Did prehistoric man go to heaven?

Spring Onion

I've been thinking. I believe in evolution so automatically discount the Adam & Eve story. Then I started thinking when did men and women first become eligible for heaven and everlasting life.

For example did Neanderthals get to heaven? Do we know?

MadYaker

Well according to the bible neanderthals didn't exist (no mention of them) and until about 4000 years ago there was no life on earth.

neemish

Our time (our sense of how days, weeks, etc pass) and God are very different. “But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” 2Peter. God exists in all moments, and outside of time. He cannot be limited by the centuries or even by eternity.

And just as God exists in all moments, so do his salvific actions. Therefore, those who lived on earth before Christ are not limited by time on earth. God has saved them also.

To use a metaphor...Say that God banished people from the Garden (heaven). He did not destroy the garden, merely closed the gates. So when people died and were entitled to enter, they had to wait outside the gates. When Jesus Christ conquered death, he broke open those gates again allowing people to enter. Where were those people in the intervening years? This is where our minds fail as to the mysteries of God.

unfortunately

My understanding is that animals don't have souls and so don't go to heaven; and seeing as humans evolved from animals,* when was the soul injected in, so to speak?

At some point in the chain of evolution God stepped in and decided that the ape was human enough to give a soul. However this human with the first soul would be the same species as their mother, who God decided not to give a soul too.

*Actually, we are animals - mammals, primates.

Manach

My understanding is this has been an issue that Church theologians pondered over in the era marked before the coming of Christ. AFAIR it would be covered under the concept that natural law is that God's objective morality which is knowable by a society and as such once realised is obtainable. The earliest of recorded myths, both biblical and for instance that of Gilgamesh should that this quest for understanding of right/wrong has a long historical tradition.

ThirdMan

Spring Onion wrote: »

I've been thinking. I believe in evolution so automatically discount the Adam & Eve story.

What makes you believe in evolution?

unfortunately

Manach wrote: »

My understanding is this has been an issue that Church theologians pondered over in the era marked before the coming of Christ. AFAIR it would be covered under the concept that natural law is that God's objective morality which is knowable by a society and as such once realised is obtainable. The earliest of recorded myths, both biblical and for instance that of Gilgamesh should that this quest for understanding of right/wrong has a long historical tradition.

So when the first ape understood the concepts of right and wrong they were endowed with a soul? I would agree that if that were so then it solves the dilemma of where the dividing line lies. However, humans are not the first ape to develop notions of ethics, our ancestors beat us to it. So that would mean there would be non-human apes in Heaven.

Actually, many modern species have notions of fairness and altruism and "right and wrong" behavior, such as chimpanzees.

catallus

unfortunately wrote: »

So when the first ape understood the concepts of right and wrong they were endowed with a soul? I would agree that if that were so then it solves the dilemma of where the dividing line lies. However, humans are not the first ape to develop notions of ethics, our ancestors beat us to it. So that would mean there would be non-human apes in Heaven.

Actually, many modern species have notions of fairness and altruism and "right and wrong" behavior, such as chimpanzees.

This is wrong on so many levels. Apes do not have any ethics whatsoever. Only human beings have such a thing.

As for your idea that god "stepped in" during the evolutionary process, this lacks any cogent understanding of the biology of evolution or theological understanding of what god is.

unfortunately

catallus wrote: »

This is wrong on so many levels. Apes do not have any ethics whatsoever. Only human beings have such a thing.

As for your idea that god "stepped in" during the evolutionary process, this lacks any cogent understanding of the biology of evolution or theological understanding of what god is.

Yes, apes do have ethics and notions of fairness and altruism. There have been various experiments with modern primates that show that they understand unfair behavior and treatment. Primates can show alturism and co-operation. Some of them seem to have have a sense of justice.

There is evidence of our non-human ancestors caring for the sick and infirm.

The idea of God stepping in during evolution is not my idea and I don't hold it as valid. I accept totally the undirected, blind nature of evolution.

orangesoda

I was thinking about that as well recently, would the 8000+ years of irish people before the conversion be allowed in heaven

catallus

Ants and bees, rats and dogs and cats exhibit such behaviour: it does not make them human; the tendency towards anthropomorphising observed behaviour is way too strong for any valid conclusions to be made about that; the fact is- they are not human: and ethics is exclusively in the realm of the human being.

The Pheasant2

ThirdMan wrote: »

What makes you believe in evolution?

