There are lots of human species. You and me, we're homo sapiens sapiens. One presumes that come the great day of the final resurrection, every human who has lived will get a new body.

But if you happened to be of this new human species https://www.wsj.com/articles/evidence-of-new-human-species-found-in-philippines-11554915601, do you get a homo sapiens sapiens body or the one you had in when you were alive?

Here's Wikipedia's list of human species:

H. habilis

H. rudolfensis

H. gautengensis

H. erectus

H. ergaster

H. antecessor

H. heidelbergensis

H. cepranensis

H. rhodesiensis

H. naledi

H. sapiens

H. neanderthalensis

H. floresiensis

H. tsaichangensis


To which we get to add:

H. luzonensis


The plan of salvation is nothing if not busy, busy, busy.

As an addendum, I hope I am not 'white' when I'm resurrected. Maybe I'll change my mind, but I doubt it.

Yeah, a new one in their rezurrerection.

homo sexists sapiens

Don't forget H. Canis Sapiens.

The one true mongrel!

I think we are becoming homo cannabis sapiens.

Better homo cannabis sapiens than homo cannibal sapiens.

The munchies can be a terrible thing.

Ha!

¿ ~ is this a homo thred ? ~



in b 4 ~ asking for a freind ~

Ruskel Litedpiens

Hahahahahaha! Very good, very clever! But I needed Google in order to finally figure it out.

I still want to know how old you'll be in the next life.

The same age as when you died, when you were in your prime I in the mid twenties.

Will everyone be the same age?

Nope. Those early hominids didn't have souls therefore no resurrection.

Just like atheists!

As JRR Tolkien said to the atheist CS Lewis while they were walking the grounds at Madgalen College, atheism is a lack of imagination.

“There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations - these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub and exploit - immortal horrors or everlasting splendors."

Lewis again: "A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading."

Oh, I'm a fan of Lewis. I think he wrote some great things.

But as you presumably know, his life was far from that of a typical Christian--both in faith and in action. He was not a typical believer.

Lewis was, in my view, the last of the great intellectual Christians. He had the misfortune to live and teach when the horrors of humanity's most orgiastically destructive century were already undermining faith; his teaching inadvertently reflected that estrangement insofar as it was at one remove from the instinctively emotional pattern of traditional religious belief. As Nietzsche observed, such an intellectual approach to religion effectively means that deity has already lost power over people's hearts.

God is dead. Lewis was perhaps his last prophet.

For those very few unfamiliar with the apocryphal gag (unlikely to be found among the posters on this board), allow me:

Graffiti #1: "God is dead--Nietzsche"
Graffiti #2: "Nietzsche is dead--God"

No, dear Madame Lott, God is not dead. Ignored, denied, disparaged, and grossly misunderstood, but not dead. Even in this wicked and adulterous generation, still seeking after signs, He lives in the hearts, minds, spirits, and souls of many.

A priest is the people's intercessor to God; a prophet is God's emissary to His people. Jesus is both priest and prophet. Lewis was neither: I see Lewis as a doctor of the church (like Luther), healing the people's misunderstandings. Lewis' human genius and spiritual gift was in explaining and contemporizing the Gospel to many, especially to the academic atheist.

God is on life support. God will be dead when His living wills it.

My point about God is that made by Nietzsche, who said that God had lost his hold on popular culture. Since people are by nature herd animals, they would seek new gods to worship. And, he wrote in about 1890, those gods would arise in Germany and Russia.

I think if he were alive today, he would take the diminution of interest in God at present (as the rise of fascism, nazism, and communism) as vindication of his views. He would look around the world today and indicate where he thought humanity would turn now in its instinctual search for gods.

I repeat. Although he was radically different than most Christians today believe, so too his religion, I think Lewis was a great thinker and a great advocate. I tell my kids that one should not discount religion for two reasons: it is a real motivating force for many people, ignored at one's own peril; and it is the language through which many discuss spirituality and ethics. I consider Lewis one of the great modern examples of the latter.

And that understanding religion is important in a mega-psychological/culture sense: we understands others better by understanding this. This strikes me as a variant of the "religion is okay for others, if it provides them something in the way of comfort and meaning, but certainly not for me!"

