Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

Getting Accepted Into Heaven

Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2010 11:37:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I just had a really interesting thought.

Almost all modern theologians, bishops, cardinals etc. accept that evolution is a scientific fact and that it is not fundamentally at odds with the truth of Christianity. This is a good thing, I suppose. However, the liberal interpretation of scripture does seem to have one rather peculiar problem.

If God doesn't allow animals into heaven, since they aren't made in his image, then this would create some rather difficult problems for certain species admittance into heaven.

In the recent past, our ancestors were most certainly not human, in any traditional sense. Therefore, at some point along the continuum that gave rise to humans God would have to draw an arbitrary line as to what members of the Homo genus would admitted into heaven and what members would be rejected.

Well, what are your thoughts?
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2010 11:43:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Isaiah 65:25 The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox, but dust will be the serpent's food. They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain

^ Animals in heaven. :P

Revelation has beasts of the earth recognise the Lamb too.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2010 4:51:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I would imagine that the typical answer would either be like above, that animals go to heaven or that even though in the view of evolution humans are animals, we are different in that God gave us a soul at some point (so that humanity has an "after life" and animals do not).
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2010 7:55:29 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/31/2010 11:37:32 PM, Freeman wrote:
I just had a really interesting thought.


Almost all modern theologians, bishops, cardinals etc. accept that evolution is a scientific fact and that it is not fundamentally at odds with the truth of Christianity. This is a good thing, I suppose. However, the liberal interpretation of scripture does seem to have one rather peculiar problem.

If God doesn't allow animals into heaven, since they aren't made in his image, then this would create some rather difficult problems for certain species admittance into heaven.

In the recent past, our ancestors were most certainly not human, in any traditional sense. Therefore, at some point along the continuum that gave rise to humans God would have to draw an arbitrary line as to what members of the Homo genus would admitted into heaven and what members would be rejected.

Well, what are your thoughts?

That 'almost all modern theologians, bishops, cardinals etc' have capitulated to the worlds view of the genesis of life doesn't make it a fact; it only means that they are abject cowards who will not themselves inherit the Kingdom.
The Cross.. the Cross.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2010 9:35:15 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
it only means that they are abject cowards who will not themselves inherit the Kingdom.

Wow, that really sucks for them!
heart_of_the_matter
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2010 12:56:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/31/2010 11:37:32 PM, Freeman wrote:
I just had a really interesting thought.


Almost all modern theologians, bishops, cardinals etc. accept that evolution is a scientific fact and that it is not fundamentally at odds with the truth of Christianity. This is a good thing, I suppose. However, the liberal interpretation of scripture does seem to have one rather peculiar problem.

If God doesn't allow animals into heaven, since they aren't made in his image, then this would create some rather difficult problems for certain species admittance into heaven.

In the recent past, our ancestors were most certainly not human, in any traditional sense. Therefore, at some point along the continuum that gave rise to humans God would have to draw an arbitrary line as to what members of the Homo genus would admitted into heaven and what members would be rejected.

Well, what are your thoughts?

Freeman thank you for the interesting topic!
Here is a link that describes my basic beliefs on the subject pretty well:
http://www.lds.org...

As far as the answer to your question...in summary:
The origin of man = People are literal sons and daughters of God (our spirits).
We did not "evolve" into that.

Boyd K. Packer (a leader in the Church) also pointed out that the Priesthood of God cannot have bloodlines that extend to beasts...in his talk "The Law and The Light"....
that talk was given to counteract a false doctrine being spread at BYU that first there was the primordial ooze then from that it evolved into Adam and Eve and THEN they were placed in the garden of Eden ---> Boyd K. Packer presented his talk to counteract that false doctrine of the origin of man.
moleff.com/church/TheLawandtheLight.pdf

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The talk [linked below] was mostly about being kind to animals... but as far as animals being in heaven it has a little bit:
http://www.lds.org...

