Did prehistoric man go to heaven?

mcmoustache

catallus wrote: »

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.

Pagans? Pagans, for the most part didn't know about evolution. How could they use it against belief? Why would they? Pagans had lots of crazy beliefs.

I think you might be mixing up words and should probably look them up.

The Pheasant2

lmaopml wrote: »

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?

I'm having trouble understanding what you actually mean by all this? How exactly are Humans a paradox?

sheesh

I'm just going to throw this out there.

I have vague memories of the 'omega point' (i had to look it up) in school christian doctrine where the ancestors of the human species evolved to a point where they had a soul. I'm suprised that nobody in christianity forum would not mention this.

jimmytwotimes 2013

The absurdity of it all would make you think that heaven is just a cock and bull story..... but that couldn't be right.......

tommy2bad

sheesh wrote: »

I'm just going to throw this out there.

I have vague memories of the 'omega point' (i had to look it up) in school christian doctrine where the ancestors of the human species evolved to a point where they had a soul. I'm suprised that nobody in christianity forum would not mention this.

Sounds doggy to me, from the wiki link it's about as usefull as Terence McKenna's stuff.
Again it's platonic ideas of dualism that lead to speculation about when souls got added to humans. A dangerous path which leads to ideas of sub-humans.

tommy2bad

jimmytwotimes 2013 wrote: »

The absurdity of it all would make you think that heaven is just a cock and bull story..... but that couldn't be right.......

Thats the problem jimmytwotimes, theories like this discredit the message of Christianity.

unfortunately

tommy2bad wrote: »

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.

I think I should state clearly my view so you know the angle I am taking on this. Firstly I restated that we are animals because I felt lmaopml was disagreeing with that statement. I do not believe in God or souls. I was just assuming that souls exists and that only humans have souls (I believe this is the RCC position) for the sake of argument. This is where I believe this argument falls down - it makes sense for God to see all animals as souls rather than arbitrary divide them between humans and the rest. Do you personally believe animals are souls who go to heaven?

I have said earlier in the thread if anyone took the position that all animals had souls then I would agree more (I still would have more questions though). The other position is that souls don't exist.

You say God didn't decide one day to just to let us into heaven - it was us who broke a promise and needed to be saved. I feel once again that this doesn't address the problem - it still refers to a moment in time. Are you saying humans existed then something happened in our society/culture and God intervened to save us? Also I am not quite sure what you mean, what promise was broken, who broke it? Was it an individual?

I also feel that the phrase "intended from the first moment of creation" doesn't seem to fit with a version of unguided evolution - that seems to say that it was guided.

EDIT: Maybe you could summarise your position so that I am not misrepresenting you and attacking a strawman.

lmaopml

unfortunately wrote: »

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.

You must understand that we have every single so called 'brainy' person give their input and the tone never changes...

To be honest, you are not asking a question that we can answer...but something tells me you already know it! You want to know exact co-ordinates for 'Adam' - well go ask God for them like the rest of us..

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.

You are probably more at home here - if it helps at all yes we are 'beasts' - does that make you want to bring out the flags? Don't you know you are 'human' - flesh and blood? Do you think I don't know I am too?

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?

Your 'case' is an old one you know.

You aren'tparticularly new? Does that come as a surprise?

There will always be so called 'honest enquirers' - in the mean time, we're just people who are quite capable of enquiry too, and we have contribution to make, we're just the 'people' - we may be people of faith, but we are also people who work alongside you. 'Branding' is pretty sad really for one who thinks they are asking 'big' questions.

You have no idea how 'big' questions are very old ones and not quite as new as you suspect they are.

You want to know 'Adam' you want to 'pin' him down know his address, telephone number and 'time' co-ordinate - with respect, you are asking all the wrong questions...

unfortunately

Well lmaopml, I don't really know what image you have in your head about me, right from the start your responses towards me have an underlining hostility and dismissive tone. I can only imagine it is some sort of reaction to me being an atheist and non-believer asking questions you'd rather not think about, smacks of cognitive dissonance if you ask me. Your posts also come across with a sense of an inferiority complex (when did I ever say I was brainy, or better than anyone else? I never once said someone didn't understand evolution or anything for that matter. All I asked was what their opinion on the first souls).

I have thought about this first soul problem before, and when I saw the thread title I was intrigued how people might argue against it. Despite what you insinuate about my intentions I am genuinely interested in an argument against it or for someone to point out a false step in my reasoning. If I am framing the problem in the wrong way tell me, actually deconstruct my argument.

I actually have difficulty following your posts, as other have mentioned on this thread. It reads as if you have preconceived notions of my intent and beliefs.

I feel I am actually getting somewhere in the conversation with tommy2bad.

Hopefully, this thread can be salvaged. lmaopml, you might not want to think uncomfortable thoughts, but others are, as evidenced by the OP's question and other genuine contributors to this thread.

tommy2bad

unfortunately;
Maybe you could summarise your position so that I am not misrepresenting you and attacking a strawman.

