Mine did not, I expected to stand before a judgement throne,
instead it was a fairly pleasant life review, with the Gatekeeper assisting me with it.
Shalom
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!
- Thread starter Salvador
- Start date
Mine did not, I expected to stand before a judgement throne,
instead it was a fairly pleasant life review, with the Gatekeeper assisting me with it.
Shalom
Exceptions to all things, and that really furthers my point. The lack of any kind of uniformity.
kepha31
Active Member
Greetings Marisa. You can't put a soul in a test tube. You seem to be asking for a physical solution to a metaphysical problem. There are three kinds of science. Physical, mathematical, and metaphysical. It is a fallacy to use one form of science as the rule and arbitrator of all other sciences. It is known in philosophy as the Fallacy of the Uniform Method of Science.
Greetings Nietzsche. There are common experiences with NDE that seem to transcend specific religions, I would be curious to see testimonies of NDE of a variety of religious traditions. That is, if you are not just making an assertion.
I'm sure your sources can identify the technique used to make the Shroud. Personally, I don't care if it was made in China. It's authenticity or not is missing the point. The Shroud is an icon of Holy Saturday. That's the point.
Agreed, but I would go with ~130,000 years. The difference is a quibble.
I am sorry that there is no scientific evidence for a Fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis 1-11, but facts are facts. The problem is that too many people think the Bible is intended to be interested in a crassly literal fashion and not in a LITERARY way. Genesis 1-3 is full of puns and inside jokes that only a Hebrew speaker would notice. The Jews have always insisted that Genesis 1-3 was not to be taken literally but allegorically and since they WROTE the book, I think we need to pay attention to them.
The story of Adam and Eve is a "just-so" story. The Catholic Church insists that it contains some historical details but also insists that it is not to be taken in a simple literal fashion.
Bad scientific education usually runs parallel with bad literary education and both together lead to true Biblical illiteracy. I am sorry that the world is not simple, and that some cannot understand it without many non-intuitive ideas being introduced, but that is REALITY. We must deal with reality, not with what we wish was true. I would not try to harmonize science and Genesis 1-3 because they are two different types of narratives with different goals and agendas. Accept both of the facts that Man was specially created by God and that he came from an ape ancestor. Exactly how all this was accomplished is not clear, but that it did happen is clear.
First of all, Monogenesis is enjoined on us because there is no clear way in the minds of the Popes to reconcile Polygenesis with the doctrine of the Sin of our first parents and the Fall. If there were a way to do so, then it could be allowed. Several scholars have proposed solutions but none have been accepted.
Secondly, if God truly made a first pair of humans by a special act of creation, it is possible that he "reset" their genetics to make it "safe" to practice incest at least for the first several generations. God could even have given them "low probability" genetic combinations at first to prevent problems.
In one of his Lazarus Long novels Robert Heinlein describes a brother and sister of the same parents who share NO genes in common. They each received half of their parents genes but none from the same half. Now there are a virtually infinite number of combinations you can make like that from just two parents. And then you can get variants where only 0.1% genes are held in common and any fraction in between that and 100%.
That may be how God did it in the beginning. This would take several generations of miracles, but it would royally screw up all the attendant probabilities. None of the scientists takes this possibility into account.
And then we need to be frank. We know very little about human origins. It appears that BIOLOGICAL humans of some kind have been around for about 2 million years give or take). BIOLOGICAL Homo sapiens has been around for ~130,000 years. But there is something very strange that happened between 70,000 and 30,000 years ago. Homo sapiens became an artist, a linguist, a complex tool maker, a religious believer, a member of a society with family structures and pair-bonds, and several other things that distinguish him from the BIOLOGICAL humans that came before. Was this new kind of H. sapiens not only BIOLOGICALY human but newly made as THEOLOGICALLY human? Was this the historical point of ensoulment?
And after that happened, the other species of man all died out and were replaced by the New Man. So if THEOLOGICAL humans arose not from pre-humans but WITHIN a BIOLOGICALLY human community in which they kept to themselves, the issue of Polygenism becomes moot.