The overwhelming amount of scientific I would presume.

ThirdMan

The Pheasant2 wrote: »

The overwhelming amount of scientific [evidence] I would presume.

Okay. I was just wondering how one can believe in the theory of evolution and heaven/everlasting life.

unfortunately

catallus wrote: »

Ants and bees, rats and dogs and cats exhibit such behaviour: it does not make them human; the tendency towards anthropomorphising observed behaviour is way too strong for any valid conclusions to be made about that; the fact is- they are not human: and ethics is exclusively in the realm of the human being.

I never said it made them human, I am saying ethical concepts are not the preserve of the human species. Primate behavior and society is highly sophisticated; to say that only humans can make ethical decisions is wrong.

Experiments have shown primates who are aware when they get an unequal shares of food. Other primates with refuse to eat when the cord they pull to receive food also shocks another monkey.

It is anthropomorphism when talking about ants but our fellow primates are much more sophisticated and evolutionary close to use that it seems reasonable to assume they are working by ethical concepts.

Here are more examples:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePgC91kcmN0

Why is it impossible for non-human animals to have ethical concepts?

catallus

It is impossible for non-humans to have ethical concepts because they lack a soul.

"Our fellow primates", as you put it, are as far from us as rabbits and ants; granted, it is fun to think in such terms, to see similarities between apes and humans, but at root it has no more substance than seeing faces in the clouds.

maguic24

I think animals do have a conscience and therefore would have 'ethical concepts' as you like to put it. I think there's a lot of animals out there more deserving of a place in heaven than some humans. Also, aren't we as humans essentially 'intelligent' animals??

catallus

" I think there's a lot of animals out there more deserving of a place in heaven than some humans."

If I were an intemperate person I would say that these are the words of Lucifer himself.

"Also, aren't we as humans essentially 'intelligent' animals??"

This sentence is the very definition of evil: so many terrible things have been done using this as an intellectual template.

unfortunately

catallus wrote: »

It is impossible for non-humans to have ethical concepts because they lack a soul.

Well you're just asserting that, but assuming you need a soul to have ethical concepts - how to you "get" a soul. Earlier in the thread I discussed this problem of who had the first soul - it could be argued that the first animal who developed the understanding of the difference between right and wrong would have a soul - however I realise this is the reverse situation you believe in.

I believe we develop ethical principles based on the sophistication of our cognitive powers. So human have ethics, other primates have ethics as well, possible not as developed as ours due to lower cognitive ability. Even in human society we use cognitive ability to measure if someone understands ethical principles - generally children do not understand them, even though you would say they have souls.

catallus wrote: »

"Our fellow primates", as you put it, are as far from us as rabbits and ants; granted, it is fun to think in such terms, to see similarities between apes and humans, but at root it has no more substance than seeing faces in the clouds.

Well, we are primates. And no, evolutionary, humans and other apes are much closer related than we are to rabbits. And we are even further related to ants. There is a massive tree of life showing all the relative relatedness of all living things.

maguic24

catallus wrote: »

" I think there's a lot of animals out there more deserving of a place in heaven than some humans."

If I were an intemperate person I would say that these are the words of Lucifer himself.

"Also, aren't we as humans essentially 'intelligent' animals??"

This sentence is the very definition of evil: so many terrible things have been done using this as an intellectual template.

I guess I will never really understand this soul business being a filthy atheist. I am going to bow out of this conversation before I offend someone.

catallus

I with you on evolution; there is no debate there from me; but apes and rabbits are as far from us, in the context of the OP, as each other.

It seems to me the problem is that you are looking at the subject through the lens of empirical science rather than through that of culture; the idea of humanity and the soul and the capacity to be saved all derives from the biblical source: The People of the Book; anyone outside of that realm cannot be saved.

unfortunately

catallus wrote: »

I with you on evolution; there is no debate there from me; but apes and rabbits are as far from us, in the context of the OP, as each other.

It seems to me the problem is that you are looking at the subject through the lens of empirical science rather than through that of culture; the idea of humanity and the soul and the capacity to be saved all derives from the biblical source: The People of the Book; anyone outside of that realm cannot be saved.

In the context of the OP I think it is relevant to talk about apes. It was basically asking who was first eligible to get into heaven. Humans are one sort of ape, we evolved from a previous non-human ape.