The thing is all religion is a strawman one way or another. It's a problem with how we humans learn, we tell stories. We tell them to remember things, we tell them to explain things and we tell them to think things through.
The bible is a collection of stories, told for different reasons, history, poems, moral tails and even philosophy.
Their was no point in time when an apple was bitten and the whole of creation shattered. This story is the first story presented. It's their not to explain what happened but to set the premise for the rest of the stories.
We are here, self aware and with a nagging feeling that their is more to life than what we see. I think genesis is the first articulation of angst. All it tells us is that this feeling is going to be explored.
Every faith has a creation myth, none of which are intended to be accounts of 'what happened' but more tails to explain what we are as men and women.
We learn how to relate to our God's as we develop not in a 'here's the manual, read this and it'll be grand' way but by struggle and searching.
Even if you don't believe in God the bible is worth a read as a record of a peoples struggle to find meaning in life. If you do believe, its the story of how God relates to people to give them meaning.
The thing is it's written from our point of view, all we have from God's side is second-hand reports. If it's somewhat egocentric then that's to be expected, We thing God thinks we are the bees knees. Unsurprisingly. We used to think God thought only one tribe were the bees knees. It grows and moves on.
Theirs no reason to assume that we have souls, it's an idea that crept into Judaism from Greek thinking, seemed like a good solution to a problem at the time (how can we imagine a better thing if no better thing exists?)
I personally don't believe we have a soul in the sense of a separate thing that can exist independent of our flesh and blood and bone. I believe it's more a state of awareness, a condition of our physic than a property of our bodies. I see no reason to denies the same quality to other animals. While it may be different and alien to us, we don't know what God thinks about the other life He created. We do know that God thought creation was all good and He was pleased with it.
I agree with you the idea of a soul creates more problems than answers.
Oh, unguided evolution? Well of course it's unguided in the sense that it dose it's thing without any reference to an end point it's trying to achieve. Is it abandoned? No, if humans had never evolved conciousness then we wouldn't be having this conversation but we would still have a relationship with God. What that would be like is impossible to tell but as a Christian I believe that God created the world because God is good and Good bestows good on others, in other words it was created to be loved.
I don't think that purpose impinges on unguided evolution, the laws of physics or Christian teaching. It doesn't even require a plan with an end in mind.

I think lmaopml is saying much the same thing. When she(going by the avatar) brings up art, culture and music. We are expressing the same desires using these tools. The story is the same, we relate to God when we relate to others and when we seek to express ourselves.

professore

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.

Lots of humans don't have any ethics, and some apes do.

J C

unfortunately wrote: »

Well lmaopml, I don't really know what image you have in your head about me, right from the start your responses towards me have an underlining hostility and dismissive tone. I can only imagine it is some sort of reaction to me being an atheist and non-believer asking questions you'd rather not think about, smacks of cognitive dissonance if you ask me. Your posts also come across with a sense of an inferiority complex (when did I ever say I was brainy, or better than anyone else? I never once said someone didn't understand evolution or anything for that matter. All I asked was what their opinion on the first souls).

I have thought about this first soul problem before, and when I saw the thread title I was intrigued how people might argue against it. Despite what you insinuate about my intentions I am genuinely interested in an argument against it or for someone to point out a false step in my reasoning. If I am framing the problem in the wrong way tell me, actually deconstruct my argument.

I actually have difficulty following your posts, as other have mentioned on this thread. It reads as if you have preconceived notions of my intent and beliefs.

I feel I am actually getting somewhere in the conversation with tommy2bad.

Hopefully, this thread can be salvaged. lmaopml, you might not want to think uncomfortable thoughts, but others are, as evidenced by the OP's question and other genuine contributors to this thread.

Ì accept your bona fides in relation to the OP question.
This is essentially a Theological question ... that I have yet to see answered satisfactorily by anybody.

Given the imprecision of the term 'pre-historic man' ... a more accurate question would be to ask when and how did the first creature with a soul emerge on the supposed evolutionary continuum between 'lower' life-forms and Mankind?

... has anybody ever seen an answer to this question ... or indeed, answered it themselves?

If this question cannot be answered with theological and Biblical rigour then IMO (Theistic Evolutionary) Christianity comes into serious question.

BTW, this question is not about the validity (one way or the other) of Evolution or Christianity ... it is about the validity of reconciling Christianity with evolution.

robp

J C wrote: »

Ì accept your bona fides in relation to the OP question.
This is essentially a Theological question ... that I have yet to see answered satisfactorily by anybody.

Given the imprecision of the term 'pre-historic man' ... a more accurate question would be to ask when and how did the first creature with a soul emerge on the supposed evolutionary continuum between 'lower' life-forms and Mankind?

... has anybody ever seen an answer to this question ... or indeed, answered it themselves?

If this question cannot be answered with theological and Biblical rigour then IMO (Theistic Evolutionary) Christianity comes into serious question.

Such a question is a good one. Its one that many ask and there are answers for. Yet we have no date as we don't know the precise point when modern behaviours emerged. There is a window of hundreds of thousands of years (Roughly ~1m - 80k BP) were modern behaviours may have occurred or may have been absent. if archaeologists, geneticists and palaeoanthropologists can't answer this you can not expect theologians to have a chronology. I should add many Christians argue that animals have a soul element so you should state explicitly 'human soul'.

J C

robp wrote: »

Such a question is a good one. Its one that many ask and there are answers for. Yet we have no date as we don't know the precise point when modern behaviours emerged. There is a window of hundreds of thousands of years (Roughly ~1m - 80k BP) were modern behaviours may have occurred or may have been absent. if archaeologists, geneticists and palaeoanthropologists can't answer this you can not expect theologians to have a chronology.

