If they did have souls, what did they have to do to save them?
First off, let's define what you consider a soul? Is it the essence of a person?
Did the Neanderthals even have consciousness? Were they even aware of their own existence?
When you can answer those questions, then maybe you can figure out what they had to do to save them? Then again, who said they needed saving in the first place?
OK. Animals possess consciousness in that they show an awareness of themselves. Probably the tals did the same. So then, did they have a soul in the traditionals religous sense?
But, that's where it fails. Religious sense is useless because it's an untruth. There is no truth in religion. Religion and religious leaders use religion to control people, because Chaos is presumed otherwise.
Religion is a business, with Leaders. The Business is a code of ethics, bound or bonded, to a higher cause.
Religion is the false idol Jesus Christ warned about. Plain and simple. If people studied their religion like they are suppose to, then they would too self-realize it's all a lie. Less than 1% of all students who enter into religious doctrines, make thru to the end. So, please save me the religious stuff. Been there and done that.
Well, this section is "Religions and Beliefs." I wouldn't call myself a religeous traditionalist by any stretch but I respect the beliefs of those who are. I think we should use our ability to find our own truths and not accept anyone else's...and this applies to traditional religeous teachings also. If that examination leads someone to religion...well, that's OK too.
Is this all you have to offer is the same lame crap? I would be willing to say more charaties are supported by the religious because I've never heard of the "The Atheist Army" or "Progressives for the Poor." In fact I've never heard of any thing liberals did but spend someone elses money. You cry real well but how about backing it up, lets see you out perform our churches helping the poor and needy. Oh Yeah! Thanks for all your mindless retoric!
Neanderthals (as you may know) were not our direct ancestors, so maybe this question belongs in the "Do animals have souls" category, or perhaps in the "Do the other great apes have souls" category.
Of course, Neanderthals were far more intelligent than chimps, and much more like humans than any great ape around today...
Anyway, my answer is: Beats me!
Since Neanderthals had language abilities, since they had rituals evidenced in their treatment of their dead, and since they had a social order, doesn't that make them human? So didn't they have a soul?
They were human in a general sense (like Lucy, or homo erectus), but they weren't our direct ancestors. In fact they existed alongside, i.e., at the same time as, our direct ancestors. One thing's for sure, to answer your question, they definitely had *brains*
One of the first to show evidence of caring for their dead bravo!
Yes they did have souls and are still viable yet.
yes i think they did. they were capable of nurturing and love. besides i think even some animals like horses have souls - they are very spirirual creatures.
Well said. To say they had no soul would leave us in judgment which tends to curb our understanding. I am intrigued with horses as well.
I just saw a news report where they said they have discovered that octopuses (octopi?) have souls. Of course it *was* the Canadian news..... and I *might* have got the story wrong.....
This is an article by Tom Carpenter(paraphrased)
“Neanderthals (or Neandertals now) did exist. The first bones were discovered in this valley in 1856. Today, over three hundred Neandertal-type individuals have been recovered, mostly in Europe. Some of the characteristics found in these fossils are a large, heavy browridge, a low forehead and a large cranial capacity…… “When those first bones were discovered they were brought to Rudolf Virchow, professor at the University of Berlin, and recognized as the father of pathology. He concluded that they were modern Homo sapiens who suffered from rickets and arthritis. Unfortunately, however, most of those coming after Virchow were not so honest or educated in their interpretations of these bones. Influenced heavily by Darwinism, Neandertal bones were continually interpreted as an inferior race in the evolutionary scheme. Eventually, however, evolutionists like Donald Johanson had to admit that Neandertal "wasn't qualitatively different from present-day Homo sapiens."
Evidence such as wear patterns on Neandertal's tools indicate that they were people of great power and strength. But this does not mean that they were primitive people. Their hunting techniques were actually quite advanced.
The creation model would also predict the genetic variation that is seen in the structure of the Neandertal face and skeleton.
Much of what is known about these skeletons remains an enigma to evolutionists. Where did Neandertal come from? Evolutionists attempt to explain him with such mechanisms as the founder principle, geographic isolation and genetic recombination. Marvin Lubenow in his book "Bones of Contention" says, "While these are legitimate processes, they are not evolutionary processes. They do not create unique new genetic information." New genetic information is necessary for someone like Neandertal to have evolved. Evolution provides no mechanism for which this new information could ever evolve.
So in answer to your original question. Yes, they did have souls, because they were human beings made in the image of God.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article … st-talking
Thanks for your interesting and information filled answer.
A little science confused with creationism, no surprise here.
No refutation just the same old ad hominem attacks, no surprise here.
The scientific evidence in your statement in no way indicates creationism had any bearing on the remains of Neanderthal man. I have read much about our former fellow species and nothing I have perused has shown any evidence of the creationist's beliefs involving early man.
Ignorance is not only bliss, it is a tool of the religious to circumvent logic and scientific fact. Many have died and suffered at the hands of such manipulators.
Gain enlightenment merge with god , go home and not come back.
