Question about when humans started to have souls

[gama232]

It’s an attempt to promote fiction, that’s all. We all have souls. The suggestion is that unsouled humans existed along with humans that had souls. By interbreeding, the humans with souls gave souls to the unsouled? That is 100% against Church teaching. Souls are created by God only.

 

[Allyson]

The suggestion is that unsouled humans existed along with humans that had souls. By interbreeding, the humans with souls gave souls to the unsouled? That is 100% against Church teaching. Souls are created by God only.

No one who has suggested this scenario is claiming that God is not the creator of souls. Rather, the thesis is that anyone who is a descendent of Adam and Eve gets a soul* directly created by God. It is a rather fine point, and I am personally undecided on the thesis. I just hate to see it misrepresented.

Edit: Clarifying that I mean immortal souls etc.

 

[gama232]

Were there unsouled humans that lived at the same time as Adam and Eve? If so, are souls in any way given to unsouled humans just because of interbreeding? Why or why not?

 

[Allyson]

Were there unsouled humans that lived at the same time as Adam and Eve?

Under the thesis: Yes, there are other members of the bilogical species, but they are not “true men” in the sense intended by Humani Generis - i.e. no soul with the imago dei.

If so, are souls in any way given to unsouled humans just because of interbreeding? Why or why not?

No. Per Humani Generis, the souls of “true men” are only created by God, not by a human act. What matters is they are direct descendants of Adam and Eve.

 

[gama232]

Alright. So are Neanderthals ‘true men’? Denisovians? I am trying to clarify this idea that in the past, Neanderthals were separate from modern humans and true men. Then, it turns out some of us have Neanderthal DNA, meaning both true men and Neanderthals were true men.

 

[EndTimes]

Alright. So are Neanderthals ‘true men’? Denisovians? I am trying to clarify this idea that in the past, Neanderthals were separate from modern humans and true men. Then, it turns out some of us have Neanderthal DNA, meaning both true men and Neanderthals were true men.

Sometimes I wonder… The history of ‘evolution’ has been one never-ending series of Lies and Falsities

I just read

A quarter-century of genetic studies has consistently found that for any given region of the genome, humans and chimpanzees share at least 98.5 % of their DNA .

 

[Dovekin]

A quarter-century of genetic studies has consistently found that for any given region of the genome, humans and chimpanzees share at least 98.5 % of their DNA .

What do you object to here? This is verifiable, testable data. Rejecting it is rejecting science.

 

[gama232]

“Humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor” So, how does that work? Anyone?

 

[Dovekin]

are Neanderthals ‘true men’? Denisovians?

We do not know. Being a “true human” is a metaphysical quality, not a physical one. They may have behaviors that we think are related to having a soul, but we are not sure. Some cave paintings and burial rituals suggest Neanderthals had human souls. Perhaps they were children of Adam. Or it could be that those behaviors are not indicators of a human soul.

That modern humans have DNA characteristic of Neanderthals does not mean neanderthals were true men, just that they were ancestors of true men. As your colleague has just discovered, we have DNA identical to DNA in many species, not just Neanderthals.

 

[Allyson]

Alright. So are Neanderthals ‘true men’? Denisovians? I am trying to clarify this idea that in the past, Neanderthals were separate from modern humans and true men. Then, it turns out some of us have Neanderthal DNA, meaning both true men and Neanderthals were true men.

The best answer to the theological question of were they “true men” is we do not know and cannot know. It is a mystery.

From the biological and cultural side, yes they are fully human. What makes a human human? Is it our reason, our behavior.

If we look for signs of compassion in other members of the genus homo, we will find it in the forensic analysis of their remains in both homo erectus and neanderthals. We will see in their bones evidence of illness or injuries that would normally be fatal for animals in the wild like: severe bodily injury requiring nursing to recover from or loss of all teeth long before death (the jaw bone has all receeded) requiring soft food or pre-chewed food to ensure survival.

If we are looking for evidence of symbolic behavior, we now think that Neanderthals did create art. There are some cave paintings that have been dated to before modern humans arrived in Europe. This is not settled yet, but there is some evidence. We know that they had a FOXP2 gene similar to ours that is necessary for the muscle control for speech and that their hyoid bone was the correct shape for speech. We just do not know what that speech would have consisted of as far as grammar. Was it just symbolic or was it also recursive? We do not know.