It is a very interesting (and deceptively dangerous) question (from a Human Salvation point of view). Its a question that needs very significant justification (from a Theological and Biblical perspective) ... and not just somebody trying to 'weld on' a little bit of religion to the materialistic 'origins' juggernaught that is trying to monopolise all thought and ideas on the question of our 'origins'.

It is essentially a Theological question to start with ... and theologians ... are the most prominent people attempting to reconcile the Christian Faith in the Divine Creation and Redemption of Mankind with 'random pitiless' Evolution that supposedly evolved Man, without any need for God according to the prime inventors and supporters of the theory of the Spontaneous Evolution of life from 'lower' life forms to Man.
The scientists you call in support of this idea will ask you why would they bother complicating things, by a vain and doomed attempt to include God where He is neither needed nor wanted - such is their confidence in a materialistic explanation for everything.

If there is Theological and Biblical support for such an idea then science may have a function in confirming estimated times, creatures, etc. for such a Theological hypothesis.
But first the theologians going down this unprecedented and potentially deeply heretical and God-denying route, have it all to prove from a theological point of view.
... and no, they cannot duck the question after raising a potentially deeply heretical God-denying idea and then say ... 'I know nothing about it really ... why don't you ask a scientist using the assumptions of practical atheism to explain it'.
The scientist will simply say 'not me mate' ... you're on your religious own on this one, as we deal in practical materialism and the working assumption that everything can be explained by mechanisms that don't involve a God or Gods.
I once was that scientist ... so I know what my attitude was to such highly speculative and imprecise special pleading by various liberal theologians many of whom admit that they know little about the science ... with which they want to seek an accommodation, whilst apparently ignoring the reality that the Science they are seeing an accommodation with, is working on the assumptions of practical materialism while they presumably, have faith in divine Creation and Redemption ... and such an accommodation seems to be one that cannot ever be reached IMO, in relation to the 'origins' question.

robp wrote: »

I should add many Christians argue that animals have a soul element so you should state explicitly 'human soul'.

I don't believe in Dog ... I believe in God ...
... and more precisely God made Man ... in Jesus Christ ... and Man (not Rabbit) made in the image and likeness of God.

There was one reason and one reason only why God humbled Himself to incarnate as a man and that was to offer the supreme and infinite sacrifice that justice demands for the sins ... of Mankind ... and not of animal kind ... thereby 'opening the door' to salvation for Mankind (and not animal kind).

Is this what has become of whole sections of Christianity? ... that 'many Christians' are now speculating that animals have the same status before God as Human Beings ... and that Jesus Christ effectively died on a cross to Save our cats (who are not spirit beings capable of either committing sin or receiving salvation).

sawdoubters

is there really a heaven and hell


do animals go to heaven

man is really an animal

J C

sawdoubters wrote: »

is there really a heaven and hell


do animals go to heaven

man is really an animal

Separate and interesting questions in their own right ... but please let us stick with the topic at hand ... which goes to the very core of what so-called 'liberal Christianity' stands for.
Robp says that its a question that many ask and there are answers for.

I have yet to see any answer, let alone anything that remotely resembled a substantive theologically and biblically justified answer.

... so when and how did the first creature with a soul emerge on the supposed evolutionary continuum between 'lower' life-forms and Mankind ... and what is the theological and biblical basis for such a claim, in the first place?

robp

J C wrote: »

It is a very interesting (and deceptively dangerous) question (from a Human Salvation point of view). Its a question that needs very significant justification (from a Theological and Biblical perspective) ... and not just somebody trying to 'weld on' a little bit of religion to the materialistic 'origins' juggernaught that is trying to monopolise all thought and ideas on the question of our 'origins'.

It is essentially a Theological question to start with ... and theologians ... are the most prominent people attempting to reconcile the Christian Faith in the Divine Creation and Redemption of Mankind with 'random pitiless' Evolution that supposedly evolved Man, without any need for God according to the prime inventors and supporters of Spontaneous Evolution from 'lower' life forms to Man.
The scientists you call in support of this idea will ask you why would they bother complicating things, by a vain and doomed attempt to include God where He is neither needed nor wanted - such is their confidence in a materialistic explanation for everything.

Basically this is just a long-winded way of saying 'not a valid question' without any engagement in your original argument. Speaking as one of those active researchers I feel I can authoritatively refute this! (I have the great pleasure to work in the same institute as where the Neanderthal genome was first sequenced). Yes, I know I don't represent a great deal of scientists but plenty would disagree with you. However, in a way this is moot point, as if the atheist colleagues I have say there is no God they speak from their personal beliefs not their professional opinions. We all have our competencies and being a scientist is no substitute for a rigorous training in meta-physics and philosophy. Asking a palaeoanthropologist whether there is human purpose is like giving the last word on the validity of evolution to the Pope.