Neanderthals, named after Joachim Neander, from a valley in the Rhine province, Germany- are primitive men of the paleolithic period, as proof of their skeletal remains.
If they were men, like us, then they had souls. How did they save their souls?
In their consciousness, I think their preoccupation was to live, live with and under the harshest condition they were at.
How could they even bother about "souls and saving them and from whom"?
Some civilized men endowed with the highest rational thinking of today don't even bother.
the bible doesnt believe in neanderthals.
there were only always people,same as we are now only a little bit closer to perfect.. with souls, and Jesus saved them.
The Bible was written after their extinction and before the development of archaeology. So I think you'd have to say that the Bible was ignorant of Neanderthals, just as it was ignorant of native Americans, Australian Aboriginals, Chinese, Nordic peoples, etc,
In fact, it wasn't really a well informed book in many respects.
I meant, based on a person who belives the Bible..
I was thinking something like(in my expierence..I realize not everyone is like this) ..a person who belives in neanderthals doesnt neccisarily belive the Bible, so no need to save your non- existent soul.
A person who belives the Bible doesnt beleive in neanderthals. so the question is pointless...
basically, I accidentaly got sucked back into a stupid religious thread...
how you doing paraglider? I recently read your not actually made of wood!
Not entirely wooden, no. Actually I'd say that the world is full of people who accept aspects of both science and scripture, where they don't patently contradict. The Bible doesn't deny the Neanderthal; it is just ignorant of them, as it is of many things before, distant from or after its production. That's why it is not the answer to everything.
I thought when I first saw your avatar, Paraglider that you were a member of an unusual religion, a Zoroastrian perhaps. Are you sure you don't have any yearnings for the esoteric?
The story of my avatar is in the hub called 'Introducing Mrs Paraglider'. It, like me, is one of a pair.
Now I understand the Avatar. But I don't understand the Paranormal Hotel. Well, I enjoyed reading it, it's the title I don't understand.
Hey Paraglider, my previous posts yesterday were not designed to bring out yet another mini science vs. religion war.
I just find the argument for a soul-less body to be as boring as someone who believes their own subjective view of all things spiritual is exactly correct. I certainly wasn't attacking your character, I enjoy your fervor.
I wrote about the argument in a hub called, "Vote For Who You Think Is More Obtuse: Atheists Or Zealots" I don't think I'm allowed to post the link here.
When someone expresses to me that they don't believe in The Great Spirit or God as some say, it's like playing chess with someone who gets upset and spills the board over. Just as arguing about it with a zealot is like playing chess by some bizarre set of subjective rules that they and a few of their friends believe is the best way to play.
All I'm saying is we just don't know, science and philosophy only offer us artificial designations that although are more empirical than religious designations, are still subjectively observed through our electrochemical flesh as scientists might describe our bodies.
In all my years of arguing with atheists and zealots the one thing I've found both groups ironically have in common is that they are both very sanctimonious about their point of view!
Sort of like a punk rocker or hippy who is so arduously contrary to everything unlike themselves, that they in turn appear holier-than-thou.
There we go. I'm a rationalist, not an atheist. Of course we don't know, so we should not pretend that we do. To do so merely shuts down a little part of the mind. The best we have are testable theories. And the best of these are the ones not yet falsified.
There's not much more to say about that, unless you want to put god into all the areas we don't understand. I prefer not to do that, just as I prefer not to assume an eternal soul as the best explanation of consciousness.
well, I havent met many people. The ones around here are pretty much...religion or science. It would be nice to meet someone who can see both. oh well..
That is very sad. But it tends to confirm something I've noticed, that the US is addicted to dualistic confrontation. I think the wholly owned media has deliberately fueled this, to keep people fighting each other so they don't notice that they are all being screwed by the small band of 'winners'.
Seriously, I totally agree. We have always been more or less as we are. I did not descend from a semi-ape type being.
Wanting something to be true doesn't always make it so.
Well I've spent some time on here defending the Great Spirit, but now I believe it's time to stand up for Science.
Denying the evidence of evolution has to be the absolute pinnacle of ignorance. What's more, debating whether or not any creature (Neanderthal or others) has or doesn't have a soul reflects on the arrogance of the person positing that question. If you honestly believe that only human beings have souls, you are very poor of spirit and weak of mind.
Are you really so much better than all the rest of the creatures of the earth? Are you really so blind that you can't see that humankind is more cruel and heartless than the animal kingdom?
I do happen to be someone who loves Jesus of Nazareth, but unfortunately he has a lot of ignorant and arrogant people that soil his good name and philosophy by claiming to believe in him, when in fact, they use religion as a sword. Many people who say they follow Christ actually follow a compromised hybrid belief system called the Unconquered Sun, which unbeknownst to most Christians, was Constantine's real religion, and is at the heart of the council of Nicaea.
So true Ben. The arrogance of man, when putting himself above the other animals (and animals we most certainly are) puts blinders on many of us to the point of thinking we are unrelated to the other forms of life.
If a neandertal man was dressed in modern clothes he could probably walk down a city street without attracting a second look. We descended from the same source as neandertal man and why this group vanished is still an undiscovered mystery. The possibility of neandertal being exterminated by our species is one consideration.
