Are humans animals?

[ZombieHorde]

Poll question: Are humans animals?

[bowens43]

1. No, they're plants.

[Liberal Veteran]

4. We are certainly NOT....we are minerals! Carl Sagan said we are all made of star stuff.

And Carl Sagan knows all.

[bananas]

84. What is this - twenty questions?

1. "Animal, vegetable, or mineral?"
2. "Is it bigger than a breadbox?"
...

[Lydia Leftcoast]

114. "We are stardust, we are golden..."

:-)

And Crosby, Stills, and Nash know even more than Carl Sagan.

[MercutioATC]

2. Yes. We only distinguish ourselves by being at the top of the food chain

(for the moment).

[panader0]

3. I am a mammal.

[liberal N proud]

5. Of the worst kind

Most animals only take what they need, the human animal wants it all and wants it now.

[Goblinmonger]

10. Are you channeling Mark Twain? n/t

[slackmaster]

6. Hairless yard apes

For the win.

[Dukkha]

7. some are more animistic than others

and I would say humans are scavengers by nature. Carnivorous but not willing to hunt for food, not without a gun anyway.

[Hydra]

8. Animals, most definitely

Clever, adaptable, stubborn and occasionally exceptional animals, but in the end, I think my dog is closer to being an advanced being.

[phantom power]

9. Animalia: Chordata: Vertebrata: Mammalia: Primates: Hominidae: Homo: sapiens

http://anthro.palomar.edu/animal/table_humans.htm

[El Supremo]

12. They apparently changed a couple of things:

Domain: Eukaryota
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Homo
Species: H. sapiens
Subspecies: H. s. sapiens

[phantom power]

14. Good point, we are eukaryotes!

I can only laugh at our need to call ourselves "homo sapiens sapiens." We never even earned the first "sapiens," much less the second.

[cosmik debris]

11. We are muffins

in disguise.

[TZ]

15. Well

Then can I ask..are you a stud muffin?:rofl:

[cosmik debris]

22. I'm the Muffin Man

http://www.seeklyrics.com/lyrics/Frank-Zappa/Muffin-Man.html

Lyrics by Frank Zappa

The Muffin Man is seated at the table
In the laboratory of the Utility Muffin
Research Kitchen . . .
Reaching for an over sized chrome spoon
He gathers an intimate quantity of dried muffin remnants
And brushing his scapular aside
Proceeds to dump these inside of his shirt. . .
He turns to us and speaks:
"Some people like cupcakes better. I for one
Care less for them!"
Arrogantly twisting the sterile canvas snoot
of a fully charged icing anointment utensil
He pools forth a quarter-ounce green rosette (oh ah yuk yuk.
let's try that again . . .!)
He pools forth a quarter-ounce green rosette
Near the summit of a dense but radiant muffin
of his own design.
Later he says: "Some people . . . some people like cupcakes exclusively,
While I myself say there is naught nor ought there be
Nothing so exalted on the face of God's grey earth
As that prince of foods . . . The Muffin!"

Girl you thought he was a man
But he was a muffin
He hung around till you found
That he didn't know nuthin'
Girl you thought he was a man
But he only was a-puffin'
No cries is heard in the night
As a result of him stuffin'

[knitter4democracy]

52. Do you live on Drury Lane?

Does your wife hide runaway fairy tale folk in your basement?

[cosmik debris]

55. That's the English Muffin Man

I'm the bran and blueberry Muffin Man.

[knitter4democracy]

60. Ah. So, you know him, then?

:D

[cosmik debris]

64. His mother and my mother

went to different schools together.

[knitter4democracy]

71. So, that means that you went to different pastry schools together?

;)

I could see it. English muffins are an entirely different technique altogether from blueberry and bran muffins.

[PassingFair]

108. Why you little...

crumpet, you!

:)

[El Supremo]

13. No, carbon based units infesting the earth.

[Zebedeo]

16. We are different from the animals in extremely

significant ways.

The answer to your question depends on the sense in which you are using the term "animals." Yes, we are physical, corporeal creatures, like all animals. But no, we are not merely animals.

Human beings are independent moral actors. Animals are not. If a tiger attacks and kills a toddler, no reasonable person would describe the tiger as "evil." It is just being a tiger. If a human does the same thing, the human can reasonably be held morally accountable for her action.

Humans have a choice to accept or reject God. Animals don't have any such choice. They are what they are, and that's it.

Man was made in God's image and given free will. Animals were not. This is the basic fundamental difference between man and animals.

[ben_meyers]

17. I would argue that you have it just bass akwards

God did not create man rather man created god in his own image. But hey! Whatever herds your goat.

[John Gauger]

18. What if God told you to kill the toddler

and the toddler's name was Isaac? Would you then be morally justified if you killed him?

[Zebedeo]

21. You missed the point of my post

just as you missed the point of the story of Abraham and Isaac. God did not let Abraham go through with sacrificing Isaac. But God did not spare His own Son.

The story of Abraham and Isaac foreshadowed the most important event in the history of mankind - God's sacrifice of His own Son for us.