J C wrote: »

If there is Theological and Biblical support for such an idea then science may have a function in confirming estimated times, creatures, etc. for such a Theological hypothesis.
But first the theologians going down this unprecedented and potentially deeply heretical and God-denying route, have it all to prove from a theological point of view.
... and no, they cannot duck the question after raising a potentially deeply heretical God-denying idea and then say ... 'I know nothing about it really ... why don't you ask a scientist using the assumptions of practical atheism to explain it'.
The scientist will simply say 'not me mate' ... you're on your religious own on this one, as we deal in practical materialism and the working assumption that everything can be explained by mechanisms that don't involve a God or Gods.
I once was that scientist ... so I know what my attitude was to such highly speculative and imprecise special pleading by various liberal theologians who admit that they know little about the science ... with which they want to seek an accommodation, whilst apparently ignoring the reality that the Science they are seeing an accommodation with, is working on the assumptions of practical materialism while they presumably, have faith in divine Creation and Redemption ... and such an accommodation seems to be one that cannot ever be reached IMO.

I don't believe in Dog ... I believe in God ...
... and more precisely God made Man ... in Jesus Christ ... and Man (not Rabbit) made in the image and likeness of God.

There was one reason and one reason only why God humbled Himself to incarnate as a manand that was to offer the supreme and infinite sacrifice that justice demands for the sins ... of Mankind ... and not of animal kind.

Is this what has become of whole sections of Christianity? ... that 'many Christians' are now speculating that animals have the same status before God as Human Beings ..[/B][/B]. and that Jesus Christ effectively died on a cross to Save our cats (who are not spirit beings capable of either committing sin or receiving salvation).

Blatant misrepresentation. No one say that.

robp

J C wrote: »

Separate and interesting questions in their own right ... but please let us stick with the topic at hand ... which goes to the very core of what so-called 'liberal Christianity' stands for.
Robp says that its a question that many ask and there are answers for.

I have yet to see any answer, let alone anything that remotely resembled a substantive theologically and biblically justified answer.

... so when and how did the first creature with a soul emerge on the supposed evolutionary continuum between 'lower' life-forms and Mankind ... and what is the theological and biblical basis for such a claim, in the first place?

I am not a theologian but my Catholic view would be that once you have the appearance of language, spirituality and art you have what is considered in traditional Catholic theology as the soul. Now it may well pre-date these behaviours but its doesn't post-date it. There is good theological justification for this but it would take sometime to elaborate on this.

tommy2bad

J C wrote: »

Separate and interesting questions in their own right ... but please let us stick with the topic at hand ... which goes to the very core of what so-called 'liberal Christianity' stands for.
Robp says that its a question that many ask and there are answers for.

I have yet to see any answer, let alone anything that remotely resembled a substantive theologically and biblically justified answer.

... so when and how did the first creature with a soul emerge on the supposed evolutionary continuum between 'lower' life-forms and Mankind ... and what is the theological and biblical basis for such a claim, in the first place?

Have you read the thread? I thought I gave a pretty good answer. It's top of this page if you want to check it out.
It removes the need for a soul insertion time and the dead end of creationism from the question.

J C

tommy2bad wrote: »

Have you read the thread? I thought I gave a pretty good answer. It's top of this page if you want to check it out.
It removes the need for a soul insertion time and the dead end of creationism from the question.

I have read it but I think it seems to be a basic Deist position rather than one that is in harmony with the basic Christian dogmas of Divine Creation and Redemption that is central to the Christian Creeds.

I have no desire to misrepresent your position so please forgive me if I'm not understanding what you have said correctly ... but it seems to me that you 'removed the need for a soul insertion time and the dead end of creationism' (to use your own words) by denying the reality of an eternal soul thereby effectively denying the possibility of eternal life ... as well as the Creation of God, the Fall and the Redemption by Jesus Christ ... and in one fell swoop denied practically all of the central tenets of the Christian Faith (that has been historically shared by practically all Christian Churches)


I accept that you thought that you were 'protecting' Christianity, from questions raised by science and specifically evolution ... but I think your 'protecting' of Christianity, if it were true, could actually destroy Christianity by denying practically all of it's core dogmas outlined in the Creeds.

I thank you for presenting a postion to explain how evolution could be accomodated with Christianity ... but unfortunately it seems to come at the price of destroying so many basic tenets of Christianity as to leave practically nothing of substance in its wake.

I have gone through all of these phases myself ... so I empathise fully with you and what you are trying to achieve.

J C

robp wrote: »

I am not a theologian but my Catholic view would be that once you have the appearance of language, spirituality and art you have what is considered in traditional Catholic theology as the soul. Now it may well pre-date these behaviours but its doesn't post-date it. There is good theological justification for this but it would take sometime to elaborate on this.

Was God involved in 'the appearance of language, spirituality and art' ... and if you believe He was ... how did this manifest itself?

Where is the theological and biblical justification for this?

tommy2bad

J C wrote: »

I have read it but I think it seems to be a basic Deist position rather than one that is in harmony with the basic Christian dogmas of Divine Creation and Redemption that is central to the Christian Creeds.

I have no desire to misrepresent your position so please forgive me if I'm not understanding what you have said correctly ... but it seems to me that you 'removed the need for a soul insertion time and the dead end of creationism' (to use your own words) by denying the reality of an eternal soul thereby effectively denying the possibility of eternal life ... as well as the Creation of God, the Fall and the Redemption by Jesus Christ ... and in one fell swoop denied practically all of the central tenets of the Christian Faith (that has been historically shared by practically all Christian Churches)


I accept that you thought that you were 'protecting' Christianity, from questions raised by science and specifically evolution ... but I think your 'protecting' of Christianity, if it were true, could actually destroy Christianity by denying practically all of it's core dogmas outlined in the Creeds.