Look at the problems we still have today with the different races. Racism during the time of neandertal man would have had no morality checks to prevent this extermination from happening. We still have racists who would do the same today and feel absolutely no remorse.
Latitude is my attitude when it comes to religion and science. When I look back on my post I can see the coffee in it!
I don't want to alienate either side of the argument. I'm just someone who hates cruelty to humans, and cruelty to animals.
Cruelty to plants seems to be OK, as exemplified by Buhdist Monks contorting bonsai bushes. Can't we all just blame our existential differences on spinach or rhubarb!
Down with artichoke! Damn that broccoli! Onions don't have souls!!!
There are some Neantherthals on the forums here. You could ask them.
...so this is why the neanderthals are extinct? And we thought all that carbon on the walls in their caves was from fires. CroMag is off the hook.
Maybe you could ask them at that and no joke. If Neanderthals could and did breed with modern humans then, to some small extent, they are still with us.
Up until recent times it was thought they were less intelligent than humans and that was the reason they did not survive in a more complete sense into our time. In fact they were highly intelligent.
They were let down by their greater need for protein in their diet. Modern humans can eat just about anything to survive. Neanderthals had greater dietary needs that had to be met. Also their bodies were built for the cold and when Europe warmed up the warmth affected them.
yes, how do you define soul?
breath life? all animals and humans have soul life if soul is breath, that which gives life.
There is some small evidence, actually the bones of a boy that appears to be half human as we understand human and half Neanderthal, that gives rise to the notion the Neanderthals were close enough to being human to actually be able to breed with humans. If this is so then the Neanderthal were really just another branch of humanity and therefore have as much a right to a soul as modern humans.
There is a larger body of evidence that Neanderthals not only buried their dead but also provided their dead with what they thought they might be needed in the after life. We know that digging implements that might also have been used for skinning animals was buried with some Neanderthals as well as other items the dead may have cherished in life.We also know from seed and pollen samples that they buried the dead with flowers. It sounds like they could care in a very human way about lost loved ones. Sounds to me like they had a soul.
I think that people before believe in the sun etc, since they cant explain what is happening to their surroundings they attribute it to anything, the moon etc....
but as jesus came known to us, and the Bible came about we understand more
I believe they have a soul already even before that onset,
I have good evidence that reverend Ally Oooop kept an abode in the adjacent cavern where he craftily set up an alter and charged a pricy nickel for a ticket on the soul train right on up there to them pearly gates.
No man, even if he be Neanerthal, can save his own soul.
I believe all animals have souls, but the lower-thinking ones are automatically saved. Only us higher thinkers need saving, and then only if we believe we need saving. If we didn't believe we needed to be saved, we would not try to save ourselves. Somehow I think that's how it was with them.
If they had souls they'd have probably been just like us. They'd have built churches, hired preachers and conducted services. Then, they make all the other Neanderthals members and never see them again until Christmas or Easter.
I've seen no evidence of humans or animals having a soul.
I think they thought beyond themselves. They made drawings and had burial rituals so they had something that looked like a belief system. I'm not sure how they fit into the God's plan but I'm sure evolution was God's doing. Yes I think they had a soul but thats one good question to ask when you get there.
And, as far as, animals are concerned. I suggest you do a little research on the Human Brain, so you can understand a little bit about how an animals brain works.
Remember, Humankind, the people, themselves were NOT always conscious. Many lived full lives, never becoming conscious until their death bed. If you think an animal can think for itself? You are out of your mind. ALL Animals are led by Nature's guidance. Nature does all their thinking for them. Their entire life is based on reactionary and instinctive measures. Yes, animals can be trained, that doesn't make them aware. Repetition is how they learn. Just like Humans, learn to improve thru repetition.
Just a thought for you.
I asked my original question hoping to have some fun and to get some interesting feedback from the interesting people who post here. Unfortunately, it seems that too many forums, like this one, degenerate into flaming contests between the God vs. no god groups.
There is no proof (acceptable to everyone) that God does or does not exist. So it comes down to faith - either faith in the existence or faith in the non-existence. Since everyone has faith in common, let's act human (neanderthal?) to each other.
Cosette - after a lifetime of working with animals, I agree. If humans have a soul, so do animals.
There is evidence that Neanderthals had burial rituals and cared for sick and injured group members. Cro-magnon man certainly buried their dead with due ritual and were probably as religious as modern homo sapiens.
Cosette - ask for a horse for Christmas! A well trained horse is an awesome companion!
Why did so many ancient cultures believe in an afterlife and supernatural beings?
why do you fight ? Honestly, you have to ask yourself, is this the hill I want to die on
Is too! You made me drop outta school to work in yore tobaccy patch. And I's fixin' to gradiate from the eighth grade - my senior year!