Now you argue that you can't be ethical without a soul and only humans have souls. But here is the question: who had the first soul? This can be sidestepped if we just let the first ape to understand right and wrong have the first soul, however you say you can't have ethical notions unless you have a soul in the first place - so we are caught in a Catch-22 situation.

Evolution really happened- there were non-human apes that evolved into human apes, now who gets into heaven? Those with souls? How do we decide who has a soul? There must have been a first soul.

You could argue that every living thing has a soul, or perhaps a more parsimonious assumption is that souls don't exist. The only use of souls is so that we can convince ourselves that death isn't the end. You are your brain and when that rots away you are gone forever - that is undeniable, unless for no apparent reason there is this invisible essence that lives on forever.

catallus

"You are your brain and when that rots away you are gone forever - that is undeniable, unless for no apparent reason there is this invisible essence that lives on forever."

This is a denial of all of the culture of the last 10'000 years. To deny that there is something that sets man apart, to deny that he is the King of the Earth, that there is more to us than the flesh that came from dust, seems to be a very modern blinkering of the majesty of humanity.

If you truly believe what you say then what hold does morality or humanity have on you?

Peregrinus

ThirdMan wrote: »

Okay. I was just wondering how one can believe in the theory of evolution and heaven/everlasting life.

I'm not seeing the problem. And I'm not alone, since may hundreds, even thousands, of millions of people accept both beliefs.

Why do you think these beliefs are inconsistent?

catallus

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm not seeing the problem. And I'm not alone, since may hundreds, even thousands, of millions of people accept both beliefs.

Why do you think these beliefs are inconsistent?

I don't see the problem either.

But there is nothing more treasured by a bigot than an idée fixe. To cast hatred against those that have educated them.

A lot of pagans hold the idea of evolution dear as a weapon against belief, conveniently ignoring the truth that it was men of education and faith that promoted the idea in the first place; one would think all of our libraries were burned.

ThirdMan

catallus wrote: »

"Also, aren't we as humans essentially 'intelligent' animals??"

This sentence is the very definition of evil: so many terrible things have been done using this as an intellectual template.

But we are animals. That's a fact. What's the problem?

ThirdMan

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm not seeing the problem. And I'm not alone, since may hundreds, even thousands, of millions of people accept both beliefs.

Why do you think these beliefs are inconsistent?

If science could establish that heaven didn't exist it wouldn't stop people believing in it. Belief in heaven and the afterlife is a matter of faith. I realise that. I'm just not sure how people can value the scientific method in one context while essentially disregarding it in another. Of course many people don't find them inconsistent. I'm simply wondering why not? Please don't think I'm trying to catch people out. I'm not. I don't believe in god or heaven but I'm interested in how and why people do.

ThirdMan

catallus wrote: »

But there is nothing more treasured by a bigot than an idée fixe.

I presume you're calling me a bigot. What have I done to deserve that?

tommy2bad

catallus wrote: »

" I think there's a lot of animals out there more deserving of a place in heaven than some humans."

If I were an intemperate person I would say that these are the words of Lucifer himself.

It would seem to me that animals have a free pass into heaven, they had no part in the fall. That unpleasantness was all mans doing. Remember that of all creation only man needed redeming, the rest was good as awalys in God's eyes.

catallus wrote: »

"Also, aren't we as humans essentially 'intelligent' animals??"

This sentence is the very definition of evil: so many terrible things have been done using this as an intellectual template.

Very definition may be putting it a bit strong but I see your point about terrible things coming from this starting point. On the other hand terrible things have come from us thinking that we are God's chosen. All those religious wars and persecutions, they were based on a notion that God had selected some over others.

As to when man got a soul, He didn't, he doesn't have a soul, he is a soul. Cartisian duality is one of the most insidious notions to have entered Christianity. I blame Plato.

unfortunately

catallus wrote: »

"You are your brain and when that rots away you are gone forever - that is undeniable, unless for no apparent reason there is this invisible essence that lives on forever."

This is a denial of all of the culture of the last 10'000 years. To deny that there is something that sets man apart, to deny that he is the King of the Earth, that there is more to us than the flesh that came from dust, seems to be a very modern blinkering of the majesty of humanity.

If you truly believe what you say then what hold does morality or humanity have on you?

I am not denying any culture. Thousands of years ago it was held that the Sun revolved around the Earth, it was part of the common culture that our planet was privileged in its position in the universe. They were wrong, that's a fact. I am making no judgement on them because human knowledge was still at a low level relative to today.