"Further explaining John's vision in the book of Revelation and the place of animals in the afterlife, the Prophet Joseph explained that John probably saw beings in heaven of a "thousand forms" that were "strange beasts of which we have no conception," and that all animals "might be seen in heaven." He also stated: "John learned that God glorified Himself by saving all that His hands had made, whether beasts, fowls, fishes, or men. …" (DHC, vol. 5, p. 343.) "
nickthengineer
Posts: 251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2010 4:33:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/31/2010 11:37:32 PM, Freeman wrote:
I just had a really interesting thought.

If God doesn't allow animals into heaven, since they aren't made in his image, then this would create some rather difficult problems for certain species admittance into heaven.

In the recent past, our ancestors were most certainly not human, in any traditional sense. Therefore, at some point along the continuum that gave rise to humans God would have to draw an arbitrary line as to what members of the Homo genus would admitted into heaven and what members would be rejected.

Well, what are your thoughts?

You are dumb. Don't you know that all dogs go to Heaven???

Seriously though, I will grant to you for a second that evolution is true in order to address the issue. If the original 'humans' that God gave souls (and the chance of going to Heaven) to have evolved into different looking 'humans', the burden is on you to demonstrate at what point a species would be so changed that it no longer has a soul like its ancestors (which you can't prove or hardly even attempt to argue, as a soul is not a physical thing).

Therefore, it does not follow that God would arbitrarily draw a line anywhere. If ALL of the descendants of the original souled beings still have souls, fine. If only SOME of the descendants of the original souled beings still have souls, fine. Whatever still has a soul has the chance to go to Heaven. I don't see how your argument requires God to arbitrarily draw a line anywhere.
I evolved from stupid. (http://www.debate.org...)
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2010 5:49:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/1/2010 9:35:15 AM, Floid wrote:
it only means that they are abject cowards who will not themselves inherit the Kingdom.

Wow, that really sucks for them!

Yeah, especially since they devoted their life to Christ and all!
President of DDO
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2010 4:22:35 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/5/2010 5:49:21 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 2/1/2010 9:35:15 AM, Floid wrote:
it only means that they are abject cowards who will not themselves inherit the Kingdom.

Wow, that really sucks for them!

Yeah, especially since they devoted their life to Christ and all!

Just like the Pharisees devoted their lives to God;

Matthew 15:14
Leave them; they are blind guides. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit."
Matthew 15:13-15 (in Context) Matthew 15 (Whole Chapter)
Matthew 23:16
"Woe to you, blind guides! You say, 'If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.'
Matthew 23:15-17 (in Context) Matthew 23 (Whole Chapter)
Matthew 23:24
You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
Matthew 23:23-25 (in Context) Matthew 23 (Whole Chapter)
The Cross.. the Cross.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2010 6:31:45 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/6/2010 4:22:35 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:

Matthew 23:24
You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

God = one BIG camel
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2010 3:50:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/5/2010 4:33:31 PM, nickthengineer wrote:
Seriously though, I will grant to you for a second that evolution is true in order to address the issue. If the original 'humans' that God gave souls (and the chance of going to Heaven) to have evolved into different looking 'humans', the burden is on you to demonstrate at what point a species would be so changed that it no longer has a soul like its ancestors (which you can't prove or hardly even attempt to argue, as a soul is not a physical thing).

Although since evolution is true, you dont have to grant that point at all, the point about this argument isnt that these christian evolutionists have to define at what point a species receive their souls, but rather, the contradiction within Christianity where our ancestors were not humans, yet we humans have souls and do get into heaven.

In other words, where is the line drawn when the soul enters a human, and not an ape, if evolution is true?

And since weve already established that Evolution is true, and since you are the one claiming that a soul exists, the burden of proof is on you.

Therefore, it does not follow that God would arbitrarily draw a line anywhere. If ALL of the descendants of the original souled beings still have souls, fine. If only SOME of the descendants of the original souled beings still have souls, fine. Whatever still has a soul has the chance to go to Heaven. I don't see how your argument requires God to arbitrarily draw a line anywhere.