I thank you for presenting a postion to explain how evolution could be accomodated with Christianity ... but unfortunately it seems to come at the price of destroying so many basic tenets of Christianity as to leave practically nothing of substance in its wake.

I have gone through all of these phases myself ... so I empathise fully with you and what you are trying to achieve.

I'm gona need proof texts for the notion of an eternal soul, I'v got loads for the notion of a soul dieing, being destroyed ect.
My position is we are reading terms that mean something in Jewish understanding with a Greek understanding. Their is no need for a separate eternal soul if we are heirs to eternal life.

robp

J C wrote: »

Was God involved in 'the appearance of language, spirituality and art' ... and if you believe He was ... how did this manifest itself?

Where is the theological and biblical justification for this?

I think you are looking at from a different angle then I. The appearance of the behaviours marked the maturation humans into us. Its behavioural modernity. If the soul constitutes the core of the person (where our love of spirituality, art, justice and truth etc) it is a logical point for the soul.

tommy2bad

robp wrote: »

I think you are looking at from a different angle then I. The appearance of the behaviours marked the maturation humans into us. Its behavioural modernity. If the soul constitutes the core of the person (where our love of spirituality, art, justice and truth etc) it is a logical point for the soul.

Or at the very least an indication of the existence of a soul by it properties being expressed.
Again we are in the territory of psychology rather than religion (same difference some would say). I would only see the development of art and culture as just that, developments. We are still the same creature that God created and loved from the beginning. The new thing is with this development we can return that love.

J.C.;
Where is the theological and biblical justification for this?

If biblical justification is the benchmark for it being 'true' then we are all screwed because so much in the bible is patently false that it's use as a benchmark is questionable in the first place.
The bible works for me, not because of it factuality but because it truth is applicable to the data we have now as much as it was 2000 years ago.

uck51js9zml2yt

tommy2bad wrote: »

Or at the very least an indication of the existence of a soul by it properties being expressed.
Again we are in the territory of psychology rather than religion (same difference some would say). I would only see the development of art and culture as just that, developments. We are still the same creature that God created and loved from the beginning. The new thing is with this development we can return that love.


If biblical justification is the benchmark for it being 'true' then we are all screwed because so much in the bible is patently false that it's use as a benchmark is questionable in the first place.
The bible works for me, not because of it factuality but because it truth is applicable to the data we have now as much as it was 2000 years ago.

What parts aren't true?
If it's not true then we have believed a lie and as Paul put it are the most wretched of men (paraphrased due to being on the bus)
If we begin to decide what part is true Glen we run the risk of calling the salvation of God a lie. If that's the case then we are without hope and in the wrong forum.

J C

Avah Chubby Guy wrote: »

What parts aren't true?
If it's not true then we have believed a lie and as Paul put it are the most wretched of men (paraphrased due to being on the bus)
If we begin to decide what part is true Glen we run the risk of calling the salvation of God a lie. If that's the case then we are without hope and in the wrong forum.

Thanks ... I agree 100% Avah Chubby Guy ... and I think this may be the passage you were talking about:-

1 Cor 15:13-19
13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

This seems to summarise the position of those who deny the existence of an eternal Human soul and by extension eternal life.

... so let's look at the positive with Paul for those who believe that Jesus Christ created Humans with an eternal destiny and died to ensure that we could, in justice, avail of it:-


1 Cor 15:20-26
20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

tommy2bad

Avah Chubby Guy wrote: »

What parts aren't true?
If it's not true then we have believed a lie and as Paul put it are the most wretched of men (paraphrased due to being on the bus)
If we begin to decide what part is true Glen we run the risk of calling the salvation of God a lie. If that's the case then we are without hope and in the wrong forum.

How about all of Genisis, none of that's factual. I have my doubts about Noah and wouldn't wager my outer garment on Job either.
The truth of the bible isn't in it historical accuracy as J.C. would insist though.

Oh and I notice that the goal posts are being moved as well.
J.C. now claims its an eternal destiny rather than a soul (by which I'm referring to the 21 grams bit)

J.C.;
This seems to summarise the position of those who deny the existence of an eternal Human soul and by extension eternal life.

Hmmmm OK so what? If Christ isn't resurrected then we are fools, but we are the Easter people and our song is hallelujah.
Why do we need this 21 gram soul to have life eternal? Is God not capiable of sustaining life without it? How dose the soulless animals live then even for a moment. Nah, makes no sense.
John 5:11-13 Better sense.

J C

tommy2bad wrote: »

How about all of Genisis, none of that's factual. I have my doubts about Noah and wouldn't wager my outer garment on Job either.

The truth of the bible isn't in it historical accuracy as J.C. would insist though.

What exactly is the truth of the Bible in ... if we can't believe a word it says???

Many people don't believe in God and/or His Bible ... but I can't see such a position as being that of a Christian of any description.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Oh and I notice that the goal posts are being moved as well.
J.C. now claims its an eternal destiny rather than a soul (by which I'm referring to the 21 grams bit)

No soul ... no salvation ... no eternal destiny ... and, if this is the case, we should all be practical Atheists ... or just simply Atheists.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Hmmmm OK so what? If Christ isn't resurrected then we are fools, but we are the Easter people and our song is hallelujah.