As to my post, you again miserably missed the point. I did not say that killing the toddler is good or bad. It would depend on the circumstances, as most moral choices do. Certainly, circumstances could exist in which killing the toddler may be good rather than bad. However, my post does not depend on the answer being one way or the other. My point is that a human who kills a toddler would be morally accountable for her action, while a tiger would not. Would you please state whether you agree with that point?

[John Gauger]

24. Sure,

we can make a moral judgment on the human, but not the tiger. We can't deem the tiger "moral" or "immoral," but rather "amoral." The tiger has no ability to reason or think or judge. It just acts as its genes demand of it.

But I think you're the one missing the point. The question was whether or not humans are animals. They are. There is no question about that. Our presence in the animal kingdom has nothing to do with our ability to reason.

[Zebedeo]

29. Don't you think it is a pretty important distinction

we can make a moral judgment on the human, but not the tiger. We can't deem the tiger "moral" or "immoral," but rather "amoral." The tiger has no ability to reason or think or judge. It just acts as its genes demand of it.

I agree that we cannot deem the tiger moral or immoral. The tiger can reason and think and judge, but cannot do so on moral questions because it is not an independent moral actor.

You can classify human beings as animals if you want, and surely that is how scientists do classify humans. But my point is that there is a huge fundamental difference between humans and any other corporeal creature that God has created. Classifying humans as animals may be useful for some purposes, but putting mankind in a category different from animals is also useful, because we are indeed fundamentally different from the animals in this very important way.

[Evoman]

68. So? Many animals have huge fundamental differences from other animals.

Your sort of biased, being a human and all.

[Zebedeo]

74. Humans are unique in that they alone

among corporeal creatures make moral choices. You can say that a platypus is unique in the animal kingdom because it is the only mammal that (1) lays eggs; (2) has a bill; (3) is venomous; (4) has a tail like a beaver and (5) is called by a name that begins with the letter "p" and ends with the letter "s."

But that is not the same level of distinction that exists between mankind and the animals. Mankind is different not only in form, but in our very nature. We are free moral agents, able to choose to do good or evil. Animals have no such capacity.

[cyborg_jim]

78. I doubt that

We are free moral agents, able to choose to do good or evil.

Not that you'll hear any evidence on the nature of human behaviour of course - your faith demands that you believe otherwise irrespective of any facts.

[Zebedeo]

83. You disagree?

Do you not regard yourself as able to do good or evil?
Have you never faced temptation to do something that you know is wrong?
Have you never felt a yearning to do good?
Have you never felt guilty when you have done evil?
Do you regard all actions as equally moral or immoral?

[cyborg_jim]

86. You will not understand the answers

Do you not regard yourself as able to do good or evil?

I perform actions. Their consequences could be labeled good or evil.

Have you never faced temptation to do something that you know is wrong?

No.

Have you never felt a yearning to do good?

Yes.

Do you regard all actions as equally moral or immoral?

No.

You will misinterpret these responses because you don't understand the first statement.

[Zebedeo]

88. If you don't adhere to an objective standard

of good and evil, then what it comes down to is that "good" is whatever you subjectively say it is. That's pride, and it is chief among sins because of its tendency to lead to all of the other sins. You are attempting to usurp God's role as lawgiver.

[cyborg_jim]

89. You failed to understand

If you don't adhere to an objective standard of good and evil, then what it comes down to is that "good" is whatever you subjectively say it is

Yes it is.

That's pride,

Nope.

You are attempting to usurp God's role as lawgiver.

Nope.

You cannot understand the original statement. It is a mental impossibility for you. You understand moral commands as simple and absolute. You will not acknowledge any situation of gray being possible and you will certainly not acknowledge it stemming from the rules that you eek from your lawgiver.

[Zebedeo]

91. You are blinded by your own pride

which is arrogance. You enjoy deprecating others and crowing about your own self-perceived great intellect.

Only you are able to comprehend complex concepts. Only you have the subtlety and intellectual sophistication to conceive of your own individual, private morality. Bullshit. You are just doing what sinners have done from Adam on down to the present day (including myself). You substitute your own desires in place of God's law. Ultimately, you regard yourself as equal to God, deciding for yourself what is good and what is evil.

"You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." Genesis 3:4

[trotsky]

93. "You enjoy deprecating others and crowing about your own self-perceived great intellect."

Is this the same person who said to me, "You are too intellectually weak"?

Wow. You can dish it, but can't take it, can you Zebby? Don't you have a street corner you should be on, screaming at people and condemning them to hell?

[cyborg_jim]

99. It's not about intellect

It's about your inability to truly consider another point of view - doing so is dangerous to your established viewpoint.

Ultimately, you regard yourself as equal to God,

Why would I sell myself short?

You substitute your own desires in place of God's law.

And as soon as you Christians can all agree on just what that law is I'll give a crap about such a statement.

[awoke_in_2003]

116. Wow

never seen a post that 1. questions a person's intellect and 2. contains a verse of fiction about a talking snake.

[Zebedeo]

128. Wrong on all points

1. I did not question the poster's intellect. I lampooned the poster's self-promotion of his own intellect as uniquely capable of understanding the concept the poster was discussing.

2. My post did not contain a verse of fiction.

3. My post did not concern a talking snake. The serpent was not a snake. Read further and you will find that it was only after these events that God condemned the serpent to crawl on its belly all the days of its life. Genesis 3:14.

