My point was that there’s no factual answer, and that there’s no agreed upon canon. So you can pretty much make up what answer you want; it’s like asking whether Sauron had his hair parted on the right or left.
As pointed out, nonsense. Among the other problems with that claim is that we don’t have the instincts of some creature that was created to be good by default. We aren’t born blank slates; humans have natural instinctive tendencies, many of which aren’t very nice. For example, why do we have violent urges, if you are right? A species that had no built in urge for violence would still be perfectly capable of choosing violence, which means that not including violent urges in our instincts wouldn’t violate our supposed free will.
Our judgement is bad, and our impulses generally amoral. That’s not the design a benevolent creator would use.
Because that’s what the evidence has shown, as CurtC points out. The idea that there’s some bright line between humans and animals is the unjustified assertion, driven by ideology & theology. Not evidence.
Actually, at least some animals have been shown to have beliefs. Not as sophisticated as those of humans, but they have a model of the world in their heads that they act on. This “every animal but humans are just automatons driven by stimulus and response” idea is archaic.
I guess I’m not sure what makes your interpretation of the Bible more authoritative and less silly than someone else’s? There’s nothing in the text of the Bible that supports your view of prophecy, and certainly not all Christians draw the inference that Judas acted without free will.
In any event, an argument over whether cavemen had souls seems like an unlikely place to become condescending over whose perspectives are silly and whose are not.
You yourself said that some erecti did things like caring for the infirm among them. Well, then, a simple enough criterion is that those erecti who cared for their infirm brethren get into Heaven, and those erecti who didn’t care for their brethren don’t get into Heaven.
Personally, I have no problem conceiving of dogs and cats in Heaven, so I can certainly conceive of chimps and erecti there as well. Where’s the threshold? I don’t know. I expect I’ll find out eventually, and am in no hurry to hasten the lesson.
If you are honestly this ignorant of Christian theology then you really have no place in this debate, much less calling the posts of others nonsense.
The violent instinct of humans is a result of the fall, along with death, disease and aging. None of those traits of humanity were created by God. Humans as created by God did not have violent urges, they did not have bad judgment, they did not have amoral impulses.
Violent urges, bad judgment and amoral impulses are all the result of humans freely choosing to reject God and make their own judgments on morality.
I am astounded that anybody living in the USA could be ignorant of this core tenet of Christian theology.
What about tribes of hunter-gatherers deep within Africa or in Indonesia 100 years ago who never had contact with outside civilizations? Are they now in heaven?
Lucy/Turkana/Neanderthalis/Whoever:“So, let me get this straight, I’m the first person who will live on after death?”
God (having been utterly silent for 13.7 billion years): “YES”
L/T/N/W: “What about mum and dad over there?”
G: "SORRY, THEY’RE JUST FRUIT FLIES, PHILOSOPHICALLY SPEAKING. STILL, AT LEAST THEY WON’T SUFFER ETERNITY IN HELL FOR THE ACTIONS THAT WILL HENCEFORTH BE CALLED ‘EVIL’. "
L/T/N/W: “Oh … And you’re supposed to be the good guy?”
OK, that’s a start. But my point was that thereafter, and certainly today, the individual who didn’t ‘care for’ the infirm in some way would I imagine be rare indeed. Would not everyone get in under this criterion? Even some animals (if such there are)?
Are you still playing Angel’s advocate here, Blake? How, in your opinion as either theist or atheist, does the Fall make any possible sense in light of gradual evolution?
But your suggestion that the first individual to live on after death is the one who first had the idea of life after death is interesting. It sounds like the very definition of wishful thinking, no?
OK, I realize you’re just playing YHWH’s advocate here, but in this view, you’re saying that bad judgment itself is a result of the bad judgment of choosing to reject God’s instructions? What was that first instance of bad judgment the result of? Sounds like a design bug.
To take the RC, humans *physically * evolved gradually, but at some point we were imbued with a soul. With the soul came all the characteristics of man as we know them: self awareness, artistry, speech and so forth. The fall as described in the scriptures is that self aware man turning from the path that God had prepared for him.
I can’t see anything in that particular interpretation that is nonsensical. There’s no evidence for it of course, but that doesn’t make it nonsensical in and of itself.
As an atheist it doesn’t make any sense because the Christian God makes no sense, regardless of gradual evolution or creation ex nihilo.
On this point at least the scripture is fairly clear.
God had a path prepared for humanity that would have ensured perpetual life in a paradise. No death, no disease, no labor. Part of that plan was that mankind would have free will, but that they would follow the guidance of God in exchange for God’s blessing and future guidance. IOW people didn’t have to worry about good and evil and consequences, that was all delegated to God. So long as they followed God’s instructions they were all right.
At first all was fine, but under the urging of the serpent mankind decided that they wanted to follow their own guidance on what was right and what was wrong rather than following God’s standards. So they got to use precisely that ability. As God put it “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.”
IOW God gave man a choice. Listen to what I say and and you will never have to worry about putting a foot wrong and all will be literally paradise. Or follow your own judgement and you will have to agonise over every action and try to determine the morality of it forever more. We chose the latter.
So bad judgment wasn’t the result of bad judgment. Bad judgement is the result of choosing not to accept God’s guidance. Humanity wanted the ability to analyse good and evil and excercise choice, rather than simply doing what God dictated, and they got what they chose to have.
The original plan was not for humans to have bad judgement. We were supposed to have access to an infallible guide to let us know the wisest source of action in all circumstances. And that gide told us that the wisest course was to continue listening to him and not try to decide good and evil for ourselves. Once we made that choice we go the whole deal: no future guidance and the need to make our own judgements on every issue.
You can argue I suppose that choosing not to follow God’s guidance was bad judgment, but once again we’re back at the inevitable consequence of free will. If humans couldn’t have chosen not to follow God’s advice then they didn’t have free will by definition. But once we chose to have the ability to decide morality for ourselves we got the whole enchilada, and bad judgement is an inevitable consequence of that.
But surely self awareness, artisty and speech not only developed gradually themselves, but almost certainly at different times and rates? A self-unaware mute clod giving birth to an artistic self-aware chatterbox is pretty nonsensical given the evidence, wouldn’t you say? And if such developments were gradual, would the supposedly Fallen child not be following exactly the same path as her parents, with God suddenly and arbitrarily deciding that said path was now ‘wrong’?
OK, that was just my understanding - after all, self-awareness is apparent in creatures with a much smaller encephalisation quotient than humans eventually attained, whereas ‘artistry’ is only in evidence much more recently. Am I mistaken?
You wouldn’t say that a woman who cannot speak or even recognise herself as an individual giving birth to a speaking, self-aware child is a rather absurd proposition given the gradual nature of evolution? It sounds like the very definition of a hopeful monster to me.
Please, help me out here - you’re responding as “Blake the Christian apologetic”, right? And my suggestion that the development of speech, artistry and self-awareness was gradual is akin to calling a person with wheels a shopping cart? I don’t understand this exchange.