My impression is that the perception of 'soul' is a manifestation of consciousness and in particular of self-consciousness. It's a convenient concept to facilitate discussion, as is 'ego' for example, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it has any existence independent of the living brain. I think it most likely does not. The idea of salvation seems to be a far later construct of religion than the perception of soul. I'd suggest there's no reason to assume that the Neanderthal's mental constructs were the same as ours. This is to go down the same route as HG Wells took when describing the organisation of cave-man society - total guesswork presented as history. Not a route we need to follow.
Agreed. What many see as a soul is only self awareness. This soul ends with the loss of the aforementioned self awareness, namely death or unconsciousness.
The soul is not self awareness its your energy bundled up.
One can be aware of his soul but awareness is not ones soul.
This can unite with all souls the super soul or god and its a state of bliss.
Its on death that one really understands his soul as he becomes his soul without any body.
The soul and salvation or super soul have always been connected and not "The idea of salvation seems to be a far later construct of religion than the perception of soul."
Religions are based on the idea of the soul merging with the super soul and gaining salvation.
I vehemently (and respectfully for the sake of argument) disagree. Self awareness and perception of the soul is an inherent expression of our spirit. Your argument, and quite plainly, all of your text, is evidence of contemporary language and culture.
"I think therefore I am", is poetic and philosophical but it still doesn't explain the visceral expression of our spirits. To put it another way, Modern people are used to explanations, the soul cannot respond to you like a search engine or a utility company therefore it is of no use to gentlemen and their erudite atheistic arguments.
Whether you admit it or not gentlemen, you are endowed with The Great Spirit.
And yet (giving you the benefit of the doubt) you and I are capable of living and enjoying life to the full, even though one of us has no need for a soul while the other, apparently can't live without the idea that his Great Spirit suffuses both of us. Of which he offers neither proof nor tangible evidence. That's normal.
I think the more relevant question may be did Neanderthals have spirits?
The soul does have a continued existence,(IMO)because my bible states that I will need it when I am 'raised' from the dead.
As to why one person exists comfortably without the need for a spirit and another exists comfortably with a spirit.
God breathed His spirit into humanity at the start, without getting into is the Garden of Eden literal or metaphoric, human life started with God breathing His Spirit into us, but that spirit was subjugated to Satan by mankind and therefore we are all born with Satan's default operating system.
People who have rejected all spirit are simply functioning on the 'open source' operating system, which is OK except anybody can tinker with the codes and pass their version onward, and it's still the default version.
It may function fine for all your life, which is after all what an atheist wants.
Unfortunately it defaults to the pre installed software on death.
Derek Prince, a true man of God, believed that there were humanoids walking the earth before God created mankind with a spirit.
Basically we are all guessing what God meant in this area, the bible tells us all we need to know, but seldom all we want to know.
At least you finally admit you are just guessing and have no answers. And what outlandish guesses they are.
Kinda messes up the whole six days thing. Now the Big Daddy in the sky did not invent us until after the dinosaur dies out and 500 000 years ago. How does this fit with the cud chewing rabbits and the "circle" of the earth that looks like a circle only from 3 miles up?
"Open source" ? Funny guess. Good guesses Daddy.
Actually admitting we are all guessing, you included, and happy to do so... I believe God has told us what happened, but not HOW it happened in detail.
Only a fool does not believe in God, or thinks they have all personal revelation.
Now I will stop feeding the troll.
Calling me a fool does not really help. I know this is what you think and do not understand why there is animosity created because of this.
Still - I am sure jesus would be proud.
Nice avoiding of the points I made though. Very well done. Guesses? OK - You are guessing. I use scientific knowledge and facts to come to certain conclusions. Different thing altogether. Try not to confuse them, and you will see why your guesses are not worth anything and carry absolutely no authority.
I am prepared to say I do not know how life came about. You have an absolute answer you will not let go of - which it turns out is actually a guess.
Now who is the fool?
God calls you a fool, or rather you identify yourself as one when you do not believe in God.
The fool [a] says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good.
I merely repeat what He stated, you merely confirm His word.
"Nice avoiding of the points I made though."
I have answered your points with the scriptures that refuted your claims, you have replied with highly intellectual LOLOLOLO stuff and silly smileys... I won't feed that troll any more.
"I use scientific knowledge and facts to come to certain conclusions" ....and your scientific facts are shifting sand facts that change with each new kid on the blocks pronouncements about what is 'fact' this week.
Gods word NEVER changes, neither does God.
But he knew about YOU and wrote about YOU 2000 years ago;
2 Timothy 3
But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days.
People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God - having a form of godliness but denying its power.
Have nothing to do with them.
They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over weak-willed women,(sold any coffee machines?) who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth.
Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these men oppose the truth - men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected.
But they will not get very far because, as in the case of those men, their folly will be clear to everyone.
Gotta go out now,work to do, but was it you mentioned in the forums yesterday, or was it YOU, or YOU, or the other YOU... many profiles make heavy work remembering all your personae?
That is the argument of a coward. A sneaky way of insulting someone and saying God did it. You should be ashamed of it.
EDIT - I don't need an answer to this post, but I want to explain why it is unacceptable to use the bible to insult non-believers.