These are just some of the possibilities.
Another note on Dr. Collin's book. He warns that a Fundamentalist literal reading of Genesis is dangerous because when a naive believer discovers the overwhelming scientific case for evolution, it can endanger his faith. Well, here we are! What he predicted has happened.
The problem is neither in science or religion but rather in a type of religion that does not respect the important distinctions between science and theology.
by Art Sippo, M.D.
The story of Adam and Eve is a "just-so" story. The Catholic Church insists that it contains some historical details but also insists that it is not to be taken in a simple literal fashion.
Bad scientific education usually runs parallel with bad literary education and both together lead to true Biblical illiteracy. I am sorry that the world is not simple, and that some cannot understand it without many non-intuitive ideas being introduced, but that is REALITY. We must deal with reality, not with what we wish was true. I would not try to harmonize science and Genesis 1-3 because they are two different types of narratives with different goals and agendas. Accept both of the facts that Man was specially created by God and that he came from an ape ancestor. Exactly how all this was accomplished is not clear, but that it did happen is clear.
First of all, Monogenesis is enjoined on us because there is no clear way in the minds of the Popes to reconcile Polygenesis with the doctrine of the Sin of our first parents and the Fall. If there were a way to do so, then it could be allowed. Several scholars have proposed solutions but none have been accepted.
Secondly, if God truly made a first pair of humans by a special act of creation, it is possible that he "reset" their genetics to make it "safe" to practice incest at least for the first several generations. God could even have given them "low probability" genetic combinations at first to prevent problems.
In one of his Lazarus Long novels Robert Heinlein describes a brother and sister of the same parents who share NO genes in common. They each received half of their parents genes but none from the same half. Now there are a virtually infinite number of combinations you can make like that from just two parents. And then you can get variants where only 0.1% genes are held in common and any fraction in between that and 100%.
That may be how God did it in the beginning. This would take several generations of miracles, but it would royally screw up all the attendant probabilities. None of the scientists takes this possibility into account.
And then we need to be frank. We know very little about human origins. It appears that BIOLOGICAL humans of some kind have been around for about 2 million years give or take). BIOLOGICAL Homo sapiens has been around for ~130,000 years. But there is something very strange that happened between 70,000 and 30,000 years ago. Homo sapiens became an artist, a linguist, a complex tool maker, a religious believer, a member of a society with family structures and pair-bonds, and several other things that distinguish him from the BIOLOGICAL humans that came before. Was this new kind of H. sapiens not only BIOLOGICALY human but newly made as THEOLOGICALLY human? Was this the historical point of ensoulment?
And after that happened, the other species of man all died out and were replaced by the New Man. So if THEOLOGICAL humans arose not from pre-humans but WITHIN a BIOLOGICALLY human community in which they kept to themselves, the issue of Polygenism becomes moot.
These are just some of the possibilities.
Another note on Dr. Collin's book. He warns that a Fundamentalist literal reading of Genesis is dangerous because when a naive believer discovers the overwhelming scientific case for evolution, it can endanger his faith. Well, here we are! What he predicted has happened.
The problem is neither in science or religion but rather in a type of religion that does not respect the important distinctions between science and theology.
by Art Sippo, M.D.
Last edited:
shawn001
Well-Known Member
Souls do not Exist
Evidence from Science & Philosophy Against Mind-Body Dualism
"
Our 'minds', 'souls', 'spirit' and consciousness are all physical in nature. Thousands of years of investigation has shown us that our brainscomprise and produce our true selves, although because that for most of human history we have had no understanding of how our brains work most Humans have falsely believed inferred that we have souls1. Souls and spirits do not exist. Our bodies run themselves. We know from cases of brain damage and the effects of psychoactive drugs, that our experiences are caused by physical chemistry acting on our physical neurones in our brains. Our innermost self is our biochemical self.
“Human and animal mental processes look just as they can be expected to look if there is no soul or other immaterial component.”