The line that must be drawn, has nothing to do with the descendants of the ones who had souls, but rather the first souls that ever existed in the first place. At what point did apes have no souls, and at what point did they gain souls and become "Human"?
nickthengineer
Posts: 251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2010 8:29:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/6/2010 3:50:19 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 2/5/2010 4:33:31 PM, nickthengineer wrote:
Seriously though, I will grant to you for a second that evolution is true in order to address the issue. If the original 'humans' that God gave souls (and the chance of going to Heaven) to have evolved into different looking 'humans', the burden is on you to demonstrate at what point a species would be so changed that it no longer has a soul like its ancestors (which you can't prove or hardly even attempt to argue, as a soul is not a physical thing).

Although since evolution is true, you dont have to grant that point at all, the point about this argument isnt that these christian evolutionists have to define at what point a species receive their souls, but rather, the contradiction within Christianity where our ancestors were not humans, yet we humans have souls and do get into heaven.

In other words, where is the line drawn when the soul enters a human, and not an ape, if evolution is true?

And since weve already established that Evolution is true, and since you are the one claiming that a soul exists, the burden of proof is on you.

Therefore, it does not follow that God would arbitrarily draw a line anywhere. If ALL of the descendants of the original souled beings still have souls, fine. If only SOME of the descendants of the original souled beings still have souls, fine. Whatever still has a soul has the chance to go to Heaven. I don't see how your argument requires God to arbitrarily draw a line anywhere.

The line that must be drawn, has nothing to do with the descendants of the ones who had souls, but rather the first souls that ever existed in the first place. At what point did apes have no souls, and at what point did they gain souls and become "Human"?

If I were a theistic evolutionist, my response to you would be something like this: the Genesis account of Creation is not literal, but rather just a story to teach us about God's creative power. Evolution as it is presently described is true and accurate. Modern humans had ancestors that looks more like cavemen, and the ancestors of those looked more like apes. The Bible tells us that God gave men souls about 6000 years ago (give or take). That whole "Creation Week" doesn't matter; billions of years after the big bang, while evolution was naturally occurring, God took human like creatures and made them different by giving them souls (about 6000 years ago). Thus, for the first time humans had the chance to go to Heaven, but not anything else because God did not give anything else a soul. Humans today are descendants of the humans of 6000 years ago and have thus evolved only slightly, so practically nothing compared to the primordial soup we started from. That is why we can go to Heaven and apes can't.

If I were a YEC and a right wing, Bible thumping, evolution ignoring, science hater, my response would be something like this: God made humans from nothing and gave them souls the first instant they were alive, and thus all humans today still have souls and the chance to go to Heaven. Souls were never given to apes or any other animals. Essentially, no difference at all from the theistic evolutionist, other than how we get to the starting point of this issue, when God gave ONLY HUMANS AND NOTHING ELSE souls.

Your point thus applies to no Christians that I have ever heard of. Your starting point seems to be the first things that remotely resembled humans millions of years ago and the fact that they may have evolved into different looking things by now, some humans, some monkeys, some cats, whatever. That is a fallacious point to start at if we are considering the Bible. Even for Christians who call the Creation week a 'creative process that is accurately described by the theory of evolution', the end of that story has God giving souls to humans. Using this as our starting point, the genealogies starting with Adam add up to about 6000 years til our present day.

The issue of whether some apes still have souls is grossly misleading. No apes ever had souls. The first things to have souls were humans only about 6000 years ago, regardless of whether you are a Christian that thinks humans evolved up to that point.
I evolved from stupid. (http://www.debate.org...)
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2010 5:02:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/6/2010 8:29:53 PM, nickthengineer wrote:
Your point thus applies to no Christians that I have ever heard of.

Really, cause ive heard of a christian that:
1. Accepts Jesus as his lord and savior and God and the Bible and Jesus' life and lessons and parables
2. Accepts Evolution to be true and common ancestry of humans and apes.

This thread, in essence, is directed to these types of christians.

Your starting point seems to be the first things that remotely resembled humans millions of years ago and the fact that they may have evolved into different looking things by now, some humans, some monkeys, some cats, whatever. That is a fallacious point to start at if we are considering the Bible. Even for Christians who call the Creation week a 'creative process that is accurately described by the theory of evolution', the end of that story has God giving souls to humans. Using this as our starting point, the genealogies starting with Adam add up to about 6000 years til our present day.