It is simply because it is not our chosen pursuit. If you see a fellow believer transgressing, then by all means call him to book, literally, because he's a member of your club. But you have to accept that the rules of any game do not apply to any other game. Would a golfer call a cricketer to order for using a bat and not a club? That's what you are doing.
"That is the argument of a coward. A sneaky way of insulting someone and saying God did it. You should be ashamed of it."
Why? I quoted what God tells me constitutes a fool, and Mark got offended, presumably because he fitted Gods definition.
Suddenly people get upset because I quote scripture, and you try to tell me that I cannot quote scripture because Mark and his fellow travellers don't accept it as valid.
No dice, if I can't use scripture to argue a point, then those who want to use science should be thus constrained.
It's hardly my fault that scripture has a verse to cover most every attack on God that atheists care to make, and that God gave them to us 2000 years before they were needed to refute what is said.
So if you or anyone else does not want to hear scripture, don't;
Misquote the bible....
Use it out of context....
Say its the work of 'my puny little god'....
Use obscene words that in any other age would have constituted blasphemy, and in some areas of the world would bring down a fatwa on the users head today.
"But you have to accept that the rules of any game do not apply to any other game."
I have to accept no such thing, at least not until 'your' team accept the same rules when dealing with believers.
Try to exercise the same tolerance you demand from others.
I do, but you don't. I don't use red text or bold type either. I regret that you don't yet understand the fundamental difference between science and non-science. Let's try one more time:
Science does not claim to know truth. It claims to have testable theories that have not yet been falsified.
Religion claims to know truth.
Science abandons theories that are disproved.
Religion cannot be disproved and does not evolve.
Religion is a pursuit - it is something you want to do. That is absolutely fine. Some people want to play harmonium. That is fine too.
Religious 'rightness' and harmonium 'rightness' are relative to the rules of religion and harmonium-playing, respectively.
Most harmonium players accept that most people don't want to play.
Most religious people accept that many people don't want to play.
A few religious people insist that everyone has to play their game or be 'damned' whether here on earth or in their imagined afterlife.
These people are zealots.
For the most part, they are not good company.
Did that help?
LOL, well put Paraglider.
Also, you are giving me the urge to learn to play the accordion religiously.
"A few religious people insist that everyone has to play their game or be 'damned' whether here on earth or in their imagined afterlife.
These people are zealots.
For the most part, they are not good company."
These people are the life and soul of the party, you just don't like what they state, which is not that all have to play our game, it's that whether you realise it or not, you all are playing the game, it's not OUR game, it's Gods and you are on one side or the other whether you like it or not.
Now that fact is irreconcilable to the 'rational'....'scientific' mind, constantly looking to see what new fact has been dismissed by a newer fact, but to those who knwo their bible, it's just reality... sorry!
I think we need a new definition of "reality" Daddy.
Sorry - say it as often as you like and it will still be bollox.
That the Truth.
This is why you are impossible to talk to. I say, here's what I think, and you say, here's what God thinks. And because God is infallible and your personal friend, you are also infallible. You are God, in your discourse.
Yet you, as God, call others arrogant.
Very complete and concise,Thank you.
Consider this point of view in terms of religion evolving.
All religions have a Life cycle comparable to people.
In the beginning they are forums for spiritual exploration and expression just as children are open minded.
As religions grow older they become set in there beliefs just as people form core values.
In old age religions experience distortion and become dogmatic just as seniors cling to out dated understanding.
death occurs soon after.
Is it possible that the concept and essence of religion disintegrates then reintegrates as a more evolved relevant religion?
You are clearly a very informed and educated man so I would value your opinion here.
"All things must have an end, that Nature wrought"
That's certainly what we observe, from the smallest particle to the Universe itself, there seems to be a lifespan, or at least a timespan, for everything. Some things adapt by changing, religions included. But those that don't inevitably exist less and less comfortably with the world as time passes.
So, yes, I think your idea makes sense.
Would you agree that the major part of religious debate is really a matter of semantics using different words te express the same concept?
All things must have an end? Does the universe? What's at the end of the universe?
Greetings, Habee - It would appear that the universe does have an end, though it is not clear what the end will be. Possible scenarios are:
1. gravitational contraction to another singularity; this would probably result in another big bang and the formation of a new universe.
2. thermodynamic equilibrium - this is not an end, but is effectively and end of time, because Entropy is 'max'd out', so that literally nothing else can happen, ever.
Either way, we won't be a part of it.
That post doesn't help at all. Saying 'because my Bible says so' is pointless, because mine says exactly the same as yours. But I don't believe A Midsummer Night's Dream either.
My contention is that the soul is a venerable and quite convenient way of talking about a phenomenon that results from our self-consciousness. I paralleled the soul to the ego, another non-existent linguistic convenience.
I can't prove my theory and disprove yours, nor can you mine. But as mine explains the phenomenon at least as well as yours, and is much simpler, I'd suggest that mine is also more likely to be correct.
RD, did you see the recent studies about weighing a soul? Sandy J told me about it. Ask her about it at the party. It was pretty interesting.
