Message #2933

[saundthorp]

Aware of your sensibilities and deep antagonism towards Catholicism, Martin, here is a non-Catholic link.
http://www.gennet.org/facts/metro19.html

ROFL, you keep on and on trying to paint me as 'antagonistic towards Catholocism', someone who is 'attempting to diminish God', 'arrogant', 'conceited' etc.  In fact, all I'm doing is pointing out the holes in your argument using my own brain to show how your view cannot be correct. 

You have yet to provide me with a clear answer to my question which is, IN YOUR OPINION did Neanderthal humans possess what you call a soul?  If they did, then you are admitting the possibility of an animal other than Homo sapiens having a soul,  if you say you don't know then you are admitting the possibility that an animal other than Homo Sapiens could have had a soul.  It's only if Homo neanderthalensis couldn't possibly have had had a soul, that you can maintain that Homo sapiens aree the only creatures with one.  If Neanderthals had souls then what about homo erectus?  If erectus had a soul then what about australopithecus?   If australopithecus had a soul then what about modern apes such as chimpanzees, orang utans and gorillas?

You see, if Neanderthals, homo erectus and australopithicus were still around today, in conversation with us, it would be bleedin' obvious that (at least in the case of erectus and neanderthalensis) they were intelligent creatures capable of understanding and postulating 'God', who had their own spirituality, and the concept of 'soul' would be very much more easily seen to correlate to brain-power and not to something infused into just one species by God.

So which is it to be Saundthorp.  Do you think that Neanderthals, a species who almost certainly had language, who made tools, laid traps for mamoths, who ceremonially buried their dead, have a soul?   Yes, No, Don't Know - you choose.

Incidentally, the article you linked to, 'Making Man Out Of Monkeys' doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on the discussion in hand (nor do any of the other articles you've posted).  For the purposes of this discussion we do not need to know whether Homo Sapiens evolved from Homo Erectus or Australopithecus (it is generally acknowledged that Neanderthals were not on our evolutionary path).  Who evolved from who is not important, the fact is that these articles acknowledge the existence of these other species who possessed high intelligence.  Since their existence is not in doubt, we have to ask ourselves, whether, if such a thing as a soul exists, God put souls in those animals too. If we say that God did, then we have other animals who possessed souls - disproving the idea that only the descendents of Adam and Eve had souls. If we say that God did not, then we have the awkward idea that there existed animals who spoke, planned, loved, grieved their dead, and to all intents and purposes were intellectually very similar to ourselves, who were completely soulless.

Martin,
I have answered your points in previous posts.
I'll refresh your memory,
Post 24

Personally I think man was a completely different species brought into being by God. Yes, evolution has taken place but all within the confines of that unique species.

There is another theory about man's origins. He did evolve from another creature such as an ape, but at some point in the evolutionary process God endowed him with an immortal soul, which had a profound change on his character and behaviour. I prefer the unique species approach.

Post 28

Animals may well have a part of them that survives after death, but God has chosen not revealed it to us.

Here is a cop out on your part if there ever was one,

Incidentally, the article you linked to, 'Making Man Out Of Monkeys' doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on the discussion in hand (nor do any of the other articles you've posted).