be so human.

An all powerful god could convey ideas, and you have not been able to convey your ideas successfully so far. You can believe that it is our fault all you want, but naturally, we would have our own explanations as to why this is the case.

[squint]

Your words just don't convey any meaning. I'm sorry for that. I believe that if there was a god concept involved in your life that this would not be the case.

Therefore at this time I must reject anything you say for fear that you might just be delusional. I am open to being shown incorrect on this matter of course, but then I would expect your words to not be so human.

An all powerful god could convey ideas, and you have not been able to convey your ideas successfully so far. You can believe that it is our fault all you want, but naturally, we would have our own explanations as to why this is the case.

Resorting to personal slander is always an option.

I don't provide any "definitions" of God, as there are none to be had.

[Clownboat]

Your words just don't convey any meaning. I'm sorry for that. I believe that if there was a god concept involved in your life that this would not be the case.

Therefore at this time I must reject anything you say for fear that you might just be delusional. I am open to being shown incorrect on this matter of course, but then I would expect your words to not be so human.

An all powerful god could convey ideas, and you have not been able to convey your ideas successfully so far. You can believe that it is our fault all you want, but naturally, we would have our own explanations as to why this is the case.

Resorting to personal slander is always an option.

I don't provide any "definitions" of God, as there are none to be had.

Yes, yes squint. I'm just your enemy that is out to slander you.

I'm not the only one here having issues, that much is obvious. Like it or not, you are the common denominator.

If you are involved with a god, it seems to me that he does not help you to convey his ideas. This is an observation and not slander. Again, I am very much open to having your posts start to convey meaning and hope that they will soon.

[squint]

Your words just don't convey any meaning. I'm sorry for that. I believe that if there was a god concept involved in your life that this would not be the case.

Therefore at this time I must reject anything you say for fear that you might just be delusional. I am open to being shown incorrect on this matter of course, but then I would expect your words to not be so human.

An all powerful god could convey ideas, and you have not been able to convey your ideas successfully so far. You can believe that it is our fault all you want, but naturally, we would have our own explanations as to why this is the case.

Resorting to personal slander is always an option.

I don't provide any "definitions" of God, as there are none to be had.

Yes, yes squint. I'm just your enemy that is out to slander you.

No person is my enemy. I believe God Loves and saves everyone. So my sight contains no threats to any person unless they falsely impose it from their side.

I'm not the only one here having issues, that much is obvious. Like it or not, you are the common denominator.

I'd observe that many of you perhaps don't enjoy my engagements because I won't be hammered into standard pigeon holes that some pattern christians with. I suggest that engaging without imposed presuppositions would be beneficial.