To everyone who gets all bent out of shape arguing politics and religion: civil debate is fine, but why get mad? Randy and I are complete opposites in many areas, yet we've been good friends for years. We debate sometimes, but we never revert to personal attacks, and we respect each other's opinions. Of course, it would save a lot of time if he would just admit that I'm always correct! lol
We used to use bulldust on the cattle farm. The bovines could walk under the sack of pesticide dust to keep the insects off.
Funny! That's the first thing that popped into my brain when you said "bulldust."
We had a lot of horse manure, too. I used it around my shrubbery.
It's all wrong I tells ya! I don't mind the smell at other times but GEEEEEZE!!!!
Yeah, it's rich, all right! Kind of amazing that a wonderful grilled steak comes from that.
I just clicked on Randy's image property, put in a different number for the gif file and up it came!
You can get it from the properties then put [img] before it and [/img behind it. The idea is so I can find my posts.
You are on it, was that a random number? Fun eh?
Why do I enjoy these little guys so much?
What a pack of lies and half truths. I am disgusted by this post.
The problem with your character assasination attempt is that the shoe doesn't fit, and all can see that who want to.
It is the christian way. I guess they can learn. Poor Jim Low had to apologize after being specific in his attack. Now they just use vague innuendo.
To prove god's word?
Ernest, I'm fed up with this guy picking my posts to pieces with nothing but scorn and stupid comments, if he wanted to discuss, fine, if he wants to leave it alone, fine, but picking a fight to show and flex his muscles is not in my camp to do.
I have answered his posts previously, he just refuses to accept my answers, fine, we disagree, that's not a problem, you and I disagree but we don't jump all over anything the other says, and even in this post you are civil, no derogatory 'DADDY' rubbish or LOLOLO tontos.
I care nothing for Mark Knowles, I guess he's a big hitter with Hubpages in the revenue department, so be it, maybe I'll start writing about inane things designed to attract stupid women who buy items, why not someone needs to make some money from writing.
I choose to write what I want to write, it may not make money, but then God pays my way and if I'm not making enough its because I'm wrong with Him, not Mark.
As far as I'm concerned Mark and I need never speak, indeed I will not feed him any longer, I will simply ignore his inanities.
Sorry if the last post offended you or anybody else other than the person it was intended for.
I keep hearing that the forums are tough places, well the only reason I frequent them is that it helps the profile, maybe if HubCentral would change the ratings to allow for those who dislike being abused to not go on forum, we could just leave them to the ghosts, sock puppets and those who want to slug it out.
Am I supposed to take the hits without responding to him?
Well yes I am actually, which is why my bible tells me all have sinned and fallen short.... so apologies to you for your offence, and sorry God if I hit back.
I'll just ignore his insults and slurs in future and then he can feel better and keep his ego's intact.
Insults? You are the one calling me a fool because I do not subscribe to your irrational beliefs.
And when you threaten people with 8 year old threats and speak as though your are lecturing said 8 year old - then I will call you Daddy.
I agree with your assessment of Mr Knowles methods.
This comment was posted on the gay marriage question"You sure know how to set the bait Mark".
What satisfaction comes from luring a person into a fight that is really an Ambush?
It takes a Cruel person to use a superior intellect for the purpose of entertainment by making fools of those who innocently reply to a Baited post.
The first rule of debate is"Never attack the speaker",that is regularly ignored here.
I am not a pacifist.I have NEVER insulted Anyone who did not draw First Blood.Manners do not seem to carry much Waite here so be certain that I will retaliate when Insulted...peace...
Thank you cheaptrick.... I just don't like bully's, whether in the playground or in adult life, they are normally cowards who don't like being hit back and never expect their 'victims' will do so.
God gifted me with a sharp tongue and an even sharper double edged sword:
For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
Hopefully Mr Knowles will simply ignore me as I intend to ignore him.
If you don't like bullies, why would you pose a question such as this Daddy?
Sounds like bullying to me. What do you think cheapo?
I do not follow religion nor do I give a damn about the distorted version of the Bible presented today.
I did not see evidence of Baiting in Aqus post,those arguments are infinite.
The question here is What do You profit by making fools of people rather than nurturing them?
Clearly you have a greater intellect than most of US.
Is it not a service to all if you help rather than tear down.
Show us some evidence of your Humanity Mr Knowles.
Perhaps referring to me as "cheapo" is friendly but given your history of sarcasm I think not.You are just reinforcing what Aqu has said about you.
Following his lead I choose to Ignore you as well.
What is this new word "gifted" some people seem to be using a lot all of a sudden?
A lot of religionists do this. Makes it sound more "important"
"Convicted" is my favorite one.
1 Corinthians 12 1:11
Now about spiritual gifts, brothers, I do not want you to be ignorant.
You know that when you were pagans, somehow or other you were influenced and led astray to mute idols.
Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.
There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit.
There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord.
There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men.
Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good.
To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues,and to still another the interpretation of tongues.
All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines.
That's what is being spoken about....
It's akin to 'convicted', which they think means 'convinced', as in The holy spirit convicted me to spread the good news...