Humanity is not "King of the Earth", we are just one sort animal that evolved along side other sorts of animals. Gorillas, chimps and bonobos, orangutans evolved in parallel with us and evolved from the same ape as us.

As for being blinkered it is you who is being blinkered if you are saying we are nothing without a soul. You seem to be saying that humanity's achievements are rendered worthless if we don't possess a soul. Actually I think humanity's majesty is better exemplified if we don't posses a soul - that we are sentient and sapient animals that developed slowly and build the world we have build today - global civilisation, art, music, technology and science.

To say that if humans are nothing without a soul is doing a great disservice to the human species. Humanity is valuable in it's own right we don't need a supernatural stamp of approval to justify our existence.

tommy2bad wrote: »

As to when man got a soul, He didn't, he doesn't have a soul, he is a soul. Cartisian duality is one of the most insidious notions to have entered Christianity. I blame Plato.

When was the first soul born? If this is true, there was an actual day when the first soul was born. Now how do we decide who that was - what sort of animal can give birth to a soul? It causes a problem because certain religious views distinguish humans from animals when we are just animals.

The problem arises when you try to unnaturally divide humans from the other animals and treat them specially. What is your criteria for doing this?

tommy2bad

unfortunately wrote: »

When was the first soul born? If this is true, there was an actual day when the first soul was born. Now how do we decide who that was - what sort of animal can give birth to a soul? It causes a problem because certain religious views distinguish humans from animals when we are just animals.

The problem arises when you try to unnaturally divide humans from the other animals and treat them specially. What is your criteria for doing this?

I'm not separating man from the rest of creation, we are no different than apes, cats, worms, and grass.
If we depend on our soul, whatever you chose to mean by that, then what about our bodies? You do know that we are not a single organism, we depend on a bunch of bacteria to be alive. In fact a human is not a single entity, it's an eco system of it's own.

We have a relationship with god that is different from whatever relationship dogs have with god. That's the part we should concern ourselves with. Not some mythical/metaphysical 21 grammes.

I assume the first soul, if by that you mean living thing was the fabled pond slime.

unfortunately

tommy2bad wrote: »

I'm not separating man from the rest of creation, we are no different than apes, cats, worms, and grass.
If we depend on our soul, whatever you chose to mean by that, then what about our bodies? You do know that we are not a single organism, we depend on a bunch of bacteria to be alive. In fact a human is not a single entity, it's an eco system of it's own.

We have a relationship with god that is different from whatever relationship dogs have with god. That's the part we should concern ourselves with. Not some mythical/metaphysical 21 grammes.

I assume the first soul, if by that you mean living thing was the fabled pond slime.

Personally, I don't believe in souls. I am just trying to argue with those who claim they are a reality what implications they have.The problem I feel is that the issue keeps getting sidestepped.

The bolded part above: "We have a relationship with god that is different from whatever relationship dogs have with god." I feel is just another reiteration of the problem. What is the relationship? When you say we, you mean humans? so who was the first individual (animal, ape, human etc.) to have a relationship with God?

My argument is essentially how, when and by which criteria did God look at all the evolved animals on Earth and decide a certain ape would have a soul (relationship, communion, whatever), while all other animals wouldn't.

PS, By first soul I meant, the first human with a soul - I worded that way because you said humans are souls.

Spring Onion

ThirdMan wrote: »

What makes you believe in evolution?

Proof.

Spring Onion

catallus wrote: »

" I think there's a lot of animals out there more deserving of a place in heaven than some humans."

If I were an intemperate person I would say that these are the words of Lucifer himself.

"Also, aren't we as humans essentially 'intelligent' animals??"

This sentence is the very definition of evil: so many terrible things have been done using this as an intellectual template.

Are you for real?

Leroy42

But don't you need to have faith in God/Jesus etc and accept him into your life to be accepted into heaven? From my understanding those that don't believe will not be accepted into heaven.

That being the case, the OP is answered in the negative as as far as we can ascertain prehistoric man did not have belief in God and therefore cannot go to heaven. Whether they or the apes have souls or not is irrelevant.

tommy2bad

unfortunately wrote: »

Personally, I don't believe in souls. I am just trying to argue with those who claim they are a reality what implications they have.The problem I feel is that the issue keeps getting sidestepped.

The bolded part above: "We have a relationship with god that is different from whatever relationship dogs have with god." I feel is just another reiteration of the problem. What is the relationship? When you say we, you mean humans? so who was the first individual (animal, ape, human etc.) to have a relationship with God?