[Realityhack]

121. quick question.

When a non-human primate (say a chimp or a gorilla) lies... is that a moral decision?

How do you know?

[uberllama42]

28. In what sense did God sacrifice His son?

Isn't Jesus supposedly sitting at God's right hand for eternity? Jesus supposedly went through a cruel and painful execution and rose after slightly less than two days (despite the oft-quoted prophecy that He would be dead for three). This is the great sacrifice that made salvation possible? That's not even as great a sacrifice as the one Abraham was asked to make.

It would be one thing if Jesus had gone to hell, or at least been eternally separated from His father. But that's not how the mythology goes. I don't understand why the sacrifice is promulgated as something earth-rending, regardless of how important the supposed salvation was.

[Zebedeo]

30. "It would be one thing if Jesus had gone to hell"

Are you not familiar with the Apostles Creed?

Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem, Creatorem caeli et terrae,
et in Iesum Christum, Filium Eius unicum, Dominum nostrum,
qui conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria Virgine,
passus sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixus, mortuus, et sepultus,
descendit ad ínferos, tertia die resurrexit a mortuis,
ascendit ad caelos, sedet ad dexteram Patris omnipotentis,
inde venturus est iudicare vivos et mortuos.
Credo in Spiritum Sanctum,
sanctam Ecclesiam catholicam, sanctorum communionem,
remissionem peccatorum,
carnis resurrectionem,
vitam aeternam.
Amen.

Translated:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth.
And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died and was buried.
He descended into hell.
The third day He rose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty.
From thence He will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy Christian Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

[uberllama42]

48. Yes I am

I know that the Apostle's Creed says Jesus spent three days in Hell. I also know that the Gospels describe Christ being crucified on Friday afternoon and risen on Sunday morning, which is less than 48 hours and cannot be tallied as three days, even counting inclusively.

The wording of my question was sloppy, and I apologize for that. My point still stands, though. How can God be said to have given up His only son when, according to the Creed, They are together at this very moment?

Saying that Jesus suffered is not the same thing as saying Deus Pater made a sacrifice. Maybe I'll never understand, but then again, some of these things are designed never to be understood. It's a test of faith, I guess.

[Zebedeo]

53. "The third day He rose again from the dead."

Friday was the first day. Saturday was the second day. Sunday was the third day.

Here's more if you are interested.

It is difficult to imagine the suffering that Jesus endured when separated from the Father, with whom He is one. John 10:30. It is also difficult to conceive of the tremendous guilt, shame and agony that Jesus must have endured by taking on all the sins of all Christian believers throughout history - the sins of billions upon billions of people, and then taking on the punishment for all of those sins and paying the price for our transgressions.

"Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed." Isaiah 53:4-5

[uberllama42]

59. "so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth"

There is no way to include three days and three nights unless either the Crucifixion or the Resurrection (but not both) happened after sundown. If Christ was crucified on Friday during the day, we have Friday, Saturday night, Saturday, Sunday night, and Sunday. OTOH, if He was crucified on Thursday, we have Thursday, Friday night, Friday, Saturday night, Saturday, Saturday night and Sunday.

The first scheme has three days and two nights, while the second has four days and three nights. Neither fits the description from Matthew 12:40.

This is a relatively meaningless question. If you believe the Scriptures, then no amount of self-contradiction will sway your belief. Since I don't believe, likewise a contradiction doesn't make that much difference. I do think that this is a solid example of a contradiction that can't be equivocated away, but it's of no real consequence.

[Igel]

105. There's another take on the entire thing.

There's a truly minority opinion that the crucifixion happened on a Wednesday, at evening (not at sundown, however you define it, but close enough that the difference is moot--having a to-the-second time when Saturday ended and Sunday began wasn't a big deal).

Crucifixion Wednesday, being plopped into the cave at sundown on Wednesday. Sunday before sunrise he wasn't there; how long he'd been missing before they arrived is unsaid.

That means all of Thursday, Friday, and Saturday are available for his being in the tomb, being resurrected at sundown on Saturday at the beginning of a new week.

Not a commonly held version.

[Book Lover]

113. Dude, I need a source for that

Very interesting assertion, and one I've never come across before. Where'd you hear that?

[El Supremo]

31. Jesus did go to hell.

Didn't you read the Nicaean Creed?

[Realityhack]

122. Sorry but the correct answer is NO

If god or anyone else asks you to kill someone innocent to 'prove' your loyalty the correct answer is fuck no.

If Abraham had said no and it turned out to be 'the devil' trying to trick him you would be all about how god would never ask for that blah blah blah.

The correct answer is NO. Even if there was a god and he was asking you. The right answer would be... I have learned the difference between right and wrong. And that is wrong so NO.

[uberllama42]

19. Morally accountable unless...

"If a human does the same thing, the human can reasonably be held morally accountable for her action unless God ordered her to do it, in which case killing innocent children is justified."

fix'd.

[Zebedeo]

23. See post #21

In your zeal to mock me, you utterly missed the point of my post.