One of the key points some of our more religious friends seem to miss is that when arguing FOR the existance of god, quoting the bible is essentially pointless as proof.
My old man told me self praise is no praise at all. And every criminal when asked is "not guilty". The point I am making is that independent verification is powerful, but surely the bible has a conflict of interest and is therefore useless as a reference.
If god does in fact exist, the bible is correct (although frequently contradictory) but not independent.
If there is no god, and the christian religion was the result of the handing down of legend through the generations, the bible is a frequently translated (and as such susceptible to much error) historical document that shows nothing more than the thoughts of middle eastern culture a couple of thousand years ago. It is proof of nothing. It is like Mark Knowles choosing to quote the Non-Believers Almanac and expect you to be satisfied with the proof "And lo....The bright green frog looked upon the masses and said: 'Wobble, wobble, burp, splat, there is no god, wobble' and it was good"
Basically I 'dunno'.
According to some christian fundamentalists Neanderthals didn't exist. They are a fable. Human beings have an affinity for stories. All the great religions have really sophisticated stories, built into which is a profound understanding of human nature.
Without the concept of soul, a lot of people think there is no concept of self. Ideas inhabit us and they use us, not the other way around. Ideas that are successful are those that continue. The major religions are by this measure, successful.
Neanderthals might have had a soul but wouldn't have had the specialisation to have a priest so how could they have salvation? So I would imagine their 'religion' would be pretty rudimentary. It takes humans to have the sophistication to develop these ridiculous levels of rituals.
I think Neanderthals could have had a relationship with their 'creator'. I think they were probably sentient beings. It may not have the sophisticated language we had, but all the evidence seems to indicate they had close relationships with their families. They weren't just simple apes and were quite intelligent. They just lacked the ability to function in large groups apparently because they didn't organise into large groups.
I am really struggling here to form an opinion.....Perhaps you could say that Neanderthals would be the first victims of global warming when the glaciers receded!
Who said their souls needed saving in the first place? The thing they needed saving from was humans so it appears. Both humans and neanderthals co-existed for just 100 years. I don't know whether that means their souls needed saving though. We wiped them out, well at least according to the circumstantial evidence. What else would explain them disappearing over a 100 year period.
Neanderthals have I think demonstrated self-awareness although I don't profess to have known any.
Chimpanzees demonstrated self-awareness. Parakeets have too (for what its worth). Chimpanzees have demonstrated pretty sophisticated senses of humour, so I am not sure I agree that Neanderthals necessarily lacked self-awareness.
They made primitive tools. They could talk with sign language, a limited vocabulatory, of course without the verbal sophistication of human language. That precision facilitates higher levels of co-operation.
Physically a human wouldn't be any match for a human in a one to one contest, just as a gorilla would throw us through a wall. But what humans had was co-operation, a group of 60 humans versus a group of neanderthals the size of 5-6.
Their brain to body ratio doesn't make us stand out that much from Neanderthals. Neanderthals (I think) came from homo erectus, which split off into a few humanoid species. One of them was the European franchise, with the African franchise ultimately becoming homosapien = US!
And there were others, but the homosapien came out of Africa and showed themselves to be able to adapt to a variety of situations. Neanderthals had too much hair. What they needed was a haircut and colder weather. (haircuts are easier to comment on than souls)
It says in the bible (don't ask me to quote here) that God cares about all the animals. 'God knows where every little bird falls, so of course he knows about you' or something to that effect.
I'm quite sure I don't know any nor have I ever met one. I have seen them doing Geico commercials, but I don't think that's enough to get them into heaven.
I personally think that there are both neanderthals and people her on HP who lurk around and give us a sense they don't have a soul at all. But I think that's just an excuse for them to be irresponsible online about who they really are, and a way for them to escape into extremely bizzare/bad behavior with relatively little consequence.
Other than that, I also believe that if there is a God, his/her plan is comprehensive to all animate and inanimate life. Just because we don't understand it all, doesn't mean it's an exception.
Seems to have been a pretty civilized exchange of views. I'm not sure accusing people of being soulless, Neanderthal and shifty really contributes. On the other hand if you say you believe in God , I suppose it must.
That's pretty shallow, Daniel. I don't think souls exist. Now please show evidence of me behaving irresponsibly about who I really am. Or evidence of my extremely bizarre/bad behavior. Or, maybe just apologise for your irresponsible and provocative post.
Reply to forum question, Did Neanderthals have a soul?
Let me say ONE remark, and try to offer a differing view that may (or may not) help.
Firstly, the soul of man is, in my belief, one's body merged with one's spirit. At one's mortal death, his spirit leaves his body (to be reunited with a resurrected body at time of judgement).
Secondly, the Spirit of God (or the Holy Ghost) will dwell within our bodies (together with our own spirit) when we are worthy (because Holy Spirits do not dwell in unholy places - but do come by from time to time, on their own prerogative). Just as the Holy Spirit may, the spirit of the Devil (or any of his unholy evil consorts) may also dwell within our bodies, if we allow it to be so.