Prof. Victor J. Stenger (2007)2
Evidence from Science & Philosophy Against Mind-Body Dualism
"
Our 'minds', 'souls', 'spirit' and consciousness are all physical in nature. Thousands of years of investigation has shown us that our brainscomprise and produce our true selves, although because that for most of human history we have had no understanding of how our brains work most Humans have falsely believed inferred that we have souls1. Souls and spirits do not exist. Our bodies run themselves. We know from cases of brain damage and the effects of psychoactive drugs, that our experiences are caused by physical chemistry acting on our physical neurones in our brains. Our innermost self is our biochemical self.
“Human and animal mental processes look just as they can be expected to look if there is no soul or other immaterial component.”
Prof. Victor J. Stenger (2007)2
shawn001
Well-Known Member
"Homo sapiens became an artist, a linguist, a complex tool maker, a religious believer, a member of a society with family structures and pair-bonds, and several other things that distinguish him from the BIOLOGICAL humans that came before."
Just FYI
Neanderthals were as Smart as Early Humans, Say Scientists
In a new review of recent studies on Neanderthals, anthropologists have found that complex interbreeding and assimilation may have been responsible for Neanderthal disappearance about 40,000 years ago, not the superiority of their human contemporaries.
Neanderthals were as Smart as Early Humans, Say Scientists | Anthropology | Sci-News.com
Neanderthals, Humans Interbred, DNA Proves
"
THE GIST
- A newly mapped Neanderthal genome provides strong evidence that humans and Neanderthals interbred.
- Between 1-4 percent of the DNA of many humans living today likely came from Neanderthals.
- People of European and Asian heritage are most likely to carry the Neanderthal genes.
It's official: Most of us are part Neanderthal. The first draft sequence of the Neanderthal genome has provided the strongest evidence yet that modern humans and Neanderthals interbred and that all non-Africans today have Neanderthal gene fragments in their genetic codes.
Neanderthals, Humans Interbred, DNA Proves : Discovery News
Salvador
RF's Swedenborgian
Greetings, Nietzsche. Thank you for your informative and interesting comments. I think C-14 dating may have incorrectly dated the Shroud of Turin to the 13th century; because where the Shroud might have been in 33 A.D., there was an 8.2 magnitude Earthquake that may have caused an atomic reaction which might have induced the image of Jesus Crhist on the Turin Shroud and skewed radiocarbon dating results. "We believe it is possible that neutron emissions by earthquakes could have induced the image formation on the Shroud's linen fibres, through thermal neutron capture on nitrogen nuclei, and could also have caused a wrong radiocarbon dating," said Professor Alberto Carpinteri, from the Politecnico di Torino. "Turin Shroud may date from time of Jesus - Telegraph
Today, I've learned that there are 9,000 year-old-trees. The entire Earth was obviously neither created nor recreated around 6,000 years ago. I now believe I've misinterpreted some parts of the first chapter in Genesis. I now think that most of life on Earth, but not necessarily all of life on Earth was destroyed and then recreated 6,000 years ago by God. I still firmly believe that the Earth was totally void of any spirituality until God created Adam and Eve 6,000 years ago.
shawn001
Well-Known Member
Salvador, I am glad you learned about the tree's. 
Scientists can go from the age of the entire universe down to the age of first stars appearing in the universe and the to the first galaxy formations and then new stars and planets being born, to the age of the milkyway our galaxy, to the age of our solar system, to the age of our sun and all the planets and how the solar system formed and to the age of rocks on the planet and even where the rocks are from around the globe by chemical signature.
Just curious, but why do you have these two ideas linked together in the first place?
" I now think that most of life on Earth, but not necessarily all of life on Earth was destroyed and then recreated 6,000 years ago by God. I still firmly believe that the Earth was totally void of any spirituality until God created Adam and Eve 6,000 years ago."
We also know there was a sense of "spirituality" perhaps for millions of years in humans.
