Why didn't God save Neanderthals?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holyorders
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Aloysium said:
Just to clarify, :twocents:; I’m sure you would agree. Animals live by instinct in the sense that at the core of their behaviour, they are “hard-wired”, with some variation based on learning. At the core of human behaviour, there is free will. We have certain emotional reactions and behavioural tendencies as we have livers, brains, muscles etc. shared with animals. We have the capacity to perceive and understand what is good, what is beautiful and what is true. We are able to make choices, unlike animals.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree, Aloysium, but with one caveat. Freedom is limited by grasp of the truth. A human who does not know his options is of less “free will”. A human who sees another as worthless and does not realize that such perception is not truth, but that such perception is part of the functioning of the mind involved in justice, is not “free”. The crowd that hung Jesus was not “free”, they were blinded by resentment.

The person making choices based on falsehoods, as did the Tsarnaev brothers, have a will limited by blindness and ignorance.

Our hardwiring is still there, yes, but as we gain awareness, we become more free.

Thanks for adding the clarification. Yes, humans (at least to some degree) have free will. We can make choices, albeit often limited ones.🙂
 
OneSheep said:
Good morning Dearest Granny,

We are back to a bigger underlying question here, which is extremely important when carrying out a New Evangelism. Is a person who wants to be in communion with the Church but holds some differing ideas truly in communion or are they left out? Are they “in the tent” or are they not?
Click to expand...
When there is a precise example of a personal disagreement with duly defined, properly proclaimed Catholic doctrines, I will do my best to sort out the misunderstandings.

Until I have your precise example of a personal disagreement about a particular Catholic doctrine, I will rest here.

I do hope the tent you put up has inside plumbing. Please be considerate of my older than dirt anatomy.
 
OneSheep said:
Yes, I agree, Aloysium, but with one caveat. Freedom is limited by grasp of the truth.
Click to expand...
You better pay attention to the truth of my limited anatomy when you are constructing your tent.

My brain really needs a break. Do take your time with my post 183.
:yawn::sleep:
 
Hi Again!🙂

My question:
  1. Do you want Catholics to be open-minded and accepting of Catholic (not clashing) opinions other than their own, or do you want Catholics to hold differing opinions in contempt?
grannymh said:
May I gently point out that the real Catholic Church was not founded on a variety of “opinions.” Of course you may talk about as many opinions as your heart desires. If you have trouble discerning between a personal opinion and a duly defined, properly proclaimed Catholic doctrine, I will do my best to help you. However, you need to be more precise regarding the particular subject matter.
Click to expand...
Interesting, but you did not answer my question.

My next question:
  1. Are you trying to point out unorthodoxy where there is no example of such?
When there is a precise example of a personal disagreement with duly defined, properly proclaimed Catholic doctrines, I will do my best to state the actual Catholic doctrines which are involved. If you wish, you may present a precise example of a personal disagreement about a particular Catholic doctrine. I will attempt to sort out possible misunderstandings.
Click to expand...
Okay, you said that doctrine was being “attacked” by something stated on this thread, indicating that you thought there was a “precise example of a personal disagreement with duly defined, properly proclaimed Catholic doctrines”, in other words, unorthodox. You even warned “the readers” of such.

However, you have yet to come up with anything said on this thread that fits the criteria of unorthodoxy. Where in the CCC does it allow us to accuse people of unorthodoxy where there is none? Fear is empty, Granny. Fear is enslavement.

My last question was:
  1. Are you willing to admit that there are a number of acceptable Catholic opinions on the topic?
Considering that there are thousands of both acceptable and unacceptable opinions about thousands of topics. Would it be possible for you to narrow down your world wide question?
Click to expand...
Fair enough question. The original topic is, “Why didn’t God save Neanderthals”?

I am saying that, based on the science, Neanderthals were a race, so possibly Neanderthals have the same redemptive “status” as we do, that we have nothing to say one way or another as far as whether God “saved” Neanderthals.

You have a different opinion, and I am saying that your opinion is acceptable.

Now can you answer the question?

My quote:

Humans live by instinct like animals. We desire power, status, control of our destinies, all of the territory and material wealth we can garner, and as much sex as possible. We want to save energy, we are compelled to want what others have, we are capable of angry defensive displays, and we want justice, just as some of the higher apes do. Just like chimpanzees, we are capable of seeing another of the same species as worthless, and carry out the death penalty, as did those who hung Jesus.

Yes, we are created to love and serve God, but we do so while fighting the shackles of our instincts. Jesus calling us to love and serve is a means to free ourselves from the shackles and transcend our instincts. In such obedience, we create the Kingdom

Your reaction:
Such a sad view of human life.
Click to expand...
It is a real view of human life. I see beauty in all of our instincts. They are all gifts from God, for all have contributed to our survival, just as these same instincts serve the survival of animals. I don’t see it as a sad view at all.