[trotsky]

27. But do you or do you not believe that if your god orders something, then it is moral? n/t

[Zebedeo]

33. I believe that morality consists of doing what is in God's will

That does not necessarily mean that everything that God commands is moral. For example, God commanded Abraham to slay Isaac. But God did not let Abraham go through with it. God's command in that instance was a test. Many people misunderstand this story and ask - "Why would God have to test Abraham in order to know whether he was willing to sacrifice his son for God? Wouldn't an omniscient God already know Abraham's heart?" Yes, He would. But the test was not for God's benefit, it was for Abraham's benefit. It demonstrated to Abraham (a) that he did have great faith in God, even to the point of being willing to sacrifice his son; and (b) his faith was warranted, because God can be trusted.

It's a wonderful story of faith and love, and it presages the ultimate sacrifice of God's only Son that is the subject of the New Testament.

[trotsky]

34. So you believe that yes, if your god orders something it is by definition moral.

Such as slaughtering an entire race of people, down to infants & children.

[Zebedeo]

36. Please re-read post #33 n/t

n/t

[trotsky]

37. I read it perfectly the first time.

As evidenced by your lack of denial of what I said.

[Zebedeo]

38. Why are you incapable of discussing the point

that I actually made, instead of stating the opposite of what I said? Is it intellectual dishonesty, or are you really unable to understand simple sentences?

I said in post #33: “That does not necessarily mean that everything that God commands is moral.”

You said in post #34: “So you believe that yes, if your god orders something it is by definition moral.”

What's wrong with you, that you would blatantly misstate what I said?

[trotsky]

39. Because you're trying to change the point.

You want to stick with the Abraham example, because as the story goes, your god didn't make Abraham sacrifice his son after all.

But you are already on record as condoning other atrocities in the bible, because they were ordered, and allowed to happen by your god.

I'm glad that you are at least a little uncomfortable with that, trying to avoid revisiting the impact of that belief, but you still hold it, do you not?

[Zebedeo]

40. By what objective moral standard do you

define an event as an "atrocity"?

[trotsky]

41. There you go, trying to change the subject again.

Not biting. Sorry.

[Zebedeo]

42. You are the one who used the term

"atrocity." I just want to find out what you mean by that. Without knowing the objective standard by which you define "atrocity," it is impossible for me to answer your question about God ordering or permitting "atrocities."

If you do not believe there is an objective standard, is an "atrocity" simply something that trotsky says is an "atrocity"?

[trotsky]

43. You can't change the subject, Zeb.

Check a dictionary for a definition of "atrocity" if you must.

But you're not changing the subject. You are on record, here at DU, for condoning atrocities when they were commanded by your god as related in your bible.

I fully understand why you hate having to deal with that point, but it is the truth, isn't it?

[Zebedeo]

44. Merriam-Webster

"1 : the quality or state of being atrocious
2 : an atrocious act, object, or situation <the…sufferings and atrocities of trench warfare — Aldous Huxley>"

Doesn't help at all to resolve the issue at hand.

Now, what do you mean when you use the word "atrocities" in your post in which you ask me about God condoning "atrocities"?

[trotsky]

45. You're trying, oh so hard, to play a distraction game.

Look up "atrocious" - this isn't difficult.

Of course, if I were on record defending genocide, I'd be desperate to distract too.

[Zebedeo]

46. Just as I thought

You have no answer. You use words like "atrocity," "evil," "good," "moral" and "immoral" and you have no objective standard by which to define any of these terms. Therefore, the way you use them, they are meaningless terms that are entirely subjective.

According to you, something is "good" if trotsky approves of it, and something is "evil" if trotsky disapproves of it. Something is an "atrocity" if trotsky says it is atrocious.

OK, if we are playing that game, then I will concede that, by your contrived, subjective and personal definitions, everything God does is "evil" and an "atrocity." Bear in mind that no one else in Heaven or on Earth agrees with your definitions, but I do concede that, using your (useless) definitions, God is whatever you say He is. In fact, under this construct, everyone and everything is whatever you say they are, because you are completely untethered to any objective reality. Congratulations!

[trotsky]

47. Zeb, you can't get out of this by complaining that *I* don't have an answer.

Oh you'd love to. You're dying to. And now you weasel your way out of supporting genocide (when commanded by god) by trying to abandon any definition of "evil" or "atrocity."

One doesn't need a dusty old book to have those words take meaning, Zeb. You have nothing. Your religion is bankrupt.

[Zebedeo]

49. How ironic

You accuse me of "trying to abandon any definition of 'evil' or 'atrocity.'" when in fact, in this discussion, it is you that has refused to define these terms, that you are using in your own posts.

It is your philosophy of ultra-orthodox, ultra-materialist atheism that is morally and intellectually bankrupt, trotsky.

It's sad, really.

[trotsky]

50. But at the end of the day, I'm not the one defending genocide.

Funny, that. :shrug:

[uberllama42]

51. Do you honestly not understand that you have caricatured what trotsky has said?

I'm not even going to point out, as he has, that you are trying to change the subject. But he never said that everything God does is an atrocity. In polite society, men stabbing little children with swords and bashing their heads against rocks is generally considered an atrocity. That's the incident in question, and any attempt to abandon that question is mere obfuscation.

Are you trying to argue past him on purpose, or is your exaggeration unintentional?