Scientists can go from the age of the entire universe down to the age of first stars appearing in the universe and the to the first galaxy formations and then new stars and planets being born, to the age of the milkyway our galaxy, to the age of our solar system, to the age of our sun and all the planets and how the solar system formed and to the age of rocks on the planet and even where the rocks are from around the globe by chemical signature.
Just curious, but why do you have these two ideas linked together in the first place?
" I now think that most of life on Earth, but not necessarily all of life on Earth was destroyed and then recreated 6,000 years ago by God. I still firmly believe that the Earth was totally void of any spirituality until God created Adam and Eve 6,000 years ago."
We also know there was a sense of "spirituality" perhaps for millions of years in humans.
Salvador
RF's Swedenborgian
If the "soul" is an illusion, then I really wouldn't be that much different than a Neanderthal. If I don't have a soul, then life has no significant meaning for me. I'd have no greater purpose in life than to merely follow my natural instincts for survival: breathing, drinking, eating, sleeping, dreaming, finding shelter, friendship, playing, working, having sex and procreating my genetic code. If I were to lack a "soul" which would allow me to have a spiritual existence that is beyond my bodily existence on Earth, then how would my life be that much different than a chimpanzee's life?
shawn001
Well-Known Member
First
"
God Does Not Need Souls
“Souls are unnecessary. Consciousness can come from flesh. God's memory is infinitely perfect and it knows our personality and memories better than we do. God can simply revive and restore our consciousness without the need for souls. To claim God needs souls is to deny God's omnipotency. The biological and chemical make-up of our brains and consciousness is known perfectly to God, its own memory is sufficient, God simply contains all of us. It can recreate us, including our personality and memories, as they were at any point in our life, all without the need for wobbly souls. The belief in an all-powerful God is logically incompatible with the belief in necessary souls.”
"God Does Not need Prayer, Prophets, Souls, Evangelists, etc: 6. Souls"
Vexen Crabtree (2004)
"
Souls are a Pagan Concept
The concept of a soul exists in various pagan religions well before they existed in the monotheistic, traditional "world religions". Mainstream religions inherited local pagan concepts of souls from the local, uneducated masses. For example, early Christianity inherited the beliefs of the Roman, pagan masses on 'souls'. Bertrand Russell (1935) outlines briefly the source of the Christian idea of the soul:
“The "soul," as it first appeared in Greek thought, had a religious though not a Christian origin. It seems, so far as Greece was concerned, to have originated in the teachings of the Pythagoreans, who believed in transmigration. [... They] influenced Plato, and Plato influenced the Father of the Church; in this way the doctrine of the soul as something distinct from the body became part of Christian doctrine. [...] It appears from Plato that doctrines very similar to those subsequently taught by Christianity were widely held in his day by the general public rather than by philosophers.”
"Religion and Science" by Bertrand Russell (1935)32
In all ancient religions, the soul was the surviving aspect of the self that afforded reincarnation (or "transmigration"); in Hinduism and Buddhism it was the source of life that passed on from one body to be reborn in another, in the samsaric cycle of life; with further incarnations being higher up or lower down in the scale according to a measure of the good (or fruitful) and bad (or deluded) actions performed during life. This concept easily translates into the Christian concept of 'sin' and the idea of the soul thus passed from the pagan-influenced advanced Jews of the first century, and the Roman pagans themselves, into Christianity.
Souls do not Exist: Evidence from Science & Philosophy Against Mind-Body Dualism
"If the "soul" is an illusion, then I really wouldn't be that much different than a Neanderthal."
If souls existed why wouldn't any living thing have one?
"The higher animals have no religion. And we are told that they are going to be left out in the Hereafter."
No animals in Heaven?
If you weren't ever told about a soul or a religion you would get in.
"Eskimo: 'If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?' Priest: 'No, not if you did not know.' Eskimo: 'Then why did you tell me?'"
Annie Dillard
much different than a Neanderthal
Your not and probably even have some DNA in you, but you are different and you are alive and there lots of wonderful things in and about life.
"If I don't have a soul, then life has no significant meaning for me."
You get over that and find meaning, their are lots of things that bring meaning to your life.
