Board index ‹ Heaven and Hell

[Jack Jack]

Do only humans go to heaven, and who were the first humans?

The key question I have is that, if you believe only humans go to Heaven, then how can you judge who the "first human" was? And once you have found this human, it seems grossly unjust to permit him access to Heaven and infinite reward but not his companions and the other "near-humans" living on earth at the time who may have lived equally good lives but were just unfortunate to different parents.

Of course, this requires you acknowledge that people were able to go to Heaven without following Christianity, if only because the concept of religion had not been invented at the time. However, it also seems unjust to believe this as (assuming they lived a good life) their only reason for being denied infinite reward is being unfortunate enough to have been born before the time of Christ.

Hopefully you can see what I'm getting at.

[jimwalton]

> Do only humans go to heaven?

As far as the Bible tells us, yes, although if Eden is any kind of example, there will be animals in heaven. There is no suggestion in the Bible, however, that animals either automatically go to heaven or that they must make some kind of spiritual decision.

Secondly (from your chart): What was the criteria by which "worthiness" was decided? It was faith in God (a dynamic love relationship), including belief, trust, love, and obedience. Those criteria are consistent from Old Testament and New Testament. Jesus becomes the focal point of all four of those, but they were possible under different conditions before Jesus came

> Who was the first human?

Adam & Eve were. Even in an evolutionary creationism model, Adam & Eve would have been the first hominids who had evolved to a point where they could be invested with a soul (Gen. 2), and therefore they would have been the first homo sapiens to have a spiritual component and therefore "go to heaven".

> it seems grossly unjust to permit him access to Heaven and infinite reward but not his companions and the other "near-humans" living on earth at the time who may have lived equally good lives but were just unfortunate to different parents.

First of all, the near-humans would not have had a spiritual component, and would just cease to exist. That's not unjust. Secondly, "[living] equally good lives" has nothing to do with anything. Salvation, heaven, hell, life with God, relationship with God have nothing to do with living a good life.

> By what criteria is the animal's "worthiness" decided? (As it is difficult for traditional concepts of evil and sinning to apply to them.)

Sin doesn't apply to animals, as you say, so we don't have to discuss criteria. From the beginning, based on Genesis 2-3, humans (starting with Adam and Eve) did have an awareness of sin. All of the criteria (as expressed above) apply to all humans, both before and after Christ.

> if only because the concept of religion had not been invented at the time

According to the Bible, religion wasn't invented at all. People were always aware of God and had to make decisions about how to relate to him or to reject him.

> their only reason for being denied infinite reward is being unfortunate enough to have been born before the time of Christ.

No one was denied infinite reward just because they were before Christ. The rewards and punishments were always there, always available, and always effected.

So saying, I guess you're hearing me say that your chart is off the mark in many places. Hopefully I've explained enough of why to begin a conversation back and forth.

[Sure Breeze]

> Adam & Eve were. Even in an evolutionary creationism model, Adam & Eve would have been the first hominids who had evolved to a point where they could be invested with a soul (Gen. 2), and therefore they would have been the first homo sapiens

Homo sapiens sapiens is a man-made and man-managed terminology. I would be shocked that this man-made and man-managed category would actually align with how God views these categories and where he draws this line. Do you have any citation that our category is related to Gods?

Actually, I just saw this: "evolutionary creationism model..."

What is this model? There's an evolutionary model - i.e. the proven one - and there's the creationism model - which is not.
In the evolutionary model, there is no Adam/Eve as far as first and only members of species homo sapiens sapiens.

[jimwalton]

> Homo sapiens sapiens is a man-made and man-managed terminology

Agreed, but we all generally understand what is meant by this man-made designation.

> I would be shocked that this man-made and man-managed category would actually align with how God views these categories and where he draws this line

Truth is truth, no matter where it is found. I would expect truth in one category to line up with truth in another category. To me it's no surprise at all that theological truth and scientific truth align.

> Do you have any citation that our category is related to God's?

Genesis 2.7 says that the Lord God breathed into the hominids (in Gn. 2.7 "the man," *ha 'adam*, is a category of being, not a personal name. "The man" here is an archetypal (not metaphorical or allegorical) representative of the human race; the representational role (category) is the primary point. Here humanity, though mortal ("from the dust of the ground"), has a unique relationship to divine life.

> What is this [evolutionary creationism] model?

The large majority of Christians believe in an old earth and evolution. We believe that God created all that is, but the Bible doesn't tell us how He did that, or how long it took. Naturalistic evolution has many problems in it, not the least of which are staggering odds against it, and the Cambrian explosion, which yields no naturalistic explanation, given the lack of transitional forms in the geologic record. A more intriguing (and I think more reasonable) possibility is that the evolutionary process was not only designed, but guided. That's evolutionary creationism.

> In the evolutionary model, there is no Adam/Eve as far as first and only members of species homo sapiens sapiens.

Nor in the biblical model. Adam and Even were very possibly not the only hominids, but they were possibly the first homo sapiens sapiens with whom God invested a soul. More likely Adam and Eve were members of homo sapiens sapiens somewhere along the chain (not necessarily the first). You can't begin to tell me that science proves there was no such thing as a homo sapiens sapiens couple that God chose out from among the others to invest with the capability of relating to Himself, with moral culpability and spiritual capability. Science doesn't have that kind of reach. The evolutionary model can't even claim to prove there were no such persons somewhere in the tree of life.

[Anonymous Bits]

> Adam & Eve would have been the first hominids who had evolved to a point where they could be invested with a soul (Gen. 2), and therefore they would have been the first homo sapiens to have a spiritual component and therefore "go to heaven"

The evidence doesn't indicate a two person bottleneck in the distant past. So the first ensouled humans had to interbreed with animals? This seems like a problem for that concept.