My argument is essentially how, when and by which criteria did God look at all the evolved animals on Earth and decide a certain ape would have a soul (relationship, communion, whatever), while all other animals wouldn't.

PS, By first soul I meant, the first human with a soul - I worded that way because you said humans are souls.

First off, this is my opinion, not necessarily orthodox Christian teaching. OK now that's out of the way...

It's a good question, when did God decide that humans were special and worthy of a relationship with Him. Was it when they started showing empathy for others? was it when they started killing each other? Was it when they were capable of having a relationship with Him?
Think of it this way, when did you first decide to have a relationship with your child? Did you wait till it could reciprocate? till it could walk? talk? No your relationship started when you first thought of the child that would be yours, it wasn't something that could be postponed till 'the right time' it began and grew and changed as your child grew.
It didn't change the way you related to others, you still love your partner, you still love your family. Your child is no different in 'kind' from any of them but it is different in relationship.
I say we are souls to break from this dualistic view of humans, body and soul as if their were two parts and one could exist without the other. If a soul is anything its nothing more than the relationship you have with God.
I'm sure their are metaphysical arguments for the existence of incorporeal souls and lots of thinking on the mechanics of how the whole thing works but as interesting as that is (and a good source for so many horror movies) its speculation.
Prehistoric man went to heaven or will be their on judgement day like the rest of us based not on whether he had a soul but on Gods grace.

Leroy42

So if you have a soul then you go to heaven regardless of your belief and therefore regardless of your actions on earth?

That is a central issue of the christian faith (and maybe others but I don't know enough to comment). If God is all loving then why would be cast aside humans based on a simpe belief? And if he loves all of us equally (as a parent does their children) then what is the point of sticking to the notion of right and wrong when at the end of the day (end of days!) you get into heaven anyway.

Wabbit Ears

On the actual topic.

Quick history.

Assuming adam and eve to be true, the serpent convinced eve to entice adam to nom nom nom on the forbidden fruit, god was furious, had historys greatest strop evar!! have rise to the term "of biblical proportions" and this was the end of humans right to everlasting life. We lost our all access pass to heaven. Revoked, binned, denied. Harsh but fair some folk say.

So God came up with this plan that his son would sacrifice himself for mankind so we could again have the option of doing his will and getting our one way ticket to heaven bus pass back. (Some of Gods plans really suck, I mean really, he's God, was sacrificing his so the ONLY option FFS?)

This came to pass and all is grand, sacrafice made, gates swing open again, 144,000, lambs, shepherds, deck the halls with boughs of holly, yada yada yada.

So, to answer the question at hand, all humans between adams crime and jesus sacrifice are outta luck, dead, gone, nada, missed the january sales.

tommy2bad

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

On the actual topic.

Quick history.

Assuming adam and eve to be true, the serpent convinced eve to entice adam to nom nom nom on the forbidden fruit, god was furious, had historys greatest strop evar!! have rise to the term "of biblical proportions" and this was the end of humans right to everlasting life. We lost our all access pass to heaven. Revoked, binned, denied. Harsh but fair some folk say.

So God came up with this plan that his son would sacrifice himself for mankind so we could again have the option of doing his will and getting our one way ticket to heaven bus pass back. (Some of Gods plans really suck, I mean really, he's God, was sacrificing his so the ONLY option FFS?)

This came to pass and all is grand, sacrafice made, gates swing open again, 144,000, lambs, shepherds, deck the halls with boughs of holly, yada yada yada.

So, to answer the question at hand, all humans between adams crime and jesus sacrifice are outta luck, dead, gone, nada, missed the january sales.

Perfect encapsulation of all that's wrong with that version of events.
It's more like God, in a Doctor Who kind of way exists out of time and time being wibbly wobbly timie wimie stuff allows God to do something, say today, that has an effect not only from today on but back into time as well. So pass go and bypass jail go straight to heaven card for everyone in the audience who has the right answer!
I kinda hope heaven is full of cavemen (and women )

Wabbit Ears

There really is nothing in the bible that indicates that the human race got back-pay for Jesus's sacrifice AFAIK. I do agree that God may well not be bound by our time stream but still, Theres nothing I know of that would say they (pre Jesus humans) do get ther all access pass to cloudsville. Anyone got a quote that would indicate this?

unfortunately

tommy2bad wrote: »

First off, this is my opinion, not necessarily orthodox Christian teaching. OK now that's out of the way...