"I'd have no greater purpose in life than to merely follow my natural instincts for survival: breathing, drinking, eating, sleeping, dreaming, finding shelter, friendship, playing, working, having sex and procreating my genetic code."
Sounds like what your God or a God would want you to do.
"If I were to lack a "soul" which would allow me to have a spiritual existence that is beyond my bodily existence on Earth, then how would my life be that much different than a chimpanzee's life?"
I guarantee you your life and thoughts and spirit is different then chimpanzee's, so no need to compare and no need to worry about who goes where when we die, you sound worries about enternal punishment if you don't have a soul.
There is this
"
What is the "soul"?
Is the soul talked about in the Bible an immortal part of human beings...or is it something else entirely?
Answer:
The Bible, in both the Old and New Testaments, repeatedly makes reference to the "soul." Mainstream Christianity generally teaches that this soul is an immortal component of human beings; that upon our death, it is released from our bodies to spend eternity in either eternal bliss or eternal torment, depending on our conduct in this life. But a closer examination of the word shows that this is not the case.
The only Hebrew word translated as "soul" in the Old Testament, nephesh , is also translated elsewhere as "creature" or "being." All three words are synonymous, whether we look at God's creation of "an abundance of living creatures [ nephesh ]" in the sea (Genesis:1:20) or that "man became a living being [ nephesh ]" (Genesis:2:7) or read God's declaration that "the soul [ nephesh ] who sins shall die" (Ezekiel:18:4).
That last verse is key to understanding the concept of a soul. If the soul is immortal, it would be impossible to say that sinning would produce death. Rather, if mainstream Christianity were correct in its doctrine of hell, Ezekiel:18:4 would have to say, "the soul who sins shall be condemned to eternal torment." But it, along with the apostle Paul inRomans:6:23, plainly states that the penalty of sin is death , not never-ending fiery torment in hell.
Given that the soul is capable of death, and taking into consideration the fact that the word translated "soul" is used in reference to all sorts of living creatures, we can only conclude that the soul talked about in the Bible is a living being itself—not an eternal component of mankind.
For further explanation of the soul, including a look at instances of the word in the New Testament and information about the "spirit in man" (Job:32:8).
Please read our booklets What Happens After Death? and Heaven and Hell: What Does the Bible Really Teach?
What is the "soul"? - Bible FAQ | United Church of God
Do you have the slightest idea how utterly remote an 'atomic reaction' caused by an earthquake, no matter how powerful, would be? I can give you a quick overview of how radioactive materials work, and more importantly, how utterly small the "danger zone" for a 'burst' is. The only way this could've happened would be if the Romans nailed Jesus to a cross on top of a natural nuclear reactor. And yes, natural nuclear reactors do actually exist. They are ludicrously rare, but they exist.
Well at least we're making progress, that's far more than I can say about many people
What of the whole "Modern Humans" thing? We've been around, bare minimum, for 150,000 years. And again by 'Modern Human', I mean utterly indistinguishable from you or I. If I had a time machine and brought a human child to the present from 150,000 years ago you would not be able to pick him out from a crowd. He would develop in school literally no differently from other children.
Marisa
Well-Known Member
Since you patently ignored my last few questions, I'll try another.
Why is it important to you that human beings be separate from the rest of the animal kingdom, rather than part of it?
I love your made-up science. Actually real science shows that the Neanderthals were not "wiped out", but rather they were simply absorbed into modern humans. Scientists Identify Neanderthal Genes in Modern Human DNA | Anthropology | Sci-News.comGreetings, Windwaker. Thank you very much for your informative and interesting comments. I believe that "soulless" Neanderthals could make representative art such as cave pictures, decorative jewelry or pottery. I do believe that Neanderthals were a highly evolved great ape species, but they were "soulless". They were a different species than us humans who have God-given "souls", which will allow us to have a spiritual existence that is beyond on our bodily existence.
You arbitrarily decided on your own to fit your theological ideas who has a soul and who does not, but if you wish to say Neanderthals had no souls but humans do, then at what magical point, what DNA percentage was just right to let a soul exist in the person?