[jimwalton]

I said nothing about a bottleneck. There was no bottleneck. Somewhere along the line homo sapiens sapiens evolved from previous forms of hominids, and somewhere along the line of homo sapiens sapiens God determined that they were human, and also morally culpable and spiritually capable. It is at that point in time that Genesis 2 picks up the story.

> So the first ensouled humans had to interbreed with animals?

No, not at all. Homo sapiens sapiens bred with other like hominids. After Cain kills Abel in Genesis 4 he gets married and builds a community (city). Now, it takes a population to have a city. There is no reason to consider the others to be animals.

> This seems like a problem for that concept.

Not a bit. No problem at all.

[Jack Jack]

Before I begin to respond to individual points I'd just like to say that I (obviously) disagree with the idea that Adam and Eve were the first humans (if a "first human" is even possible) and that if you have any evidence for this other than the Bible then I would love to hear it. Also, if I refer to "Adam and Eve" I am referring to your idea of the first sufficiently evolved hominids to be granted a soul. Let's move on:

> Adam & Eve were. Even in an evolutionary creationism model, Adam & Eve would have been the first hominids who had evolved to a point where they could be invested with a soul (Gen. 2), and therefore they would have been the first homo sapiens to have a spiritual component and therefore "go to heaven".

According to the Bible, Eve didn't evolve, she was made from one of Adam's ribs: 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

It also seems unjust to give Adam and Eve a soul but not give souls to other hominids with 99.999% of their DNA, thereby denying them the ability to ever go to Heaven just for being born before Adam and Eve.

> First of all, the near-humans would not have had a spiritual component, and would just cease to exist. That's not unjust.

It seems unjust to me - the only reason they have been denied the possibility of infinite reward is because they were unlucky enough to be born before Adam and Eve and were therefore not granted a soul.

> Secondly, "[living] equally good lives" has nothing to do with anything. Salvation, heaven, hell, life with God, relationship with God have nothing to do with living a good life.

This seems very disturbing - all that is needed for salvation or heaven is belief and trust of God, no matter how abhorrent your actions?

> According to the Bible, religion wasn't invented at all. People were always aware of God and had to make decisions about how to relate to him or to reject him.

Any other evidence for this? And which God was it they were aware of, because at the time of the first modern humans (0.2 mya) it certainly wasn't the Jewish or Christian God.

> No one was denied infinite reward just because they were before Christ. The rewards and punishments were always there, always available, and always effected.

The rewards were not available to those who had come before Adam and Eve, despite them sharing 99.9% of their DNA with them.

I await your reply.

[jimwalton]

> I (obviously) disagree with the idea that Adam and Eve were the first humans (if a "first human" is even possible)

Evolutionary theory says that homo sapiens sapiens evolved from other hominid forms. There would come a time, scientifically, when these hominids would be "identifiable" (by our murky scientific categories that don't deal with transitional forms very well) as sapiens.

> According to the Bible, Eve didn't evolve, she was made from one of Adam's ribs

I take Genesis 1 and 2 the way Dr. John Walton does, as an account of functional creation, not as an account of material creation. Genesis 2.21-22 are not a narrative of the woman's material creation from Adam's rib (a bad translation in the judgment of many modern scholars), but to show the functional equality of the male and female, as opposed to a hierarchical (and abusive mysogyny) arrangement. It is to show that she is his complement (v. 23, his kinship in flesh). This word translated "rib" in this text is nowhere else in the Bible referring to anything anatomical, so it should not here. Verse 23 declares her equality in being, dignity, and worth.

> It also seems unjust to give Adam and Eve a soul but not give souls to other hominids with 99.999 percent of their DNA, thereby denying them the ability to ever go to Heaven just for being born before Adam and Eve.

There's nothing wrong with drawing lines. The inclusion of one doesn't necessitate the inclusion of all to be fair. When you go fishing and you catch 6 fish but not the rest in the lake, is that unfair? Perhaps you think they have been denied the possibility of heaven, but they have also then been spared the potential destiny of hell.

> This seems very disturbing - all that is needed for salvation or heaven is belief and trust of God, no matter how abhorrent your actions?

Salvation is based on whether or not a personal has a godly nature instead of a sinful nature, and the only way to receive a godly nature is by a gift. It cannot be earned or deserved. Now, to receive a godly nature one must repudiate and completely turn away from their abhorrent actions. It would seem to me to be patently unfair if someone were truly repentant and yet there be no option from the judge's bench to issue a sentence other than the worst. True justice includes things such as motive, circumstances, environment, and attitude. That's why our courts have such a thing as commuted sentences and "not guilty on the ground of mental illness." A good judge is able to weigh intangibles as well as scientific data.

> Any other evidence for this?

Anthropologists, sociologists and archaeologists tells us that religious practice is one of the oldest identifiable human characteristics (for instance, Göbekli Tepe, in southeastern Turkey), so much so that "religious devotion" is listed by some scholars as one of the traits that distinguishes humans from animals.

> And which God was it they were aware of, because at the time of the first modern humans (0.2 mya) it certainly wasn't the Jewish or Christian God

According to the Bible (Gen. 4.26), at the time of the first humans it certainly was the Jewish/Christian God YHWH.

[Anonymous Bits]

Biologically they are the same species. Theologically the "like hominids" must be soulless beasts. Technically, they could be murdered by Adam or Eve, and it would not be a sin. Either the special sauce is important, or it is not.

[jimwalton]

The genera are the same, the species are different. So far scientists have created categories including homo habilis and homo erectus. What I meant when I said "homo sapiens sapiens bred with other like hominids" is that they bred with other sapiens, not with habilis or erectus or any of the australopithecines. Adam and Eve were representatives of the species. The breath of life came upon all sapiens (but we have no idea how many we are talking about here).