It's a good question, when did God decide that humans were special and worthy of a relationship with Him. Was it when they started showing empathy for others? was it when they started killing each other? Was it when they were capable of having a relationship with Him?
Think of it this way, when did you first decide to have a relationship with your child? Did you wait till it could reciprocate? till it could walk? talk? No your relationship started when you first thought of the child that would be yours, it wasn't something that could be postponed till 'the right time' it began and grew and changed as your child grew.
It didn't change the way you related to others, you still love your partner, you still love your family. Your child is no different in 'kind' from any of them but it is different in relationship.
I say we are souls to break from this dualistic view of humans, body and soul as if their were two parts and one could exist without the other. If a soul is anything its nothing more than the relationship you have with God.
I'm sure their are metaphysical arguments for the existence of incorporeal souls and lots of thinking on the mechanics of how the whole thing works but as interesting as that is (and a good source for so many horror movies) its speculation.
Prehistoric man went to heaven or will be their on judgement day like the rest of us based not on whether he had a soul but on Gods grace.

Alright, this is a more nuanced view of things, but I am going to have to restate my position because it sounds convincing if we left it there - like if someone asked the question to a priest, they would go home at this point and maybe feel like it was an answer.

You can feel a relationship with your child, as soon as they are born, or a few days later or months later but they are still the one child. Whether I have a relationship with my child immediately or years late doesn't matter cos either way we will develop a relationship eventually. The analogy doesn't quite compare because God is waiting while generations of humans pass by. If you are not in the generation where God first decides that we are his favorite species then you lose out on everlasting life.

Remember, whether God's relationship with humans developed suddenly or slowly there was an actual point in human history where if you were born before it you didn't have a relationship with God and if you were born afterwards you did.

That is the problem.

lmaopml

If it helps at all in Christian thought God came in the form of Christ at a particular point in time - but that had an effect for all people throughout time. Time is linear for us...so it's hard to have a concept that even the early Church taught as a mystery, but understood today by some.

In other words, from the moment we discovered sin, and indeed prior to it - there was a plan to save everybody no matter where or most importantly when or who either - whom sought the good, those who seek Christ, even those who never heard of him but their hearts knew him, and the Cross. The effect of the Cross is so very magnificent because of who died on it - that it doesn't matter what tiny morsel of history you are in right now, whether it was yesterday or today or tomorrow. It all finds it's centre right there at that moment on Calvary.

unfortunately

lmaopml wrote: »

If it helps at all in Christian thought God came in the form of Christ at a particular point in time - but that had an effect for all people throughout time. Time is linear for us...so it's hard to have a concept that even the early Church taught as a mystery, but understood today by some.

In other words, from the moment we discovered sin, and indeed prior to it - there was a plan to save everybody no matter where or most importantly when or who either - whom sought the good, those who seek Christ, even those who never heard of him but their hearts knew him, and the Cross. The effect of the Cross is so very magnificent because of who died on it - that it doesn't matter what tiny morsel of history you are in right now, whether it was yesterday or today or tomorrow. It all finds it's centre right there at that moment on Calvary.

Again I feel like this is just a restatement, the problem is still there. All people in time are saved, but because we evolved from non-human animals, if you go back down through every generation eventually you get to a sort of small shrew-like ancestor. Does it have a relationship with God? No, I assume is the answer, so now where do we draw the line.
You could say there was no dividing point and all generations from the present back until the first living thing 4.5 billions years ago had a soul, or that souls don't exist.

If only humans are saved, when was the first generation of humans saved? Remember this is real evolutionary history, this was an event that really happened (if you believe in souls/being saved etc).

lmaopml

Oh my it's evolution! I never heard of that because well I'm Christian, and I'm Irish, and not only that I'm well...Catholic - and everybody knows that we don't know anything about how we got here, life, science, evolution, physics, chemistry, etc. so on...

The plain and simple truth is that we believe in the human soul - that God 'breathed' life into us, the very first drawing the very first imprint of intelligent observant life is for us 'Adam' - that made all the difference. It's the very reason why we chat today about 'differences'!

...and probably the reason why we have so many. I have a belief that there is a moral truth, a good, and that doesn't mean I think I'm the coolest thing ever walked the planet no! I've not only seen it in action, but I've felt it too...I don't know where you get your moral good except as you go along and it get's more and more diminished. I'm a Christian - I follow Christ. I don't follow anybody else.

unfortunately

lmaopml wrote: »

Oh my it's evolution! I never heard of that because well I'm Christian, and I'm Irish, and not only that I'm well...Catholic - and everybody knows that we don't know anything about how we got here, life, science, evolution, physics, chemistry, etc. so on...

