At 09:08 AM 11/18/98 -0500, Rasmussen, Ryan J. wrote:
>
>>Now, the interesting thing to this discussion is the apparent lack of
>>worship among the Ona. Bridges was no mere outside observer,he was
>raised
>>from birth with them and he went through the entire manhood ceremonies
>with
>>the Ona and was initiated into their society. Here we have a people who
>>didn't worship. Were they descendents of Adam?
>
> Why would worship be prerequisite to be a descendent of Adam?
>
>>Do they have the image of God?
>
> I guess the first thing to settle is what is the meaning of
>"image of God".
>
but I thought that was what you were trying to say when you posted the
following two items in successive notes:
On Tue, 17 Nov 1998 11:05:13 -0500
>>The first creature to look at this amazing world we live in and think
"There must be a Creator". The first creature to have and understand
free will. The first creature that had all systems in place that make
it the first of its kind. I think that that could have been Adam. God
was able to finally bestow upon that creature His image.<<
and then on Tue, 17 Nov 1998 11:42:26 -0500:
>>Native Americans and other people around the world who were relatively
isolated all seem to have some idea that there was is a being (or beings
for some) beyond this world. Seems to me that all humans have the
ability to see that there is something beyond this plane of existence.
We all have the ability to recognize the Creator. God just sent people
like Abraham to let the people of the world know it is Him. Maybe
that's what makes a creature a human being... being able to recognize
the existence of the Creator?<<<
If recognizing God was part of the image of God, or at least a
pre-requisite for the image as you suggested in your first note, and that
being human is being able to recognize the existence of the Creator, my
example in which the Ona had done neither of these things, must raise some
questions. Of what are the Ona made? And to me this is the danger of
limiting who has the image of God and the reason Adam needs to be the
progenitor of all humans.
>>Assuming that Adam is a late figure, and assuming that prior to Adam
>>were non-human humans, then can we treat the Ona like animals?
>
> Depends on how you treat animals.
We don't treat cattle very well; we eat them. Nor do we treat the tuna fish
very well; we eat them. Given this, one could say this is an appeal for
cannibalism. :-)
>
>>The case of the Ona is one of those that would be firmly in the gray
>area. I >believe that the Ona, with or without religion, are fully
>human.
>
> I guess I don't understand where having an established religion
>could be grounds for whether or not a being is "human". I think what
>does set us apart from every other creature on this earth is rational
>thought, self awareness, and capacity to know and commune with God.
This is a broader definition than what you appeared to originally give. I
could agree with this.
>
>
>
>
>
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm