What was the purpose of multiple species in the grand plan?
In a previous post there was some discussion on whether Neanderthals had a soul. Just one of many :) posters came to the conclusion (as did I) that they did indeed have a soul as a species that sought after spiritual enlightenment. Then the question was posed if this was christian-based or not. Now that is a good question. Just what was the purpose of having multiple species on this earth? Homo Erectus, Homo Sapien, Neanderthal. They all lived on the earth at the same time, and many other species preceded them. Were they all just part of a greater human experiment where God sat back to see which would become the ultimate survivor? Well, the Homo Sapien's won that battle around 25,000 years ago. Why did it then take another 19,000 years for God to reveal his eternal plan to Adam and Eve? Just having trouble reconciling all this with what is taught in the scriptures.
posted by Bishop Rick @ Saturday, July 22, 2006
18 comments
18 Comments:
If you're having trouble wondering why it took so long to get God's plan to Adam and Eve, you're already wrong :-)
Adam and Eve were it, number 1, first in line.
There are no Neaderthals. Let alone those other mythical critters.
What's so hard to understand about that?
But seriously ... it's just one more problem with trying to take the Bible as inerrant literal fact. It's a collection of teaching stories written by people who had no clue from reality. A priest I used to know argued that God waited until H sapiens (back then, Neanderthals were considered H sapien neaderthalensis instead of a different species) acquired the power of abstract thought & language and then reached down and gave us a soul; in fact, he argued that the two were synonomous.
So, perhaps we and all our cousins know god, one way or another.
Or not.
But all alike.
Ridger,
That is precisely my point. I don't believe the bible to be literal and am posing questions to initiate that dialogue.
It's related to the question about life on other planets and whether God revealed himself to them as well (or people in parralel universes?).
C.S.Lewis suggests (if I understand him correctly) that past, present and future merge in the eternal so that if Jesus did something at a particular time in history the effects of that travel in all directions in the space-time continuum.
But I guess that doesn't really answer your question at all...
I'm working on a hairbrained half-baked theory regarding the de-evolution of all things on earth.... I propose that neanderthals weren't human at all, but apes at the height of their existence. Also I propose that in a few million years, humans will have de-evolved to the point where we appear to be highly insecure chimps.
http://mysterymessiah.blogspot.com
Ummm.. interesting question... Personally, I think all animals have souls.
And, if you want to know when someone becomes interested in ideas... (if you look at the pyramid) it is usually after the basic items of food and shelter are taken care of... You can't think if you still have to scrounge for food and you are worried about the elements and how they affect your family.
I think what people have a hard time with conceptually is that as man evolved, his brain also did and eventually we developed the ability to wonder and hope. I believe the idea of god is man's creation, and that homo-erectus just wasn't "intelligent" enough to wonder about it as like other animals. We are still animals, made up of biomatter...we just have the ability to reason.
Dar,
So are you saying that if all species had survived to today, that they may have all evolved to the point where religion would be a factor with them all?
Neanderthal had evolved nearly as much as homo sapien. Brain size was equivalent, and there were shared traits. Of course they occupied the same areas of Europe for 10s of thousands of years, so homo sapien could have actually accelerated Neanderthal's advancement, which is something I had not considered until just now.
If that is the case, that would support that possibility that Neanderthal could have evolved to the level of homo sapien if they had survived. Perhaps it was life experiences and outside influences that put HS ahead of Neanderthal. Something like, HS started eating meat sooner, providing more protien for brain development sooner, and this happened by pure luck. Who knows?
Exactly...who knows?
I have some canine-loving friends who would say that humans are no different than dog breeds. Temperments, intelligence and behaviors are more of a genetic influence than training / social upbringing.
Hitler felt the same way, so we don't want to go there.
I am a creationist, call me narrow-minded on the issue, but I haven't seen a founding culture (on this whole planet) that proposed we evolved (no historical trace of the idea). I think if we came from apes or some other type of animal there would be proof from the founding cultures of the world, nothing exists. Maybe they aren't as smart us...maybe they they were not as naive.
I think evolution is a great 'theory', but it lacks the backing of history in my opinion. It's easy to say both neandrathals and homo sapiens exist together. It's just as easy to say one came from the other, like a line that evolved. It's the tracing back of that evolving line that makes little sense to me. Is this because babies come from a sperm and an egg (I almost wonder if this theory caught fire cause of this - it's a simple cell structure)? Some odd reason that simple cell structure always produces a baby human and never a monkey (or ape). Then when someone has sex with our closest specimen in dna (the ape) we get AIDS (was a proposed theory)? Something doesn't add up.