The plain and simple truth is that we believe in the human soul - that God 'breathed' life into us, the very first drawing the very first imprint of intelligent observant life is for us 'Adam' - that made all the difference. It's the very reason why we chat today about 'differences'!

...and probably the reason why we have so many. I have a belief that there is a moral truth, a good, and that doesn't mean I think I'm the coolest thing ever walked the planet no! I've not only seen it in action, but I've felt it too...I don't know where you get your moral good except as you go along and it get's more and more diminished. I'm a Christian - I follow Christ. I don't follow anybody else.

I don't understand why you took that tone in first paragraph. I was just stating a premise of my argument - there is a shrew-like animal which I imagine no-one here thinks has a soul, it reproduces, its offspring are still very shrew-like, repeat for millions of years and you get humans who have souls - now which generation between those two extremes had the first soul.

And again the argument is sidestepped and the position is restated. You say there are souls given by God to humans; well, who had the first soul?

A simple question which few on this thread have actually formulated a direct answer.

lmaopml

What? There are also 'snottites' in the history of evolution? Exactly at what point would you like to know human life is different?

You can of course look around you and see diversity in all it's beauty and think yourself an animal. That's your prerogative - or you could indeed see the caveman who wrote the first bible in the shape of his hand on a wall or in seeing and portraying his comrades diving into a ravine for fish long before history was written down...and discovered way after the first pen was put to 'modern' paper we discovered he wasn't so daft afterall...

That's the difference - how do you see the caveman? Was he dragging women into his cave and the typical hollywood brute, we all know and have been aqainted with, thank's to hollywood, and evolutionary psychology, or was he an artist, is this important? Adam, resides there.

santing

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

There really is nothing in the bible that indicates that the human race got back-pay for Jesus's sacrifice AFAIK. ... Anyone got a quote that would indicate this?

Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad." (John 8:56)

For I know that my Redeemer lives, and at the last he will stand upon the earth. And after my skin has been thus destroyed, yet in my flesh I shall see God, (Job 19:25-26)

You could also read Hebrews 11 ...

unfortunately

lmaopml wrote: »

What? There are also 'snottites' in the history of evolution? Exactly at what point would you like to know human life is different?

You can of course look around you and see diversity in all it's beauty and think yourself an animal. That's your prerogative - or you could indeed see the caveman who wrote the first bible in the shape of his hand on a wall or in seeing and portraying his comrades diving into a ravine for fish long before history was written down...and discovered way after the first pen was put to 'modern' paper we discovered he wasn't so daft afterall...

That's the difference - how do you see the caveman? Was he dragging women into his cave and the typical hollywood brute, we all know and have been aqainted with, thank's to hollywood, and evolutionary psychology, or was he an artist, is this important? Adam, resides there.

I'm finding it difficult to understand what you are getting at. I am getting a sense that you think that I think that prehistoric humans and our other ape ancestors were somehow less than us. I don't think this at all.

I don't believe in souls. And we are animals. We are mammals, we are primates - there is nothing we can look at that would to exclude us from the Animal Kingdom - in fact we fit in quite well. It is not an insult to see us as animals, in fact I think it makes it all the more wonderful.

Again, more sidestepping and muddying the question. In evolutionary history when does God decide the first person eligible for everlasting life? How is it decided?

lmaopml

unfortunately wrote: »

I'm finding it difficult to understand what you are getting at. I am getting a sense that you think that I think that prehistoric humans and our other ape ancestors were somehow less than us. I don't think this at all.

I don't believe in souls. And we are animals. We are mammals, we are primates - there is nothing we can look at that would to exclude us from the Animal Kingdom - in fact we fit in quite well. It is not an insult to see us as animals, in fact I think it makes it all the more wonderful.

Again, more sidestepping and muddying the question. In evolutionary history when does God decide the first person eligible for everlasting life? How is it decided?

Will you please stop with the whole 'I know about evolution' and nobody in the history of people is ever taught about it and knows about it too, especially those religious folk...get over it please?

