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.