Actually, and maybe youve never met this sort of christian, but i have, there are some christians who reject Adam and Eve and the story of Eden as being literal, and consider it more of a metaphor for the reason why we have good and evil.

The issue of whether some apes still have souls is grossly misleading. No apes ever had souls. The first things to have souls were humans only about 6000 years ago, regardless of whether you are a Christian that thinks humans evolved up to that point.

Although human history, and yes, i do use the word Human, reaches far beyond 6000, for example, the domestication of Dogs occurred about 10,000 years ago by humans who knew how to herd, I dont think the issue here is whether or not Apes have souls, but, rather when did the apes, who evolved into humans, attained their souls. For example, did Cavemen have souls, even if they could be classified as Homo Sapien in any sense?
nickthengineer
Posts: 251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2010 8:07:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/7/2010 5:02:52 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 2/6/2010 8:29:53 PM, nickthengineer wrote:
Your point thus applies to no Christians that I have ever heard of.

Really, cause ive heard of a christian that:
1. Accepts Jesus as his lord and savior and God and the Bible and Jesus' life and lessons and parables
2. Accepts Evolution to be true and common ancestry of humans and apes.

This thread, in essence, is directed to these types of christians.

I already addressed this. I called them theistic evolutionists. They still believe people have souls obviously and that this occurred 6000-12000 years ago (if you think there are gaps in the genealogies). Well, maybe some of them think it was still possibly a few million years ago. Read my last paragraph below.

Your starting point seems to be the first things that remotely resembled humans millions of years ago and the fact that they may have evolved into different looking things by now, some humans, some monkeys, some cats, whatever. That is a fallacious point to start at if we are considering the Bible. Even for Christians who call the Creation week a 'creative process that is accurately described by the theory of evolution', the end of that story has God giving souls to humans. Using this as our starting point, the genealogies starting with Adam add up to about 6000 years til our present day.

Actually, and maybe youve never met this sort of christian, but i have, there are some christians who reject Adam and Eve and the story of Eden as being literal, and consider it more of a metaphor for the reason why we have good and evil.

Maybe I'm confused on what exactly you mean here, but I think I already described exactly this as theistic evolutionists (those who believe in God and Christ and think that God guided evolution, and they reject the whole Creation week story as literal). I don't really think we're arguing here.

The issue of whether some apes still have souls is grossly misleading. No apes ever had souls. The first things to have souls were humans only about 6000 years ago, regardless of whether you are a Christian that thinks humans evolved up to that point.

Although human history, and yes, i do use the word Human, reaches far beyond 6000, for example, the domestication of Dogs occurred about 10,000 years ago by humans who knew how to herd, I dont think the issue here is whether or not Apes have souls, but, rather when did the apes, who evolved into humans, attained their souls. For example, did Cavemen have souls, even if they could be classified as Homo Sapien in any sense?

This depends on what you mean by cavemen. Do you mean people of 6000, 20,000, or 100,000 years ago? It doesn't really matter for the point I am trying to make. I'll try to make it more clear.

"X" years ago, while evolution was naturally occurring, God decided to make the 'humans' into something special by giving them souls. Therefore, all humans from "X" years ago up til today still have souls. The only question is how long ago "X" was and whether or not some ape-like creatures, who are now so different from modern man that they cannot communicate with us, evolved from those "X" men. I'm not even sure that Christians who believe in evolution and the millions of years timeline think that the cavemen evolved both into what became modern man and modern apes.

I'm sure you can clarify the evolutionists stance for me. By the time of what we would call 'cavemen' or 'homosapiens', were they already in a separate "branch" from the apes and other monkeys? If that's what evolution says, then I think even theistic evolutionists agree that nothing truly ape-like ever had a soul, only the cavemen and on. We would only run into the question of modern day apes (or anything else) having souls if evolution says that modern day apes (or anything else) evolved from what we would call cavemen (but that would seem to be devolving to me, not evolving).
I evolved from stupid. (http://www.debate.org...)
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2010 8:51:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/6/2010 4:22:35 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 2/5/2010 5:49:21 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 2/1/2010 9:35:15 AM, Floid wrote:
it only means that they are abject cowards who will not themselves inherit the Kingdom.

Wow, that really sucks for them!