The 'difference' between you and I is not about 'evolution' - it's about what you believe about human beings and not their similiarities and how you want to prove yourself a beast, but the difference too, and your belief that others should just accept the beast within...if you can't see it, and 'wonder' at it - than how the hell do you even appreciate the beauty of merely a single cell, don't mind complexity and paradox?

Human's are a paradox, they are not 'natural' - every single one is a paradox or really really really ( complete to infinity ) a vert lucky paradox, a miracle paradox.

Then there is also the guy who raised his hand and for the first time drew a depiction of his own hand on a wall....The guy that modern history says must have been pretty ignorant...

One wonders...who's ignorant?

unfortunately

lmaopml wrote: »

Will you please stop with the whole 'I know about evolution' and nobody in the history of people is ever taught about it and knows about it too, especially those religious folk...get over it please?

The 'difference' between you and I is not about 'evolution' - it's about what you believe about human beings and not their similiarities and how you want to prove yourself a beast, but the difference too, and your belief that others should just accept the beast within...if you can't see it, and 'wonder' at it - than how the hell do you even appreciate the beauty of merely a single cell, don't mind complexity and paradox?

Human's are a paradox, they are not 'natural' - every single one is a paradox or really really really ( complete to infinity ) a vert lucky paradox, a miracle paradox.

Then there is also the guy who raised his hand and for the first time drew a depiction of his own hand on a wall....The guy that modern history says must have been pretty ignorant...

One wonders...who's ignorant?

OK, I think you are projecting a hellva lot of stuff onto me. I am talking about evolution not because I am trying to show off - not once did I say any one else doesn't understand it. I never denigrated religious people either. I am talking about evolution because it is relevant and implicit to the original question: are there Neanderthals in heaven? How do we discuss this without referencing evolution? The question is just a specific case of the general question of at what point in history are people eligible to enter heaven.

Biologically we are animals. Everything we look at tells us that. It is not an insult or denigration of humanity. You seem to have this baggage that if humans accept we are animals that means we will kill and be savages. It is actually the reverse; by acknowledging our instincts we can guard against these threats.

Stop projecting saying I want others to "accept the beast within" or that I see prehistoric man as less than contemporary man - we are the same.

Again, I bring up my argument from the start, the point of this thread: are there Neanderthals in heaven, when was the first soul born? Now you are referencing the first depiction of art and thought - is that the original requirement before being endowed with a soul?

PopePalpatine

catallus wrote: »

But there is nothing more treasured by a bigot than an idée fixe.

Oh, the irony.

tommy2bad

unfortunately wrote: »

I'm finding it difficult to understand what you are getting at. I am getting a sense that you think that I think that prehistoric humans and our other ape ancestors were somehow less than us. I don't think this at all.

I don't believe in souls. And we are animals. We are mammals, we are primates - there is nothing we can look at that would to exclude us from the Animal Kingdom - in fact we fit in quite well. It is not an insult to see us as animals, in fact I think it makes it all the more wonderful.

Again, more sidestepping and muddying the question. In evolutionary history when does God decide the first person eligible for everlasting life? How is it decided?

To the bit in bold;
We are indeed animals, no one is disputing that. The problem is that we, us humans have created this problem by thinking of ourselves as other than animals. God may not see it the way we do.
You are assuming that God thinks of animals as disposable automatons put on earth to benefit man and having no worth of their own. I'm thinking that this is our egocentric view of things. Remember when God made all of creation He thought it was good, He gave man stewardship of creation, a caretaker position rather than a consumer of creation. I know this is allegory, a story to tell us something or make us think. My point is that my thinking on this has precedent and isn't as unorthodox as it seems.

The Orthodox have a line of thinking about children and heaven and how life works from Gods point of view. They hold that any life is the measure of the effect it has on others. You die but God doesn't stop the clock then, He waits until the ripples of your life have settled before judging that life. What's more He starts counting from the time you were a twinkle in your daddy's eye as it were. It's not a teaching, more a comforting thought that offers the possibility that stillborn children and longed for children are held in God's hand.
Obligatory proof text: Jeremiah; Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart;

What makes you so certain that God doesn't see animals as souls?

To the bit in italics:
From the beginning, it's not like God decided one day that humans were special but more that one day we broke the deal and needed to be saved, What is promised now is what was intended from the first moment of creation.
Their are no extra bits involved, no new attachments that qualify us for heaven. Our justification for heaven is Christ/God.

Edit because I just realized that putting some thing in italics is pointless when it's in a quote; You can work it out yourself but sometimes I'm thick.