Fear is also a beautiful instinct, but it too enslaves people. Some people are afraid that all those who do not meet certain criteria are going to hell, but this contradicts the unconditional and unlimited love and mercy of God. People are enslaved by such fear.

Yes, a human without awareness of God, being unable to transcend instinct, is a machine, he is not free, he is dead to the freedom Jesus is calling us to. He is still beautiful, as are all his instincts, but he is a slave. However, the human also has an instinct that guides to freedom, and he needs to be shown the way.

Jesus is The Way.

Oh, there I go again, getting all preachy. Sorry.

God Bless you, Granny.🙂
 
grannymh said:
You better pay attention to the truth of my limited anatomy when you are constructing your tent.

My brain really needs a break. Do take your time with my post 183.
:yawn::sleep:
Click to expand...
In the meantime, here are some credible sources when one is looking for ways to deal with some of the scientific aspects of archaic fossils.

Two articles.
crisismagazine.com/2014/did-adam-and-eve-really-exist

hprweb.com/2014/07/time-to-abandon-the-genesis-story/

Informative Catholic Website drbonnette.com/

The new expanded third edition of the book *Origin of the Human Species *by Catholic author Dr. Dennis Bonnette includes the article “The Myth of the “Myth” of Adam and Eve” as Appendix One. Appendix Two is “The Philosophical Impossibility of Darwinian Naturalistic Evolution”

amazon.com/Origin-Human-Species-Third-Edition/dp/1932589686/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1412467670&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=Origin+of+the+human+species++Bonnette

:sleep:
 
OneSheep said:
Hi Again!🙂

My question:
  1. Do you want Catholics to be open-minded and accepting of Catholic (not clashing) opinions other than their own, or do you want Catholics to hold differing opinions in contempt?{snip}
Click to expand...
It seems to me that you may be confusing the opinion with the person. Granny is not treating them as the same.

I will hold any opinion of any Catholic that is contrary with Church teaching in contempt. Hopefully I would do so while upholding that Catholic person’s inherent dignity as a human being. I would not, and should not, allow any heresy to stink up my tent.
 
OneSheep said:
. . . as we gain awareness, we become more free. . .
Click to expand...
Rather than awareness, I would say conformity to the teachings of the church,
which is as close to the knowledge of God’s will that we as one humanity can agree to.
Much of what is termed “awareness” these days seems merely an intellectual fad.
Faith means action and it is in that action, in accordance with God’s will that we gain true freedom.
 
OneSheep said:
Hi Again!🙂

My question:
  1. Do you want Catholics to be open-minded and accepting of Catholic (not clashing) opinions other than their own, or do you want Catholics to hold differing opinions in contempt?
Interesting, but you did not answer my question.

My next question:
  1. Are you trying to point out unorthodoxy where there is no example of such?
Okay, you said that doctrine was being “attacked” by something stated on this thread, indicating that you thought there was a “precise example of a personal disagreement with duly defined, properly proclaimed Catholic doctrines”, in other words, unorthodox. You even warned “the readers” of such.

However, you have yet to come up with anything said on this thread that fits the criteria of unorthodoxy. Where in the CCC does it allow us to accuse people of unorthodoxy where there is none? Fear is empty, Granny. Fear is enslavement.

My last question was:
  1. Are you willing to admit that there are a number of acceptable Catholic opinions on the topic?
Fair enough question. The original topic is, “Why didn’t God save Neanderthals”?

I am saying that, based on the science, Neanderthals were a race, so possibly Neanderthals have the same redemptive “status” as we do, that we have nothing to say one way or another as far as whether God “saved” Neanderthals.

You have a different opinion, and I am saying that your opinion is acceptable.

Now can you answer the question?

My quote:

Humans live by instinct like animals. We desire power, status, control of our destinies, all of the territory and material wealth we can garner, and as much sex as possible. We want to save energy, we are compelled to want what others have, we are capable of angry defensive displays, and we want justice, just as some of the higher apes do. Just like chimpanzees, we are capable of seeing another of the same species as worthless, and carry out the death penalty, as did those who hung Jesus.

Yes, we are created to love and serve God, but we do so while fighting the shackles of our instincts. Jesus calling us to love and serve is a means to free ourselves from the shackles and transcend our instincts. In such obedience, we create the Kingdom

Your reaction:

It is a real view of human life. I see beauty in all of our instincts. They are all gifts from God, for all have contributed to our survival, just as these same instincts serve the survival of animals. I don’t see it as a sad view at all.

Fear is also a beautiful instinct, but it too enslaves people. Some people are afraid that all those who do not meet certain criteria are going to hell, but this contradicts the unconditional and unlimited love and mercy of God. People are enslaved by such fear.