Yeah, especially since they devoted their life to Christ and all!

Just like the Pharisees devoted their lives to God;

Matthew 15:14
Leave them; they are blind guides. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit."
Matthew 15:13-15 (in Context) Matthew 15 (Whole Chapter)
Matthew 23:16
"Woe to you, blind guides! You say, 'If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.'
Matthew 23:15-17 (in Context) Matthew 23 (Whole Chapter)
Matthew 23:24
You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
Matthew 23:23-25 (in Context) Matthew 23 (Whole Chapter)


Well actually DAT. Bishops and such give up everything to serve Christ. They do as St. Paul said, it is better for a man NOT to marry like I did. A married man has to worry about his wife and children, and so does a woman. They believe they are serving Christ the way they believe. It is you that are judging their hearts by your personal interpretation of Holy Scripture. I'm not absolute on this but I think that is a no no. But that's just my opinion.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2010 6:37:00 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/7/2010 8:07:23 PM, nickthengineer wrote:

I already addressed this. I called them theistic evolutionists. They still believe people have souls obviously and that this occurred 6000-12000 years ago (if you think there are gaps in the genealogies). Well, maybe some of them think it was still possibly a few million years ago. Read my last paragraph below.
Then why did you say that youve never heard of such christians before?

Maybe I'm confused on what exactly you mean here, but I think I already described exactly this as theistic evolutionists (those who believe in God and Christ and think that God guided evolution, and they reject the whole Creation week story as literal). I don't really think we're arguing here.

Neither do i.

This depends on what you mean by cavemen. Do you mean people of 6000, 20,000, or 100,000 years ago? It doesn't really matter for the point I am trying to make. I'll try to make it more clear.

By Cavemen, i mean Homo sapiens who lived in caves. It doesnt matter if this was 9000 or 15000 years ago, if they were living in caves and they were homo sapiens, then they would be cavemen.

"X" years ago, while evolution was naturally occurring, God decided to make the 'humans' into something special by giving them souls. Therefore, all humans from "X" years ago up til today still have souls. The only question is how long ago "X" was and whether or not some ape-like creatures, who are now so different from modern man that they cannot communicate with us, evolved from those "X" men. I'm not even sure that Christians who believe in evolution and the millions of years timeline think that the cavemen evolved both into what became modern man and modern apes.

Neither does Evolution state that cavemen evolved into modern apes and modern man.

I'm sure you can clarify the evolutionists stance for me. By the time of what we would call 'cavemen' or 'homosapiens', were they already in a separate "branch" from the apes and other monkeys? If that's what evolution says, then I think even theistic evolutionists agree that nothing truly ape-like ever had a soul, only the cavemen and on. We would only run into the question of modern day apes (or anything else) having souls if evolution says that modern day apes (or anything else) evolved from what we would call cavemen (but that would seem to be devolving to me, not evolving).

First of all, humans are apes. That alone would probably clarify evolution for you.

So there is no "Branching off FROM apes", because we ARE apes.
SaintNick
Posts: 115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2010 8:20:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/8/2010 6:37:00 AM, tkubok wrote:

First of all, humans are apes. That alone would probably clarify evolution for you.

So there is no "Branching off FROM apes", because we ARE apes.

It's true, lol. We didn't descend from apes as we ARE apes classified under the ape species. It always bothers me that opponents of evolution know nothing about science :-(
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2010 9:06:15 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/8/2010 8:20:09 AM, SaintNick wrote:
At 2/8/2010 6:37:00 AM, tkubok wrote:

First of all, humans are apes. That alone would probably clarify evolution for you.

So there is no "Branching off FROM apes", because we ARE apes.

It's true, lol. We didn't descend from apes as we ARE apes classified under the ape species. It always bothers me that opponents of evolution know nothing about science :-(

I feel as though some of them are ignorant, but some of them are deliberately trying to classify humans outside of Apes in order to further their beliefs.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2010 10:25:03 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/8/2010 9:06:15 AM, tkubok wrote:

I feel as though some of them are ignorant, but some of them are deliberately trying to classify humans outside of Apes in order to further their beliefs.