[Zebedeo]

56. He could just as easily have said it

"he never said that everything God does is an atrocity"

Since he has no objective definition of "atrocity," it is a term (as he uses it) that has no meaning other than "something that trotsky considers atrocious."

Since this is his ridiculous subjective definition, he could easily say that everything God does is an "atrocity." It would be as valid of a statement as his statement that "God condoned atrocities."

Since trotsky does not adhere to any objective standard for "atrocities," trotsky's statement, either way, has no objective meaning. It only means that trotsky subjectively disapproves of God's actions, and nothing more.

[trotsky]

58. Yes, I disapprove of genocide.

Do you? ALWAYS? Where's this objective standard of morality, Zebby, when there are circumstances under which you will accept the wholesale murder of men, women, and children?

[TZ]

62. Hey trotsky..

Did ya see Zeb made up a new word "A-Trotskophy".....I'll have to remember that one, you amoral atheist you....:rofl: :popcorn:

[trotsky]

63. If I had to keep a running tally of the stuff Zeb makes up...

my hard drive would be full. But I do admit, that's one of his better creations.

[TZ]

80. Well technically I made it up...

but thats what he was basically saying in his post to you...;-)

[trotsky]

92. You're good!

Geez that was such a lame term, I though he DID use it and I just tuned it out! Well done!

[Zebedeo]

66. Your subjective disapproval of genocide

is meaningless because it is not grounded in any objective reality. You make stuff up as you go along. Words mean whatever you say they mean. Whatever you say goes.

Do you support the eradication of the HIV virus?

[trotsky]

70. You approve of genocide.

I do not.

That is all that matters.

[Zebedeo]

73. You are too intellectually weak

to even answer the question. Pathetic.

[trotsky]

77. I'll let readers of this thread judge for themselves. n/t

[TZ]

81. "intellectually weak"?

C'mon Zeb you can do better than that..he might be amoral and a "fundamentalist atheist"...but intellectually weak he is not....:rofl:

[Realityhack]

127. rotflmfao

Your subjective disapproval of genocide is meaningless because it is not grounded in any objective reality.

Emphasis added.

Oh my. I think my Irony meter just exploded killing off an entire race. Oh no... never mind that was god's 'good' people killing off all the 'bad' people he told them too in the bible. Never mind. All is well. Genocide is just fine... on whatever planet suffered a global flood.

Zebedeo supports Genocide (when ordered by god).
Trotsky doesn't.

One of these people is indeed making shit up as they go along... but it isn't Trotsky.

[cyborg_jim]

79. Tu Quoque is not a response

Therefore I will say that I agree totally, my philosophy of ultra-orthodox, ultra-materialist atheism that is morally and intellectually bankrupt.

I am totally amoral so asking me to worry about "evil" or "atrocity" is a waste of time: now justify your god.

[Zebedeo]

85. I did not ask you to worry

about evil or atrocity. Instead, trotsky asked me something about God supposedly condoning "atrocities." I asked him to please state the objective standard by which he considers an act to be an "atrocity." I asked this question so that we would have a common frame of reference and know what we are discussing. If an "atrocity" is simply defined as "whatever trotsky considers atrocious," then trotsky could define all actions by God to be "atrocities." Using such a special, subjective and personal definition is counterproductive and greatly reduces any possibility of resolving the issue through discussion.

trotsky has been unable or unwilling to provide any objective standard for "atrocities." Therefore, "atrocity," as used by trotsky, means no more than something that trotsky doesn't like. Without trotsky providing an objective standard for determining what is an "atrocity," trotsky's question which uses the word "atrocity" is meaningless.

[cyborg_jim]

87. It's fairly self-evidence that he considers genocide atrocious

Using such a special, subjective and personal definition is counterproductive and greatly reduces any possibility of resolving the issue through discussion.

If an "good" is simply defined as "whatever God considers good," then God could define all actions by God to be "good."

[Zebedeo]

90. As between trotsky and God,

who is in a better position to say what is "good"? God, the omnipotent, omnicient Creator who created the universe and everything in it, or trotsky who . . . uh, posts his opinions on a message board?

I'll go with God on this one. God could rightly ask trotsky:

4 "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.

5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?

6 On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone-

7 while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels shouted for joy?

8 "Who shut up the sea behind doors
when it burst forth from the womb,

9 when I made the clouds its garment
and wrapped it in thick darkness,

10 when I fixed limits for it
and set its doors and bars in place,

11 when I said, 'This far you may come and no farther;
here is where your proud waves halt'?

12 "Have you ever given orders to the morning,
or shown the dawn its place,

13 that it might take the earth by the edges
and shake the wicked out of it?

14 The earth takes shape like clay under a seal;
its features stand out like those of a garment.

15 The wicked are denied their light,
and their upraised arm is broken.

16 "Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea
or walked in the recesses of the deep?

17 Have the gates of death been shown to you?
Have you seen the gates of the shadow of death?

18 Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth?
Tell me, if you know all this.

19 "What is the way to the abode of light?
And where does darkness reside?

20 Can you take them to their places?
Do you know the paths to their dwellings?

21 Surely you know, for you were already born!
You have lived so many years!

22 "Have you entered the storehouses of the snow
or seen the storehouses of the hail,

23 which I reserve for times of trouble,
for days of war and battle?