If Jesus Christ isn't resurrected we can call ourselves the Easter Bunny ... and whistle Dixie for all that it would ultimately matter!!!!;)

tommy2bad wrote: »

Why do we need this 21 gram soul to have life eternal? Is God not capiable of sustaining life without it? How dose the soulless animals live then even for a moment. Nah, makes no sense.
John 5:11-13 Better sense.

How does Jn 5:11-13 make any sense if Jesus Christ isn't resurrected and lives ... equally, how does any Bible passage mean anything if we can't rely on it's veracity?

lmaopml

Scripture is very important. It's the written 'word' of God. The 'Gospel' is good news always, it's more than a word, it's the word incarnate. That is so very important, it's the 'word' Incarnate.

Even without really being 'given' Christ properly for some who may be cynical and that is the lot they were given to deal with, it's very difficult to unknow Christ apparently, he is always there - and I think many are caught in between knowing what is best and what is not 'best', but very few don't board a bandwagon. Very few.

I think if one wants to know Christ than just simply ask sincerely, but be prepared for to meet the real deal if you are sincere. The best thing one can ever do imo is know Christ, and I think knowing love is absolutely not as polarised as one may think.

J C

lmaopml wrote: »

Scripture is very important. It's the written 'word' of God. The 'Gospel' is good news always, it's more than a word, it's the word incarnate. That is so very important, it's the 'word' Incarnate.

Even without really being 'given' Christ properly for some who may be cynical and that is the lot they were given to deal with, it's very difficult to unknow Christ apparently, he is always there - and I think many are caught in between knowing what is best and what is not 'best', but very few don't board a bandwagon. Very few.

I think if one wants to know Christ than just simply ask sincerely, but be prepared for to meet the real deal if you are sincere. The best thing one can ever do imo is know Christ, and I think knowing love is absolutely not as polarised as one may think.

There are many 'Christs' ... but only One by whom we may be Saved ... Jesus Christ.:)

lmaopml

J C wrote: »

There are many 'Christs' ... but only One by whom we may be Saved ... Jesus Christ.

Absolutely, and no arguing about that....only one King of Kings, one Judge, One God - that every knee will bow to. Yours, mine, theirs, everybody....

That's why every time we pray we pray in His name, we make our prayers through Christ always - there is a very good reason for it too, it's the only one that embodies God and that great triumph of the Cross. God is love. No name better...in Jesus name.

MrPudding

lmaopml wrote: »

Absolutely, and no arguing about that....only one King of Kings, one Judge, One God - that every knee will bow to. Yours, mine, theirs, everybody....

That's why every time we pray we pray in His name, we make our prayers through Christ always - there is a very good reason for it too, it's the only one that embodies God and that great triumph of the Cross. God is love. No name better...in Jesus name.

I think I just threw up a bit in my mouth.

MrP

tommy2bad

J C wrote: »

What exactly is the truth of the Bible in ... if we can't believe a word it says???

Many people don't believe in God and/or His Bible ... but I can't see such a position as being that of a Christian of any description.

It's a colection of stories, vesells to carry truth. Finger and moon, box and gift, you get the idea.

J C wrote: »

No soul ... no salvation ... no eternal destiny ... and, if this is the case, we should all be practical Atheists ... or just simply Atheists.

Why? Whats so nessary about a soul that our life depends on it? Isn't it God we depend on? Isn't God the one who decides life and death?

J C wrote: »

If Jesus Christ isn't resurrected we can call ourselves the Easter Bunny ... and whistle Dixie for all that it would ultimately matter!!!!;)

My point exactly. We have faith He is risen.

J C wrote: »

How does Jn 5:11-13 make any sense if Jesus Christ isn't resurrected and lives ... equally, how does any Bible passage mean anything if we can't rely on it's veracity?

I'm not sure what you are saying here. If we cant prove that the bible is literal fact and accurate historical record then it's worthless?
Do you really want to go down this road because most of the history in the bible is inaccurate (in fairness most history is) Theirs clear evidence that creation is far older than the bible indicates and no evidence for a lot of the stuff in the bible. dose the mythological parts of the old testament negate the gospels? Are the letters and acts all fiction because the flood never happened?

Still no need for a platonic soul to make any of it work. This soul idea comes from a notion that we cant think of anything that dosn''t exist so for us to imagine a new thing, that thing must exist in an ideal state. This notion of a perfect pre existing form gave rise to the notion of a soul and it's wrong. Unnecessary and reduces the power of God, the sustainer of life, creator of all things. For in him we live and move and have our being.

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

I think I just threw up a bit in my mouth.

MrP

I hear there is a bad old Flu about allright.

J C

tommy2bad wrote: »

It's a colection of stories, vesells to carry truth. Finger and moon, box and gift, you get the idea.

... if somebody tried that as their version of 'truth' under oath ... they'd be found guilty of perjury ... so why should such a poor standard of veracity be acceptable in the Bible.
The answer is that it's not ... either the Bible is a collection of 'fairy stories', like many non-Christians say, and is unworthy of any further consideration ... or it's the word of God upon which we can rely for guidance in this life and Salvation in the next.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Why? Whats so nessary about a soul that our life depends on it? Isn't it God we depend on? Isn't God the one who decides life and death?