Yes, a human without awareness of God, being unable to transcend instinct, is a machine, he is not free, he is dead to the freedom Jesus is calling us to. He is still beautiful, as are all his instincts, but he is a slave. However, the human also has an instinct that guides to freedom, and he needs to be shown the way.

Jesus is The Way.

Oh, there I go again, getting all preachy. Sorry.

God Bless you, Granny.🙂
Click to expand...
It doesn’t matter how genetically close neanderthals were to human beings. You can say they were 99.9999% close it doesn’t matter - they were not human beings. OK?

Also, you are confusing animal instinct and sin. Humans do evil by succumbing to sin not by succumbing to animal instinct. It is because we are fallen we act evil. Animals are acting from instinct it is not sin.
 
opusAquinas said:
That’s nice. But it is not me.

Close but no cigar.

Soooooo close and yet soooo far.
Click to expand...
Just pointing out that your definition of what constitutes being human, from a genetic perspective, needs a little more work. Because you are suggesting that someone with effectively the same genetic make-up as you cannot be human.
 
Bradski said:
Just pointing out that your definition of what constitutes being human, from a genetic perspective, needs a little more work. Because you are suggesting that someone with effectively the same genetic make-up as you cannot be human.
Click to expand...
No you have a hard time understanding the difference between 100% and 99.9999999999999…%. It is not the same thing. 100% = 100%.

From an atheist perspective you will look at something and say they are just like us. What is your reference point - your standard to say they are just like us so that they are in fact you. But they are not you. That’s the point.

I saw a guy today. He spoke like you acted and looked just like you.
But he wasn’t me.
 
Considering that humans are vertebrates, pardon me, but I cannot fathom the big deal over similar functioning genes.

On the other hand, you all are probably wondering why I make a big deal over the difference between populations in the thousands and a sole population of two.

🤷
 
Tomdstone said:
How did you arrive to the quantity 0.000001% ?
Click to expand...
Ah…got carried away with my zeros. It’s meant to be the percentage difference between Neanderthals and present day humans as suggested by opus (‘You can say they were 99.9999% close). Should have been 0.0001%. Which is still closer to the difference between you and opus by a magnitude of 3.
opusAquinas said:
No you have a hard time understanding the difference between 100% and 99.9999999999999…%. It is not the same thing. 100% = 100%.
Click to expand...
No two humans match 100%. As I said, there is a difference between any two random individuals of 0.1%. So if you have a difference between yourself and Tomdstone of 0.1% and a difference between you and someone else of 0.001% who would you say you are more closely related to genetically?
grannymh said:
On the other hand, you all are probably wondering why I make a big deal over the difference between populations in the thousands and a sole population of two.
Click to expand...
Because you can’t think of another scenario that ties in with how you understand Catholic teaching on the matter.
 
wmw said:
I referred to mathematics also; I find it freeing from the absoluteness of the infallibility of mathematics that the theory of relativity tells us of how space is curved and describes it by mathematics, but the theory points out the falsehood of one of the fundamental axioms of mathematics. That is that there is a straight line between two points that is a minimum distance between them.
Click to expand...
Hi wmw,
I just wanted to pop in and make a point about mathematics. The thing we all learn in middle and high school where the minimum distance between two points is a line- this is called Euclidean geometry. In Euclidean geometry, we assume that space must be flat. In the general theory of relativity, we instead use Rienmannian geometry, which allows for curved space.
All math starts from axioms, which we assume are true for the sake of argument. Math can never actually tell us whether an axiom is true in our universe, we just look around and see if the results of our axioms look right in the real world. This is how we can have two forms of math with axioms that contradict each other: both Euclidean and Rienmannian are just big if’s, and they draw from different if’s. When they hold contradictory conclusions, it’s no surprise, and it certainly doesn’t mean that math itself is flawed.
 
Bradski said:
Ah…got carried away with my zeros. It’s meant to be the percentage difference between Neanderthals and present day humans as suggested by opus (‘You can say they were 99.9999% close). Should have been 0.0001%. Which is still closer to the difference between you and opus by a magnitude of 3.

No two humans match 100%. As I said, there is a difference between any two random individuals of 0.1%. So if you have a difference between yourself and Tomdstone of 0.1% and a difference between you and someone else of 0.001% who would you say you are more closely related to genetically?

Because you can’t think of another scenario that ties in with how you understand Catholic teaching on the matter.
Click to expand...
But a human being is different than a neanderthal or we would call them human beings.
 
Bradski said:
And there is just enough of a genetic difference to make that so.

So this…

…is incorrect. It does matter. And this…

…is spectacularly incorrect.
Click to expand...
Humans are not neanderthals. yeah but…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top