24 What is the way to the place where the lightning is dispersed,
or the place where the east winds are scattered over the earth?

25 Who cuts a channel for the torrents of rain,
and a path for the thunderstorm,

26 to water a land where no man lives,
a desert with no one in it,

27 to satisfy a desolate wasteland
and make it sprout with grass?

28 Does the rain have a father?
Who fathers the drops of dew?

29 From whose womb comes the ice?
Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens

30 when the waters become hard as stone,
when the surface of the deep is frozen?

31 "Can you bind the beautiful Pleiades?
Can you loose the cords of Orion?

32 Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons
or lead out the Bear with its cubs?

33 Do you know the laws of the heavens?
Can you set up God's dominion over the earth?

34 "Can you raise your voice to the clouds
and cover yourself with a flood of water?

35 Do you send the lightning bolts on their way?
Do they report to you, 'Here we are'?

36 Who endowed the heart with wisdom
or gave understanding to the mind?

37 Who has the wisdom to count the clouds?
Who can tip over the water jars of the heavens

38 when the dust becomes hard
and the clods of earth stick together?

39 "Do you hunt the prey for the lioness
and satisfy the hunger of the lions

40 when they crouch in their dens
or lie in wait in a thicket?

41 Who provides food for the raven
when its young cry out to God
and wander about for lack of food?


Job 38:4-41

[trotsky]

94. "trotsky and god"

I smell sitcom!

Seriously though, one is a real human being who posts on a message board. The other is established only as a fictional character in a storybook. Some people believe it to be the creator of the universe, etc., but cannot demonstrate it outside of pointing back to that same book.

In addition, your god (as portayed in your book) ordered genocide, and was pleased by it. (As are you, apparently.) He demanded blood sacrifice, and got it.

I will state, right here and now, that I am more moral than the god you believe in.

Prove me wrong. I have never ordered genocide, I have never demanded the sacrifice of farm animals or certainly human beings.

[Zebedeo]

95. I'll take your challenge!

But in order to contrast your degree of morality with God's, we will need an objective measuring stick. Please propose one.

[trotsky]

96. Why do you need that?

You haven't shown that you have one. You just point to a book. Can I point to a book? Any book?

[Zebedeo]

97. If you don't have an objective standard by which

to measure your alleged "goodness," all it amounts to is your personal preference. It is equivalent to you saying you like vanilla ice cream better than pistacchio. So what? If you claim that your morality is objectively superior to God's morality (which you do), then you have to reveal the objective measuring stick by which your morality supposedly exceeds that of God.

I suspect that you know very well that all you are doing is following in the footsteps of Satan, Adam, and everyone else who has substituted their own desires in place of God's law. How long have you been engaged in this rebellion?

[trotsky]

98. You're utterly missing the point.

Your "objective" standard is just a personal preference, too. You simply point to a book. Why that book? Why not one of the hundreds of others purporting to be a different objective standard? You haven't given any valid reason why your book is superior - you just insist it's so. Establish YOUR objective moral standard first, then you can fault others for not having one.

How long have you been engaged in this rebellion?

Zeb, the god you worship is petty, angry, belligerent, judgmental, and spiteful. And you love every bit of it. The idea of worshiping your god repulses me.

[TZ]

101. I've got it trotsky!

You are the anti-christ!:rofl: :popcorn:

[Zebedeo]

102. You're the one making the affirmative claim

that you are more moral than God. You are the one on whom rests the burden of supplying the objective standard by which you are supposedly more moral than God.

It's not that I'm "faulting" you for not having an objective standard. I'm just asking you whether you do or not, and if you do, what is it? You won't answer the question, because you are afraid of the consequences of the answer.

Your last sentence is quite revealing. It shows that you do not truly believe that God is nonexistent. Instead, you are just angry at God for what you misperceive as His character flaws - judged according to your undefined, subjective, anything-trotsky-says-goes standard.

[trotsky]

103. No, I'm afraid you are.

You state that there is an objective moral standard. You have been asked, over and over and over again, to prove this unsupported claim. You have not, and of course this is because you cannot. You will lose this discussion, as you have lost all these discussions, because you try to push your burden of proof onto others, and when they refuse to do your work for you, you try and claim it as some kind of victory.

YOU are the one who owes answers, Zeb, and your refusal to provide them means you have lost yet again.

And no, don't even try to suggest that somehow I do believe in your god and I'm just angry with it. I assure you that is not the case, I was simply trying to speak in terms that you might understand, but instead you have to turn it around into a slam.

[Zebedeo]

104. From your post #94:

"I will state, right here and now, that I am more moral than the god you believe in."

You are the one making the affirmative claim. You are the one with the burden of proof. All I'm asking is what is the moral measuring stick you are using when you affirmatively claim that you are more moral than God. If you have no objective standard of morality, or believe that no such standard exists, then your affirmative claim amounts to nothing more than a statement that you subjectively prefer your own morality - which falls far short of establishing that you are factually "more moral than God."

What it has come down to, sadly, is that you internally realize that your affirmative claim is specious and unsupportable, but you are too filled with pride to admit it in a forum that is open to others to read. I would suggest that you could simply admit defeat in a PM to me, but I suspect that you cannot summon up the character to do so.