God lays before us life and death ... and we choose.

tommy2bad wrote: »

My point exactly. We have faith He is risen.

Even the demons know that there is one God and therefore Jesus Christ lives ... and they shiver at the thought!!!

tommy2bad wrote: »

I'm not sure what you are saying here. If we cant prove that the bible is literal fact and accurate historical record then it's worthless?

I would say so ... otherwise all we have is a collection of 'fairytales'.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Do you really want to go down this road because most of the history in the bible is inaccurate (in fairness most history is) Theirs clear evidence that creation is far older than the bible indicates and no evidence for a lot of the stuff in the bible. dose the mythological parts of the old testament negate the gospels? Are the letters and acts all fiction because the flood never happened?

The resurrection would certainy not be needed if the Fall never happened ... and the Fall happened because a literal Adam existed.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Still no need for a platonic soul to make any of it work. This soul idea comes from a notion that we cant think of anything that dosn''t exist so for us to imagine a new thing, that thing must exist in an ideal state. This notion of a perfect pre existing form gave rise to the notion of a soul and it's wrong. Unnecessary and reduces the power of God, the sustainer of life, creator of all things. For in him we live and move and have our being.

... and what is that 'Being' ... if not our eternal soul?

... and how is God 'Creator of all things' if 'pitiless spontaneous evolution' actually did it?

tommy2bad

J C wrote: »

... if somebody tried that as their version of 'truth' under oath ... they'd be found guilty of perjury ... so why should such a poor standard of veracity be acceptable in the Bible.
The answer is that it's not ... either the Bible is a collection of 'fairy stories', like many non-Christians say, and is unworthy of any further consideration ... or it's the word of God upon which we can rely for guidance in this life and Salvation in the next.

Ahh I think I see now. Your version of God is as judge, jury and executioner. How OT.

J C wrote: »

God lays before us life and death ... and we choose.

Even the demons know that there is one God and therefore Jesus Christ lives ... and they shiver at the thought!!!

Now your just being silly!

J C wrote: »

I would say so ... otherwise all we have is a collection of 'fairytales'.

While you use 'all' as a reduction, I read it as 'everything'. What we have is stories and whether those stories are parables or history or poems, their their to teach not deceive. Jesus himself used stories to tell truths or was He just adding to the pile of fairy tails?

J C wrote: »

The resurrection would certainy not be needed if the Fall never happened ... and the Fall happened because a literal Adam existed.

... and what is that 'Being' ... if not our eternal soul?

... and how is God 'Creator of all things' if 'pitiless spontaneous evolution' actually did it?

So Soul is a metaphor for life? That's what I'm saying. At last your getting the picture.

J C

tommy2bad wrote: »

Ahh I think I see now. Your version of God is as judge, jury and executioner. How OT.

Jesus Christ will be judge, jury and executioner ... How very NT actually!!!:)

Matthew 25:31-46

New King James Version (NKJV)
The Son of Man Will Judge the Nations

31 “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. 33 And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; 36 I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? 38 When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? 39 Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40 And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’

41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’

tommy2bad wrote: »

While you use 'all' as a reduction, I read it as 'everything'. What we have is stories and whether those stories are parables or history or poems, their their to teach not deceive. Jesus himself used stories to tell truths or was He just adding to the pile of fairy tails?

Parables are stories with a moral purpose (and there are some parables clearly in the Bible) ... but the Bible isn't made up of only parables. There are many apparent factual accounts of historic phenomena in the Bible ... and if they never happened, the accounts as presented in the Bible could be construed as deception.

tommy2bad wrote: »

So Soul is a metaphor for life? That's what I'm saying. At last your getting the picture.

Our soul is our eternal spirit, that provides us with our eternal eternal destiny.

tommy2bad

Well J.C., you and I are never going to agree on this, you see a legalistic God and I see a father who fosters a process of growth.
You assume that what appears as history in the bible is history, I see story's told to impart a message, events being secondary to the message. Not the best way to record history but a good way to ground a message in the world of the audience.
You see a 21gramm soul as an immortal thing that even God cant destroy (A limit to god's power, surly not?) I don't see the need for any extra bits to be added to life for God to be the sustainer of life.

It's all a bit take your pick and pay your money anyway, we both will find out in the end and possibly laugh at how wrong we both were. I doubt St Peter will have a pop quiz on biblical inerancy at the pearly gates, I suspect it be more along the lines of 'what have you done for me lately?'
Hope we both can answer that one correctly.

J C

tommy2bad wrote: »

Well J.C., you and I are never going to agree on this, you see a legalistic God and I see a father who fosters a process of growth.

We may agree or disagree ... but one thing is certain, God isn't a legalist ... other than when we choose His Justice over His love and mercy.

tommy2bad wrote: »

You assume that what appears as history in the bible is history,

Not only do I assume that what appears as history in the bible is history ... I know it is.
Indeed, anything else would be to assume that the Bible has been written in a deceptive manner.

tommy2bad wrote: »

I see story's told to impart a message, events being secondary to the message. Not the best way to record history but a good way to ground a message in the world of the audience.