Thirdly, one’s spirit (or one’s attitude, or even one’s outlook) is a manifestation of the likewise spirit (Good or evil) that we choose to associate with (consciously or unconsciously).
Eph. 6: 12 “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”
As far as Neanderthals go, I do not know, but I suspect that they did have souls. Their salvation would be offered through the same means as our own, that is, through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. Even people who lived their lives without the knowledge of Christ (including those who did, but did not have the means to be baptized properly by someone in authority), are offered the same chance, because God is a just (and fair) God. This is made possible through the vicarious baptism of the dead in the Holy Temples. That is why the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has the biggest, most complete (and free to all) genealogical library and search resources in the world.
Who knows for sure (consider the possibilities), some of humankind may even have a smidgen of Neanderthal ancestry!
And as for the records of mankind, they will be discovered, they will be found, they will be revealed, because, just like (the Golden Plates, etc) source of the Book of Mormon explains some of the history of the souls who inhabited the ancient American continents, other records have been kept hidden from the world (at the behest of God) to assure their survival.
All we actually know from archeological evidence is that bones were discovered which were of a particular shape spread all over Europe.
The bones appear to be of a humanoid shape, and the shape of the bones could imply many things. We might reasonably draw the inference that Neanderthals brains were of a particular size, but what if their digestive tract was in their head instead of the brains? This thread has prized open my mind to all kinds of possibilities or otherwise liquified it.
It seems to me that My consciousness has been evolving in some way since my birth until now. It is not hard for me to think that as my soul matures, my consciousness follows.
Regardless as to whether we understand when, where, why, or how there is one thing for certain; ... IT IS
And the "it is" must have come from the ... I AM
Does the seed contain any less "LIFE" than the root or the leaf??
Randy, do you consider humans to be superior to animals? If not, surely it's murder to kill and eat other animals. Or do you simply view humans as the top of the food chain?
We are indeed the top of the food chain. But this doesn't mean we have the ability to assign souls to ourselves while denying the same to other life forms. We must destroy life forms of some sort to survive and reproduce. Like the word "soul," murder means different things to different people.
The cattle I raise do not raise feelings of hate in me (well, sometimes when they escape from their enclosures I do not like it). I think murder would entail hate and anger. Murder is not an appropriate word in this case IMO.
Thanks Habee!!! Which one?
Lucky son of a gun raising cattle! I dream of raising Bison someday, maybe once I finish my book and I sell a million copies will I then be able to buy a 500 acre ranch! Bison and turtles.
If I may add, I believe that as long as we're not torturing animals, if we are respecting and revering them, to eat them to nourish us is a form of glorifying their spirit. I think that the qualitative state of animal spirits is different in some ways than our own, but no less amazing at the heart of the matter.
What about people who believe animals have souls? Most dogs are better "people" than most of the humans I know.
LOL, me too, except for the ones that insist on smelling butts!
Humans have evolved Ben. Many of them have become "butt kissers."
I have seen no proof of either animals nor humans having a soul if you are referring to religious definitions of what a soul consists of. Just because one believes they have a soul doesn't mean they do. My wife thinks shes psychic you know!
Jambalaya - it was great! When I grew okra, I made the dish sometimes.
You don't think people can be psychic?
BTW, John-Boy is just about ready to head to the cave!
RD, so what do you think happens to our life force when we die? Does it become another form of energy? I know you once wondered about other dimensions. Maybe that's what "Heaven" is?
Randy, I just read your hub inviting retirees to relocate to South GA. It was well written and interesting, but you berated me for telling the "Yankees" about the FL Panhandle! Okay, I see...it's okay for YOU to do it, but I'm not supposed to. Double standard! Citizen's arrest!
I've yet to see a definition of the "soul" from believers that doesn't already take into account biological functions. Clearly, the soul is a misrepresentation of these biological functions coupled with believers added delusions of everlasting life.
Hey Auquasilver! I see you're up to your eyeballs in snakes! You're doing great! I'm in your corner all the way!
by helenathegreat 10 years ago
In your personal spiritual beliefs, do animals have souls? Are they interchangeable with human souls? In the past few days I've spent some time looking into my dog's eyes, and I can't decide what I believe...
by lizzieBoo 7 years ago
seriously though, 50,000 years and nothing to show for it. No great buildings, no books not even the wheel for crying out loud. Did they have souls like us, or were they just a prototype, a practice species? Just a thought.
by pisean282311 8 years ago
what do you think..do animals have souls?..or do you believe soul is an concept which is unreal?
by Brandon Martin 6 years ago
Are you born with your soul looking the way you do when you die?Or, when you die old do you grow young in the afterlife, and die young you grow old? Is there an age limit after death?
by kundhan karunakar 3 years ago
If you could really sell your soul to the devil, what would you sell it for?think and answer!!
by Kitty Fields 5 years ago
If you believe in reincarnation as I do, you might believe in what many people call "soul-mates". I'm not sure I believe in soul-mates the way that these people do, though. I don't think soul-mates are people that we should be spending every one of our lives with...if we did, then we...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|