Behavioral modernity (evidenced by art) arose in modern humans simultaneously in Africa and in Indonesian on the island of Sulawesi. It is interesting to note that anyone in Sumatra would have already had the opportunity to mix with Neanderthals and Denisovans. Modern homo sapiens do appear to have a more rapid development of culture and technology that any of their forbears, but that is after being anatomically modern for 200,000 years. We do not know what drove this. Was it necessity brought on by rapid climate change? However, some technological advancements were made by Neanderthals before modern human did it - like making pitch to fix points on spears.

Sometimes I wonder… The history of ‘evolution’ has been one never-ending series of Lies and Falsities

I just read

A quarter-century of genetic studies has consistently found that for any given region of the genome, humans and chimpanzees share at least 98.5 % of their DNA .

Your point is unclear. This is how we know that they are closest living relative.

 

[gama232]

Vague answers are not helpful. The Church, including the Catechism, identify two first parents. The artificial separation between the physical and metaphysical ignores the fact that for Catholics, we know we consist of two parts - body and soul. Saying we don’t know is like saying that Neanderthals were incapable of breeding with modern humans. This capability makes them fully human, along with their modern human behaviors.

No, we have similar body plans with other creatures, which would mean that our physical construction information would be similar. That does not automatically mean men are related to animals.

 

[gama232]

Supposedly, humans and apes have a common ancestor. Please explain how that works.

 

[Allyson]

Supposedly, humans and apes have a common ancestor. Please explain how that works.

Serious question: are you a Poe?

 

[Pattylt]

No, but I often think he must be the Pope with his tendency to make declarative statements rather than…in my opinion. His favorite seems to be…you are wrong…with nothing else said.

Ed, did you know it’s against forum rules to have two active accounts, even if you are no longer posting with your previous avatar? Unless you have recently done so, you should contact the mods and have them fix it.

 

[Allyson]

No, but I often think he must be the Pope

LOL. Yeah…I reached the point where I just had to ask. He completely skipped over my most recent rather thorough explanations in response to questions here and other the other thread. Then proceeds to say the most unbelievably “say what?” things like suggesting that humans are not animals.

 

[Pattylt]

The word obstinate comes to mind. I guess I admire his sticking to his guns with Catholicism but his refusal to allow alternate views because only his are correct goes against catholic teaching. Maybe he has a direct line to upstairs that we don’t. If so, it’d be nice to know that!

 

[Allyson]

@PattyIt It is interesting because that actual dogmas of the Church are few and far between and very narrow and specific in their theological terms. The doctrines are much more numerous, but again, rather narrow to the subject matter they seek to define. Beyond such narrow points there is a lot of window dressing. Maybe because I was Latin Rite and translated to the Byzantine Rite, I have a broader view of how seemingly conflicting views can co-exist in the Church because it is agreed that the different theological approaches get to the same theological truth.

 

[Pattylt]

, I have a broader view of how seemingly conflicting views can co-exist in the Church because it is agreed that the different theological approaches get to the same theological truth.

I come from Judaism. It has existed for thousands of years because it takes a broad view and allows various interpretations to exist side by side. Jews cherish this. Rarely is their only one opinion…except about one God. It’s the lifeblood of the synagogue and why they’re still around!. They typical reaction to a viewpoint that someone disagrees with is usually first…Wonderful! Then again, Jews don’t have dogmas…doctrines, yes…but not dogma.

One of the things I admire about Catholicism is that it’s often similar in its openness to explore ideas further than Protestants with their…well, the Bible says…then case closed. A Rabbi friend from years ago said he loved discussing theology with priests…Protestants, not so much.

 

[Allyson]

One of the things I admire about Catholicism is that it’s often similar in its openness to explore ideas further than Protestants with their…well, the Bible says…then case closed. A Rabbi friend from years ago said he loved discussing theology with priests…Protestants, not so much.

I think this may be because Catholicism is closer in evolutionary time (hush all, do not get you panties in a bunch…this is an analogy) to the Judaism from which it came. The West (Latin Rite) tends to be more fiedeistic and legalistic than the East (Byzantium/Orthodoxy), which passed into Protestantism in spite of all their protestation. For quite a while the Western Church lost contact with the rich theological traditions of the Eastern Church Fathers, who were only known in snippets if at all. In the West you have just a handful of greats like Augustine, Origen (mixed bag of orthodoxy and heterodoxy - posthumously condemned), and Irenaeus.

That said, I learned on a trip to Canada that there was also a reformation like sola scriptura group in Russia that broke from Orthodoxy. They were driven out, and went to Western Canada. I am nowhere as familiar with them as I am with the mainline types.

 

[Buckeye1010]

You never heard of the Humanzee?