I take a plain reading of scripture ... reading poetry as poetry, parables as parables ... and historical/factual narrative as historical/factual narrative.

tommy2bad wrote: »

You see a 21gramm soul as an immortal thing that even God cant destroy (A limit to god's power, surly not?) I don't see the need for any extra bits to be added to life for God to be the sustainer of life.

There is nothing to add if I don't believe in Salvation ... we are born and we die ... and that's pretty much it ... if I'm an Atheist ...
... but I'm a Christian and I believe we all have a temporal and eternal destiny ... that is delivered via our eternal spirit.

tommy2bad wrote: »

It's all a bit take your pick and pay your money anyway, we both will find out in the end and possibly laugh at how wrong we both were. I doubt St Peter will have a pop quiz on biblical inerancy at the pearly gates, I suspect it be more along the lines of 'what have you done for me lately?'
Hope we both can answer that one correctly.

Without a soul, how do you think we will be able to inter-act with St Peter ... or much more Biblically likely, Jesus Christ Himself?

tommy2bad

J C wrote: »

We may agree or disagree ... but one thing is certain, God isn't a legalist ... other than when we choose His Justice over His love and mercy.

OK, I'll not argue with that.

J C wrote: »

Not only do I assume that what appears as history in the bible is history ... I know it is.
Indeed, anything else would be to assume that the Bible has been written in a deceptive manner.

Only decptive if they knew that you would take such a view.

J C wrote: »

I take a plain reading of scripture ... reading poetry as poetry, parables as parables ... and historical/factual narrative as historical/factual narrative.

Reductionism isn't the best way to deal with the bible, your missing half of it and sadly loosing the beauty .

J C wrote: »

There is nothing to add if I don't believe in Salvation ... we are born and we die ... and that's pretty much it ... if I'm an Atheist ...
... but I'm a Christian and I believe we all have a temporal and eternal destiny ... that is deivered via our eternal spirit.


Without a soul, how do you think you will be able to inter-act with St Peter ... or much more Biblically likely, Jesus Christ Himself?

OK so you see a soul a a necessary component for eternal life, sort of the bit that separates us from the rest of creation. I don't see us as separate, I see us as different but like the rest of creation we are dependent on God for life, He can end that life or restore that life. If he restores it then I'll interact with Jesus, St Peter, Jimi Hendrix and who ever the same way I do now, by talking and seeing and relating to them. Of course I'm promised a new body in heaven, (kind of a human .2), looking forward to it, this one is a bit batterd.

BTW, I'm not trying to persuade you of anything, just chewing the fat, hoping to learn something.

J C

tommy2bad wrote: »

OK, I'll not argue with that.

OK

tommy2bad wrote: »

Only decptive if they knew that you would take such a view.

If what appears as history in the Bible turns out to not be history ... that would be deceptive.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Reductionism isn't the best way to deal with the bible, your missing half of it and sadly loosing the beauty.

Which half of the Bible do you believe I am missing, Tommy?

tommy2bad wrote: »

OK so you see a soul a a necessary component for eternal life, sort of the bit that separates us from the rest of creation. I don't see us as separate, I see us as different but like the rest of creation we are dependent on God for life, He can end that life or restore that life. If he restores it then I'll interact with Jesus, St Peter, Jimi Hendrix and who ever the same way I do now, by talking and seeing and relating to them. Of course I'm promised a new body in heaven, (kind of a human .2), looking forward to it, this one is a bit batterd.

... at the resurrection of the dead our physical bodies will be restored to our souls.

tommy2bad wrote: »

BTW, I'm not trying to persuade you of anything, just chewing the fat, hoping to learn something.

We can all learn from each other.:)

tommy2bad

J C wrote: »

OK

If what appears as history in the Bible turns out to not be history ... that would be deceptive.

No It would be a mistake on your part for mistaking it for history. I could claim that because the movie Michael Collins is about real people and events that it's history but I would be wrong. The same for Spartacus, or Lincoln. It dosnt have to be Abraham Lincoln Vampire hunter to be obvious to us that the movie Lincoln isn't history.

J C wrote: »

Which half of the Bible do you believe I am missing, Tommy?

The bit you were intended to see if you read it as it was intended to be read TBH this would need a forum of it's own, Pick a bit that you think is history and give your plain reading and we can discuss what I take from the story.

J C wrote: »

... at the resurrection of the dead our physical bodies will be restored to our souls.

We can all learn from each other.:)

Why? Why dose the soul need a body in the next life? What's that about? Are we going to have to work? I'v been told the old pecker wont be needed so why bother with any of it? Unless life itself depends on a body to express itself with, in which case what exactly dose the soul do?
I get the soul as metaphor for life in God but as a reality, even a metaphysical reality it's redundant.

lmaopml

The resurrection of the body is part of the Christian Creed from the first -

Granted it's not something that we in general think of in every day life, we tend to think that people we love are at best 'out there somewhere enjoying a pint on a big bar stool in the sky' or, at worst, 'they're extinguished, gone, don't matter, never did, except for what they left' - but that's because we don't know the day or hour, and haven't been listening - and we've been taught good in that sense that we don't concentrate too much on it.

In truth however, if one knows the Creed they also know that there is a very good reason why Christ appeared with wounds and all after the resurrection.

We're the children of Easter after all - but what does that mean?

The Creed is really important.