How can they "deliberately try to classify humans outside of Apes?" Humans are genetically and morphologically classified under the ape species; we didn't descend from apes but we descended from a single proto-ape species... You can't change or ignore the facts (well, I guess you can, but it's just lol).
President of DDO
nickthengineer
Posts: 251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2010 11:03:48 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/8/2010 6:37:00 AM, tkubok wrote:

First of all, humans are apes. That alone would probably clarify evolution for you.

So there is no "Branching off FROM apes", because we ARE apes.

I thought you would get the point. By modern ape I meant one of this things
http://www.junglewalk.com...

as opposed to modern man, by which I mean one of us.

If evolution doesn't say that cavemen are the ancestors of both the us AND the apes in the link I provided, then there is no question about whether some animals might have souls. The first things to have souls were ancient MAN, no matter how ancient you actually mean.
I evolved from stupid. (http://www.debate.org...)
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2010 4:56:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/8/2010 11:03:48 AM, nickthengineer wrote:
I thought you would get the point. By modern ape I meant one of this things
http://www.junglewalk.com...

as opposed to modern man, by which I mean one of us.

If evolution doesn't say that cavemen are the ancestors of both the us AND the apes in the link I provided, then there is no question about whether some animals might have souls. The first things to have souls were ancient MAN, no matter how ancient you actually mean.

This is the same as saying;

By apple, i meant one of these things:
http://www.oranges.com...

Youve basically overwritten the standard definition for what constitutes as an ape. Sorry to tell you, but humans are apes. If, by ancient MAN, you are talking about HOMO SAPIEN as opposed to EVERYTHING ELSE, then thats fine. But man is still an ape.
nickthengineer
Posts: 251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2010 6:53:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/8/2010 4:56:52 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 2/8/2010 11:03:48 AM, nickthengineer wrote:
I thought you would get the point. By modern ape I meant one of this things
http://www.junglewalk.com...

as opposed to modern man, by which I mean one of us.

If evolution doesn't say that cavemen are the ancestors of both the us AND the apes in the link I provided, then there is no question about whether some animals might have souls. The first things to have souls were ancient MAN, no matter how ancient you actually mean.

This is the same as saying;

By apple, i meant one of these things:
http://www.oranges.com...

Youve basically overwritten the standard definition for what constitutes as an ape. Sorry to tell you, but humans are apes. If, by ancient MAN, you are talking about HOMO SAPIEN as opposed to EVERYTHING ELSE, then thats fine. But man is still an ape.

Goodness. You know full well that 99% of people who would read what I wrote would understand what I meant by modern apes, given that I used the term modern man in the same post.

None of these things that I am calling X's

http://www.picturesof.net...

ever evolved into one of these things that I am calling Y's

http://www.junglewalk.com...

Souls were originally given only to X's, which means no Y's can have souls and thus cannot go to Heaven. If you are proud of your semantics that's fine, but please use in moderation. You are not bringing anything more to the table with this sillyness. Calm down.
I evolved from stupid. (http://www.debate.org...)
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2010 6:10:22 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/8/2010 6:53:11 PM, nickthengineer wrote:
Goodness. You know full well that 99% of people who would read what I wrote would understand what I meant by modern apes, given that I used the term modern man in the same post.

Yes, and 99% of the people are mistaken. Its the same with the people who say "Well evolution is just a theory, unproven, and has no basis. Even evolutionists admit its just a theory". Youve got the fundemental definition of the word, wrong.

None of these things that I am calling X's

http://www.picturesof.net...

ever evolved into one of these things that I am calling Y's

http://www.junglewalk.com...

Souls were originally given only to X's, which means no Y's can have souls and thus cannot go to Heaven. If you are proud of your semantics that's fine, but please use in moderation. You are not bringing anything more to the table with this sillyness. Calm down.

I did not play semantics. This is the accepted, TRUE definition in regards to what constitutes as Apes and whether Humans enter in. Id rather you use the proper, correct definition. Wouldnt you? Or would you like to deliberately keep on using the wrong one? And if so, why would you want to do that?

But the question here, is not "What" it entered in, but rather, "When". When did the souls enter the body if evolution is correct? This is he question we are posing here.