[trotsky]

107. LMAO

Oh Zebby, you're so fixated on your "moral measuring stick" you're missing the point entirely. I can easily prove I'm more moral than your god, but the point is I don't need any kind of objective moral standard to do so. In fact, I'll do it right now:

I am more moral than your god because I don't believe the murder of children is ever justified.

There. That's all there is to it. Because your god, as YOU believe, did order and condone the murder of children. Unless you are going to disagree with me and say that murdering children is morally acceptable, I win. Again.

[PassingFair]

109. Chirp....

[trotsky]

110. Yeah, don't hold your breath.

Although he might come back for one last "you don't have an objective moral yardstick" comment and declare victory that way, as if somehow me not being able to say that murdering children is objectively wrong somehow gets his god off the hook.

[Zebedeo]

111. You are pretending

that you don't understand the point. I know you do. You are just uncomfortable with the consequences.

You said: "I will state, right here and now, that I am more moral than the god you believe in."

Since you are making this affirmative claim, you have the burden of proof. You have admitted previously (although in this thread, you are apparently afraid to repeat the admission) that you do not adhere to any objective standard of morality, and in fact you believe that no such standard exists. If that is the case, then your affirmative claim that you are "more moral" than God is not a claim that you can satisfy, no matter what you do. This is so, because if indeed there is no objective morality, then morality is nothing more than personal preference. In that case, no one can say that they are "more moral" than anyone else. Nor can any act be "more moral" than any other act. This leads to the absurd result that Hitler's extermination of millions of people is no more or less moral than helping an old lady cross the street.

The point is that your own philosophical position is fatally inconsistent with your claim to be "more moral than God." Your position is internally inconsistent.

Because you are unable to specify any objective moral standard by which your morality exceeds that of God, you have failed to establish your claim that you are "more moral than God."

[trotsky]

112. I will try just once more.

I gladly accept the burden of proof to show that I am more moral than your god. But now you are claiming I must have an "objective moral standard" to make that claim. So the burden has shifted to you. I can't make it any clearer than that. Your desperate attempt to hide the fact that you support genocide when your god commands it ends now.

The other option you have is to show that murdering children is morally good. I don't believe it is. Your god does. So prove it.

Burden on you, Zeb. And no amount of fitful denials will change that. If your next post does not address either your positive claim, or a proof that murdering children is morally good, I will consider this discussion over, and you vanquished once again.

[cyborg_jim]

100. Promoting a subjective to objective is merely a matter of assertion

My morality is perfectly objective from its subjective viewpoint.

[awoke_in_2003]

117. ""Why would God have to test Abraham "

because the god described in the bible is a sadist.

[El Supremo]

32. I believe that other animals are without sin,

Original or current sin is what separates us from our cousins.

[Zebedeo]

35. I don't think the concept of sin

even applies to animals. How can an animal break God's law? How can an animal rebel against God? I guess I agree that animals are without sin, but in my view, they are without sin the same way that trees are without sin. The sin concept simply does not apply to them, because they have no ability to break God's law.

[ZombieHorde]

124. Breathe easy! There is no such thing as sin.

[heidler1]

126. Do you have any proof that other animals are not judged by this God.

If a human is born with an IQ of 10 is it subject to sin. Any self sufficient dog has a higher IQ than the idiot human who can sin? Does this idiot have a soul? At what IQ level are souls furnished?
Does an Idiot have free will?

[ZombieHorde]

125. The serpent in the story of Eden.

[knitter4democracy]

54. How do we know they have no choice?

God made animals to be companions, if you go with the second Creation story in Genesis, and brought them to Adam to name. That means they mean something more than rocks and such. How do we know that, when it says that Jesus died for all of Creation, it doesn't mean *all* of Creation and not just the human part?

Who are we to define God?

[Zebedeo]

57. Agreed that animals mean more than rocks,

but they are not subject to moral judgments. Do you have a cat? If the cat tortures a baby rabbit (as mine has done) resulting in an unnecessarily slow and painful death for the poor bunny, do you consider the cat "evil"? Would you say that the cat has "sinned"? Of course not. The cat is not morally accountable for its actions. Yet if a human being engaged in exactly, precisely the same conduct, you would most surely hold him morally accountable for his cruelty.

Similarly, if a great white shark attacks a swimmer and kills him, would you consider the shark to be a "murderer"? Of course not. Animals just do what they do. They do not make moral choices. They do not behave morally or immorally. They are neither evil nor good. They are just animals.

Humans are unique among corporeal creatures in that we have been given the ability to choose to do good or evil, as we see fit. Because of our ability to do evil, it means something when we do good. It means that we have been obedient to God. I enjoy to do good, because I am grateful to God and want to please Him.

[knitter4democracy]

61. I'm not so sure about that.

If my cat pees outside the litter box because she's sick, then sure, it's definitely not sin. If she's peed outside the litter box because she's mad at me, then, yeah, I'd call that sin. If my dog, who knows better, takes food off the table, he's choosing to be bad. As for wild animals, I think we don't know enough. We thought squid were just all about food and sex, like all animals, but now we're seeing that they can flash their colors in different patterns and are obviously communicating with each other. Whales seem to communicate far more than just where the food is and who wants to mate with whom. We had a horse once who went crazy with grief when his best friend, an older horse, died. I think animals are far more complex than we give them credit for.