You have to see, you are just arbitrarily deciding what is true to suit your own ideas. That is of course, not the pursuit of truth at all, but simply satisfying yourself in order to not change or modify your own ideas.And one other thing. All these examples of pottery and so forth are NOT attributed to Neanderthals or Cro-Magnums! How do you support that claim you just made up? Again, you can't. You just pull this out of the air to suit yourself and make up the myth as you go. You're creative, I'll give you that.
Salvador
RF's Swedenborgian
Marissa, I'm sorry that I've failed to provide any convincing evidence for a spiritual existence that is beyond our bodily existence. I've now just learned that The Shroud of Turin isn't really the burial cloth of the resurrected Christ; because it's scientifically dated to have been made 1,200 years after Christ had allegedly been resurrected. Therefore, I wish to withdraw my claim that the Shroud of Turin is evidence for anybody coming back to life after death. I also wish to withdraw my claim that NDEs are evidence for an afterlife, because they could simply be a hallucinatory out-of-body experience that is caused by the brain's neurochemical activity which causes somebody to have the illusion of being a spiritual entity outside of his own body . I suppose it's possible that somebody could cease to exist when ionic currents cease to flow across the neurons of his brain. Perhaps, it's lights out and game over for anybody who has died. I had believed that humans were different than animals, because we humans have a God-given soul that allows us to have a personal relationship and interaction with God; whereas, animals lack a God-given soul and therefore are disabled from having a personal relationship with God. If I really were to have no "soul", then there would be no way for me to have a spiritual existence that is beyond my bodily existence on Earth. If I were a soulless animal, then I don't believe that I could interact with God. I'd believe that I'm just a highly evolved ape. I suppose then I would have to accept the fact that I'm just a part of the animal kingdom instead of God's kingdom.
Marisa
Well-Known Member
I'm glad that you've taken as much from this conversation as you've given. And I do appreciate your comment. However, it doesn't answer the question I posed.
Why is it important to you for humans to be separate from the animal kingdom rather than part of the animal kingdom?
Last edited:
outhouse
Atheistically
Ya mad props to him for moving forward, instead of defending all ancient mythology in error.
Salvador
RF's Swedenborgian
It's no longer important to me that humans be separate from the animal kingdom. I like most social animals such as mammals or birds. I really enjoy going to the zoo. When I had went to the Kansas City zoo last year in April, it was closed because 7 chimps had escaped over the wall of their enclosure. One of the chimps had broken off a branch from a tree in his exhibit and then he with 6 other chimps had used the branch as a ladder to climb out of their cage. Chimps are really strong and smart animals.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Why do you believe animals are soulless?
Eccl 3:21 "Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?"
Ps 74:19 "Do not deliver the soul of your dove to the wild beasts; do not forget the life of your poor forever."
So if you maintain that God recreated Earth 6,000 years ago according to the Bible, then why don't you believe animals have a spirit and soul, also according to the Bible? Do you just pick and choose your belief from what you read in there?
Salvador
RF's Swedenborgian
Thanks for your interesting questions and Bible quotes, Ouroboros. Eccl 3:21 suggests to me that our human "souls" continue to "spiritually" exist after the death of our minds and bodies; whereas, an animal "soul" would rot into the ground after it dies and therefore the animal's soul would no longer continue to exist after the death of its mind and body. Furthermore, the Bible always seems to make a distinction between the souls of humans and animals. I think the Bible implies that a human continues to exist in the form of a spirit after the death of its body; whereas, an animal soul ceases to exist after it dies. Biblical chronology does put the date of Adam's creation to around 4,000 B.C. Furthermore, the Bible makes it clear that Adam and Eve were the first humans and that they had no biological parents. Although, most biologists and geneticists believe in evidence which suggests that the most recent common male ancestor of all humans had lived over 150,000 years ago. I'm starting to now think that the biblical Adam and Eve might have been fictional characters instead of actual historical people.
