Descendants of Adam and Eve mated with pre-humans?

[angel12]

May I remind you of the rule

1. Do not incite animosity towards anyone, especially the clergy.

As much and as often as I disagree with ed, I have to point out that what you’re accusing him of is clearly not what he was saying, when taken in context with the post to which he was replying.
You really should delete this post. As it stands, it’s a false accusation.

 

[GiftofMercy]

I was not talking to you. The poster I replied to knows exactly what I mean.

Its a public audience. Rules of CAF are clear, no member is an exception

As much and as often as I disagree with ed, I have to point out that what you’re accusing him of is clearly not what he was saying, when taken in context with the post to which he was replying.
You really should delete this post. As it stands, it’s a false accusation.

If so he should take the time to explain it, for those who read it and read a slight against the clergy. And clear it up for those who read it that way.

I asked

Are you really denigrating a Pope whose quote appears on the FAQ page of this forum

as compared to

I did not say ’ you are’

 

[Gorgias]

A plain reading of Humani Generis is very clear. No other humans. No humans that did not come from Adam and Eve. And no population of other humans.

Nice attempt. Yet, the very snippet you quoted says “true men”, not “humans”. In any case, we’d agree: any unensouled hominins would not be “true men” (or “humans”, if you prefer). So… no: the quote doesn’t say what you assert it says.

You can believe that if you want to.

And, in believing it, not thereby being at odds with Church teaching.

 

[edwest211]

Unensouled? What a joke. Do you have any evidence or is that just conjecture?

 

[angel12]

If so he should take the time to explain it, for those who read it and read a slight against the clergy. And clear it up for those who read it that way.

He shouldn’t have to do that just because someone doesn’t read the entire context before making accusations.

 

[Gorgias]

Do you have any evidence

We’ve already covered that ground. There’s no such thing as ‘evidence’ for a soul, so the request for evidence here is proof of acting in bad faith.

 

[GiftofMercy]

He shouldn’t have to do that just because someone doesn’t read the entire context before making accusations.

And I should not be accused of making accusations when clearly , I was asking.
context.

And yes if a question is asked ,the polite thing is to clear it up and answer, we don’t all speak the same language and engage in the same cultural context.

 

[angel12]

the polite thing is to clear it up and answer, we don’t all speak the same language and engage in the same cultural context.

It wasn’t an issue of cultural context, but of reading posts before making accusations.
I think you’ve taken this thread quite far enough off topic. Over & out.

 

[GiftofMercy]

It wasn’t an issue of cultural context, but of reading posts before making accusations.
I think you’ve taken this thread quite far enough off topic. Over & out.

You are insulting now, I have NOT made accusations. I have asked. There is a huge difference between
"are you ’
and
‘you are’.
And there it seems the cultural context exists if the difference is not understood.

 

[edwest211]

Then show that you’re right. Identify any of the pre-humans. Then show that they are indeed the non-true men.

 

[Gorgias]

Then show that you’re right. Identify any of the pre-humans. Then show that they are indeed the non-true men.

Again… another request that’s impossible to fulfill. What? Do you think that you’ll gain points in the discussion when you make requests that are logically impossible to attempt?

If that’s the way it works, then fine: if you can show me a square circle, then I’ll agree your assertions are correct. But, when you cannot, you’ll have demonstrated that they’re nonsensical.

What it comes down to is this: we’re both working from the same source material, and we both want to interpret it in a way that’s authentic to the teachings of the Church. However, our interpretations of that material differ. You can provide ‘evidence’ of your assertions no more than I can of mine. That, however, doesn’t make your assertions ‘right’ and mine ‘wrong’. The only difference between you and me in this discussion is that you’re the only one claiming that his assertions alone are authentically Catholic.

 

[edwest211]

Did reading comprehension go away overnight? Allow me:

Neanderthals. Not human, right? Mated with descendants of Adam and Eve, right? Are Neanderthals pre-humans? Yes or no?

 

[Gorgias]

Neanderthals. Not human, right?

If by ‘not human’ you mean “do not possess an eternal soul in the imago dei”, then you’d have to prove that assertion. It isn’t one that we’d assert without discussion.

(Even if we did, then your argument against evolution would be in trouble, since it’s known that there are living humans today with neandertal DNA.)

Mated with descendants of Adam and Eve, right?

Not necessarily. If we’re working in an evolutionary framework, neandertals might be Adam’s and Eve’s ancestors, too. (On the other hand, we might need to be open to the possibility that Adam and Eve themselves were ancestors of both neandertal and non-neandertal hominins, such that both were ensouled. “Human”, in a theological context, does not map to any particular biological genus/species designator by definition.)

Are Neanderthals pre-humans? Yes or no?

Maybe yes, maybe no.

 

[edwest211]

Then you have no argument. Conclusion: no pre-humans existed.

 

[Gorgias]

Then you have no argument.

Based on the question “what about neandertals”, how in the world do you reach that conclusion?!?

 

[edwest211]

Support your interpretation. Can you do that?

 

[Gorgias]

Support your interpretation. Can you do that?

Give me a method that you’d accept, and I’ll give it a go. One ground rule: you cannot offer a method that is logically impossible a priori.

 

[edwest211]

Then you have nothing. I rest my case. Or, you can support your interpretation any way you want.

 

[Gorgias]

Give me a method that you’d accept

Then you have nothing.

Got it. There’s nothing you would accept. That’s pretty much predictable.

 

[edwest211]

To all reading – That was a dodge. A request to support an interpretation was denied. Par for the course.