No lunch for Huckabee, Is it the same?

[Red]

How do religious people view other humans such as Homo Sapiens or Homo Erectus? Do they go to heaven/hell along with homosapiens? Or do they have their own place? Are they viewed the same as animals?

That's always been one of the first things that come to my mind when I consider all the early hominins known to have existed. I'm not a religious person in belonging to a church or any organized religion. I'm a "modern", in that I drifted away from my folks religious upbringing while still a teenager, embraced a scientific view of the natural world, and never looked back. Yet, I also have reason to believe we are spiritual beings on a human journey, and don't believe it conflicts with viewpoints born of the scientific era in our Western civilization.

So I wonder what some "moderns" would find a foolish thing to even ask, namely, did earlier hominins have souls, did they too partake of a spiritual nature? To a scientific materialist, this is seen as a pointless thing to debate, a pre-scientific archaic mindset that should be laughed out of the court of public opinion. But, I wonder about such things when I consider the existence of Neanderthals, Denisovans, and even earlier species like Homo erectus, Homo naledi, etc. If we humans partake of a spiritual nature, did they as well? And, again, I understand scientific materialists like the Richard Dawkins of our scientific culture dismiss all such thinking as flat out stupid, like debating how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. A question, in other words, that has no business existing in this day and age.

But, even if such questions were acknowledged as appropriate to ask, there is no way to answer them.

 

[One Brow]

Give your scientific definition of "single population". Ability to interbreed sure as hell isn't it.

Active exchange of genetic material, over time, across the the population. With a brief exception when the Bering strait land walk closed, human genes have always crossed over the entire population.

But I don't really care to get into a semantics debate with someone who has graduated from trying to split hairs to trying to split protons or neutrons. Bringing up a cancer suppressor as even being remotely relevant here?

Not my fault you can't give a definition of race that includes skin color genes and excludes others.

Races and sub-races have clearly existed, and in flux, for a very long time. That's good enough for me.

Of course they have. They are rooted in social constructs regarding inheritable characteristics. The original sentences you responded to were, "However, there is no scientific definition of race (or even species, for that matter). Scientifically, there is only how closely related different populations are.", which does not deny there are other definitions of race nor claims race does not exist.

 

[One Brow]

But, even if such questions were acknowledged as appropriate to ask, there is no way to answer them.

I believe the official (at least, Thomist) Catholic notion considers the ability to think of yourself as a unique individual, to form language and self-reflect, indicates the presence in their form of will and rationality. Such being would have eternal souls composed on the rational and will parts of their form.

 

[Gameface]

That's always been one of the first things that come to my mind when I consider all the early hominins known to have existed. I'm not a religious person in belonging to a church or any organized religion. I'm a "modern", in that I drifted away from my folks religious upbringing while still a teenager, embraced a scientific view of the natural world, and never looked back. Yet, I also have reason to believe we are spiritual beings on a human journey, and don't believe it conflicts with viewpoints born of the scientific era in our Western civilization.

So I wonder what some "moderns" would find a foolish thing to even ask, namely, did earlier hominins have souls, did they too partake of a spiritual nature? To a scientific materialist, this is seen as a pointless thing to debate, a pre-scientific archaic mindset that should be laughed out of the court of public opinion. But, I wonder about such things when I consider the existence of Neanderthals, Denisovans, and even earlier species like Homo erectus, Homo naledi, etc. If we humans partake of a spiritual nature, did they as well? And, again, I understand scientific materialists like the Richard Dawkins of our scientific culture dismiss all such thinking as flat out stupid, like debating how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. A question, in other words, that has no business existing in this day and age.

But, even if such questions were acknowledged as appropriate to ask, there is no way to answer them.

I just want to take a second to tell you that you're one of my favorite posters on Jazzfanz.

 

[colton]

How do religious people view other humans such as Homo Sapiens or Homo Erectus? Do they go to heaven/hell along with homosapiens? Or do they have their own place? Are they viewed the same as animals?

I'm sure this varies greatly from person to person. Myself, I tend to I them as somewhere between the two. I don't necessarily think they had the same moral agency that humans do, so not heaven/hell in the same way as humans. (Note that LDS don't believe in the same heaven/ hell dichotomy that most Christians do, but that's a discussion for a later time.) But obviously they were something more than animals, so I'm not sure how they will be judged, or even IF they will be judged. I'm content to wait and learn the answer after I pass on, and I fully acknowledge I could be completely wrong.

 

[Red]

I just want to take a second to tell you that you're one of my favorite posters on Jazzfanz.

Thank you. That's very kind of you. And the feeling is mutual.

 

[babe]

well, of course, we shouldn't be specious in our arguments or views, that's just wrong.

My years of walking my cows around the desert, with a hat, a shovel, and hand signals and vocal exhorations has convinced me that it is more productive to preach to cows than people.

Therefore, I am convinced there will be mostly cows in the Celestial Kingdom. If I do a good job following them there, maybe I will make it there, too.

 

[Deleted member 365]

I wish liberals and restaurant owners would act civil. Society would be so much better without liberals being mean.

 

[Deleted member 365]

It was just a few weeks ago republicans were lecturing us about civility...

Wow...

 

[Archie Moses]

This is another example of how douchie people who rub 'em out to bipartisanship are. The tolerant left guy being a tough guy and stealing the kids hat and assaulting him. Then the cringe right posting the guy's wrong address online (his brother's) and having people show up for vengeance. It reminds me of the NY attorney who went off of the people for not speaking English and then he got blasted with his business and home address online.

I'm so glad we have political Thrillers, Dutch's and Dalamons in the world.

 

[Deleted member 365]

Is this supposed to encourage bipartisanship? How are people supposed to compromise and work with someone who talks like this?

 

[sirkickyass]

Why are any of you taking rhetorical argument by the GOP seriously to the extent that you feel the need to rebut it?

No one cares about civility. That's not really an issue at all. Anyone who has spent any time reading anything about the President's twitter feed knows that it's full of invective. If you read any Trump-supporting news source, you'll understand that's a bug and not a feature.

The defining FIGHT of this particular political era is conservative resentment that the culture changed underneath them without asking their permission. Cultural conservatives of all stripes and colors, across a wide variety of issues, are tired of being told that they are regressive and that America has moved on without them and that they are irrelevant. They don't want to be told that they have to accept that gay marriage is the law now, that people who don't look like them or go to the same church as them are going to move next door, and that it is no longer possible to say and do whatever the hell they want to and remain a member of polite society in good standing. They resent that we (the liberals) are embarrassed of them.

The Sarah Huckabee Sanders situation is an example of this disassociation in practice. The owner and the employees did not want to be the kind of people who were associated with the administration - and asked her to leave. That goes to the core of what conservatives are upset about in the first place and what Trump was supposed to remedy for them. Trump represents rhetorical victory. By being the President of the United States he is supposed to set what the culture and the country are about. Conservatives believe, by virtue of electing the man, that the things they feel inside are now valid and acceptable social ideas. He is supposed to change the code of acceptable conduct to the extent that we are not allowed to shame them for being themselves anymore.

The debate is not about "civility." It's about what kind of peaceful protest is legitimate against members of the administration. These are public figures. Getting an audience with them is hard. Denying them the right to have an audience with you, exiling them from the culture, is the most powerful tool we have. It hits at the core of what cultural conservatives fear, irrelevance, and lets them know that no matter how much power they accumulate in the short term that we are still humiliated to be associated with them.