Call me a pessimist but evolution doesn't match up with history. My founding peoples (First Nations in Canada) never proposed nor ever believed such a theory. Why? There stories are quite close to creationism and it would be a shame to ignore my ancestors. They passed on my lineage to me.
societyvs,
I don't think you are narrow minded. On the contrary, you seem to be someone that has pondered this subject with would mean you have an open mind, at least to some extent.
The problem with history is that we don't have written history that goes back far enough to justify creationism (at least how we are taught in the Bible). Written history only goes back about 4000 year. According to the Bible, man has existed for 6000 years. We have fossil records that tell us man has been on the earth for 100s of thousands of years. Evolution or not, science has proven that the earth is not 6000 years old, and that man has existed for much longer than 6000 years. Creationism (at least as it is taught in the Bible) cannot be literal. It simply has to be subjective. If man was created (placed on earth by a higher power) it was much longer ago than 6000 years, and no one wrote about the experience.
That's true Bishop Rick (Bishoprick as a position), but when they did write (and all founding cultures did) they didn't point to a type evolution, actually to creation (and that from God)...Evolution came about in the late 1800's (before that little to nothing of that thought existed)...it's no wonder people are still skeptical about the idea...has no foundation outside the science built upon it.
Maybe evolution has some things that point to an 'older earth' and what not...still doesn't mean very much to me. If my people or another founding culture wrote about creation stories and mentioned evolving of the species at all (even in one iota) I would hold evolution more dearly. But we like to think these founding cultures were pure idiots (not even a single % as smart as this day) since we have all these advancements.
Fact is they created what we use for a lot of society. Examples could include fire, the wheel, cutlery, weapons, preparing food, burial, etc. Apparently, they really had a clue about who they were and what they needed for living. We live in a much more convenient society and get everything handed to us (shelter, transportation, fast food, roadways, weapons, tools, etc), yet we never question who invented these original ideas we only perfected (with the use of steels, plastics, etc). Those same people had histories we now deny for evolution or some other piece of governmental BS that usurped these lands for colonial gain. For some odd reason we justify advancement (convenient living) and perfecting their ideas but we reject a lot of their original views (yet they survived and lived abundantly by the land) - where we now have convenience whilst others in the world suffer great poverty (at our benefit - maybe things were better back in their days).
I guess what I am saying is a look back at history reveals more our arrogance towards 'that past time' and we forget that these people groups all believe they came from God (as in creation) - I am talking Africa, America's, the Middle East, India, European descendants, etc. If you were to poll all 6 billion people in the world you might find way more than 1/2 those people outright reject an idea we came from 'animals' (as it is not backed by culture) but an overwhelming belief in God creating them and the land they reside in. Again, I am the pessimist that has to rock the boat.
well, I think man has evolved if nothing more, in brain capacity. Man didn't always have metalurgy, weapons, fire, etc. These things were learned/created over 1000's of years.
You have to at least agree to that.
Bishop Rick,I agree we have gained knowledge and built upon that prior knowledge. It's not an evolution of the brain but the evolution of how knowledge is disseminated. We have more access to that previous knowledge (thanks internet) than before and that has been growing. If all cultures could've gathered together in previous times and shared their knowledge with one another, who knows, they might have had the crazy idea of how to build a huge tower or something. Maybe they would have captured greater amounts of ideas and accelerated humanity's technology. However, transportation wasn't like what we have today (ships, boats, cars). Messages are travelling at a faster rate these days. One thing evolved, technology.
Love the site Bishop! Just so we know, I am not hating on your idea. I just might not agree with some of the premise.
Emily,
I agree with you that there is no perfect religion on earth. I too like to think there is someone watching over me. I'm not sure if there is, but I hope there is.
I will be posting another topic soon.
The bigger question is why God chose to isolate his beliefs just within one small segment of the world population IE: Judaism? It would be like me instructing one child while abandoning my other children. Doesn't sound very loving to me :)
As far as having a soul, maybe the thought comforts us. Knowing that when we die some mystical part of us will continue on. Who knows...I have laundry to worry about!!
JOOM,
Your point about isolation is a great topic for discussion. That will be my next post.
Post a Comment
<< Home