Then again, I'm coming at this from an Eastern Orthodox perspective. Our theology on Original Sin and evil and all are far, far different than Western Christians.

[Book Lover]

65. Can you recommend

a good book as a source/intro to Eastern Orthodox theology?

[knitter4democracy]

72. The best one I've read is "The Orthodox Way" by Bishop Ware.

He was an Anglican priest ages ago who converted, and his books are the clearest and easiest to understand, I think. He also has a church history book that does a good job of explaining how the Great Schism came to be and what happened on the Orthodox side.

[Book Lover]

82. Thanks!

I've got it on interlibrary loan :-)

[Zebedeo]

67. Thanks for your perspective.

It is interesting to me, but I must say that I disagree. When we say a dog is a "bad dog," we are not considering the dog to be corrupted by sin, we are simply training the dog not to engage in certain behaviors. The same with training a cat to urinate in the litter box.

I am not saying that animals do not make choices, or that they do not commuinicate with each other (or with humans) in a sophisticated manner, or that they act entirely on instinct at all times. I am simply saying that they do not make moral choices (to do God's will or to rebel against God's will). In my view, it is not appropriate to hold animals morally accountable for their actions.

Take another example - many animals are carnivores. They eat other animals. Yet no vegetarian or vegan would hold such animals morally accountable for eating other animals. We do not say that a lion "murdered" a wildebeest or that a spider is guilty of murder with special circumstances because she set a trap and laid in wait for her victim. All such notions cannot be applied ot animals. They apply only to human beings, because, among corporeal creatures, only human beings have the free will to behave morally or immorally.

[knitter4democracy]

75. Again, I'd have to agree to disagree.

In training my dog and my kids, I don't see much of a difference in why they choose to be bad or in the choices they make on a regular basis. Yet, in many churches, my kids' behavior would be named as sin but not my dog's. If it's the same behavior with the same reasoning behind it, why make the difference?

As for murder, chimpanzees commit murder. There are times when an animal kills not for food but instead for territory or some reason we cannot understand or see. It's not unusual to see animals punishing other animals for doing bad things. Wolf packs have their own cultures, and a new wolf joining a pack is put through an initiation and put at the bottom of the pecking order. How is that purely instinct, especially when the mother wolf seems to teach it to her young? Cats can't hunt unless they're taught as kittens, so if the parents teach their young what is right and wrong to do and if murder is punished, how is that different from human behavior?

Killing for food is never murder. Killing for territory or because a being goes crazy or for pecking order is often retaliated against in the animal world in similar ways to the way we deal with it. I think it's a bit blind of us to say that our way is the only way, that our morality is the only morality, that our behavior code is the only one on the planet. It seems to diminish God too, in my opinion, to say that He breathed all of Creation into existence but only cares about the humans when we're such a small part of it all.

[Realityhack]

123. Very well put n/t

[Realityhack]

120. You have some serious problems there.

The answer to your question depends on the sense in which you are using the term "animals." Yes, we are physical, corporeal creatures, like all animals. But no, we are not merely animals.

Yay making up definitions! Human beings are animals, mammals, and primates (among other things).

But we might as well address your rabbling anyway...

Human beings are independent moral actors.

Unfounded. This assumes free will exists which is open to debate.

Animals are not. If a tiger attacks and kills a toddler, no reasonable person would describe the tiger as "evil." It is just being a tiger. If a human does the same thing, the human can reasonably be held morally accountable for her action.

Is that true of a mentally retarded person? An infant?
You have inadvertently ruled these people out as not 'human'. Good job.

Man was made in God's image and given free will.

Nope. At best that is an unprovable conjecture. However, when you get into specific gods they tend to be disproved.

Animals were not.

Correct.

This is the basic fundamental difference between man and animals.

Wrong. This is a fundamental similarity.

[Dumak]

20. We are in the family of great apes

All great apes are animals - a scientific definition, not open to debate or even polls except as a way to measure ignorance.

[John Gauger]

25. "...ecxept as a way to measure ignorance."

That's exactly right. It's like people who say "I agree with evolution." No, you don't agree with it, because it's not an opinion. It's real.

[uberllama42]

26. It's exactly the same as asking whether someone believes in evolution

Evolution is a settled scientific fact. There are questions as to how it has occurred, but there is no question as to whether evolution happens. Whether anyone believes it or not, it is an accurate description of how organisms interact.

[Evoman]

69. Of course we are. People who think we aren't are stupid.

I'm not even going to try to be diplomatic on this one. Plain old stupid.

[uberllama42]

76. C'mon, though, where would we be without plain old stupid?

You're not saying you want the world to be a better place, are you?

[Occam Bandage]

106. Does the word "human" contain the letter 'u'?

[sakabatou]

115. We're fungis!

:P

[Ian David]

118. No... Not house of pain! n/t

[On the Road]

119. I Always Thought Raisins Were Animals

but I have learned differently.

[Calmador]

129. No way

Humans are not animals.

[ZombieHorde]

130. Why do you feel humans are separate from the animal world? nt

[frogmarch]

131. Yes, we are animals.

I love that about us.