The mass movements you mention are simply new idols for old: ideological, not graven. An idol is anything that stands between God and the individual, be it stone, consumerism, the Virgin Mary, social status, politics, Joseph Smith, celebrity adoration, any saint or ideology.

"Arise ye people, take your stand,
Cast out your idols from the land."

Disclaimer: I have a picture of a tricked-out Wrangler on my bookcase. An idol.

I guess the key is that Lewis thought he was wrong--or at least making a choice against the bulk of the evidence. Have you read his personal letters? They reveal a much more worldly man whose religion was a conscious choice, one very much intellectualized. He was no evangelical.

I have read ten or twelve of his books. To that extent, I can confidently say that Lewis never said that a person who did not accept Jesus as his personal savior would be damned. In fact, his writings were based loosely on Christianity and did not rely heavily on scripture or literal interpretations. He was in no way a born-again Christian; he was an armchair COE man, and of that sort among the best.

You write of me as believing "religion is okay for others, if it provides them something in the way of comfort and meaning, but certainly not for me!" I accept that description as perhaps 70% correct. My feeling is indeed that if any system of thought gives people comfort and meeting, that's great as long as it does not impinge upon the wellbeing of others. Likewise organized religion is, as you suggest, not for me.

Where I am more uncertain is in my lack of conviction that I have fully abandoned irrational thought. I suspect that in a few centuries, if the earth lasts that long, historians may look back at people like me and describe our unspoken irrationalities as a "religion" that comprehends 21st century atheists, agnostics, and believers. To us practitioners of historical Buddhism are lumped together as "Buddhists" whereas the adepts would have emphasized their differences and not have accepted such an umbrella term. Religious categories, in short, are largely retrospective endeavors.

Lewis knew that; it was evident in his tolerance, even respect, for other religious traditions. It is a common mistake for people today to read their predilections into Lewis. Mormons do that all the time, treating him as an almost asexual saint and ignoring his ecumenical bent and scandalous sexuality.

Disclaimer: I have a picture of a tricked-out Wagner on my bookcase. Not really an idol, but morally and spiritually ambiguous--not unlike Lewis himself.

Just like my tombstone ... "All dressed up and no place to go".

Sort of. God will eventually collapse and become an eternal and exalted black hole.

All resurrected beings will be pulled in and absorbed.

Big differences:

They will have resurrected genitalia and will be able to reproduce.

Everyone below them will essentially be barren eunuchs and sterile. Basically, a bunch of Barbie and Ken dolls.

That's why Joseph, Briggy, Heber and the gang were so keen about the importance of shooting for the top tier of the CK. That's where eternal boinking is possible. You don't get to boink in any other realm of heaven.

Another big difference is glow intensity. The people in the top tier of the CK are much brighter. It's like the difference between a 1000w floodlamp vs. a 100w lightbulb vs. a 60w lightbulb vs. a 25w lightbulb and so on.

Skin color is irrelevant in heaven because everyone glows. But some glow brighter than others.

In hell everyone is covered in dust because it's underground and the ceilings are crap (because nobody in hell puts in an honest day's work and the honest workers in heaven aren't about to pitch in and help build up the facilities in hell). Sometimes it rains and the dust turns into mud that is then baked by the fires of hell into a hardened terracotta like substance. Remember that army of terracotta "sculptures" discovered underground in Xi'an China? I've got news for you. They aren't sculptures.

If you need any more detailed information about heaven and hell, let me know. I keep regular office hours, but I will try to answer as soon as possible.

Is it true that if a woman in the CK wasn't excited about spending eternity bearing spirit children that it would be....Hell?

residing in the realm of hell (which is a precise location defined within the space-time continuum).

There are sneaky ways to get out of the first-tier of the CK.

One is to be spotted frequently drinking coffee.

For the first two or three coffee-drinking offenses, the First Tier Community Standards Officers will likely just issue a warning: "We'll have to tell your husband, Sister Globbenschmizer. We'll leave it up to him to decide whether any discipline will be necessary as a result of your decision to imbibe the essence of the demon bean. But this goes on your record."

After three strikes, the recalcitrant lady is bumped down to a lower tier and, in the process, loses her genitalia. I know it sounds weird. But that's the way it is.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/12/2019 05:50AM by anybody.

I love smoothies.