Why didn't God save Neanderthals?

[grannymh]

Because you can’t think of another scenario that ties in with how you understand Catholic teaching on the matter.

Bingo!

You sure nailed that one correctly. Thank you.

Nice of you to recognize some basic deduction from some basic Catholic theology. Please, please note that I am not trying to convert you. I am personally delighted in your common sense reasoning when it comes to some of Catholic teachings – in which you do not have to believe.

 

[grannymh]

Tiny comment.

When comparing archaic fossils, paleoanthropologists still examine the brow ridge.

 

[grannymh]

Something else I wonder about.

I wonder if the Neanderthals ever chose real Faith actions in accord with God’s
will.

Interestingly, there is a record of God describing the Faith action He required of the first real human person. That is one of the reasons I prefer a real physical visible Catholic Church which has studied Holy Scripture from the beginning. Examples are Romans 5: 12-19 and 1 Corinthians 15: 22.

I wonder where the Neanderthal records are which recorded their Faith actions stemming from their assumed intellective free will.

 

[grannymh]

Note to Gentle Readers

Despite extremely charitable and very loving language directed at myself, this cranky granny will never replace the Holy Spirit’s presence within the Catholic Church with any kind of a Big Tent or “communion” theory.

As I recall, the Holy Spirit has not been discussed in depth. However, my deep belief in chapter 14, Gospel of John, needs to be mentioned, even if this is the first time.

 

[OneSheep]

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.

Good point, David, but Granny is not denying that those who hold different opinions are not in her tent, she opposes the “Big tent”.

So, if another Catholic is “stinking up your tent” how do you approach the person? It is the manner of the approach that will truly communicate whether the person is in your idea of the “Catholic tent” or not, right? Indeed, one must first be able to look objectively at the opinions of others and forgive a person for “stinking up the tent”, if that is what is perceived.

What has happened on this thread is not such objectivity, David, what has occurred from some directions are fear and accusation. Now, fear and accusation are understandable, but reconciliation becomes the higher goal. People must take the time, prayer, and Gift of Undersanding to forgive positions they find offensive, or those sentiments (i.e. "You are stinking up the tent!) can (and will!) enter into the approach.

Do you see what I mean?

Thanks.

 

[OneSheep]

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?
.

Dear opusAquinas,

You may recall that here in America certain races were considered “not human”. Scientifically speaking, such an assertion was ridiculous. Races interbred and had offspring that were capable of reproduction.

The genomic evidence we have today clearly shows that those of the Homo Sapiens sapiens race mated with those of the Homo Sapiens neanderthalensis race, and had viable, reproductive offspring, and you are refusing to believe it. I can accept that.

This may be because you have some bias against the Neanderthal race, I don’t know. None of us knew them. However, if believing that Neanderthals were human is an insurmountable challenge to your faith, by all means continue to deny the science.

In the mean time, have you come to the point of seeing that for some Catholics the humanity of Neanderthals is not a big deal? Can you disagree, but still accept the difference of perspective? Or, are you saying that all Catholics must agree with you on the matter?

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.

I think it is probably best to work with an example. Let’s say Joe wants Bill’s car. Joe wants Bill’s car because Bill’s car is very nice. It is human instinct to want quality resources, probably evolved because having quality resources aids our survival. Next, what happens in Joe’s mind is something like, “Bill does not deserve this car, and I do” or “Bill’s feelings do not matter, I am the one who should have the car.”

What has happened is an automatic empathy-blockage, a blindness. Desire blinds people, and this is part of our nature. Not knowing Bill well at all, Joe has been blinded to the point that he sees theft as inconsequential to Bill’s feelings. Joe may have an internalized rule that says “do not steal”, but the rule may have been compromised by his own feeling that it is right for him to have the car and wrong for Bill to have it. Joe’s conscience has been compromised by desire, which is also automatic. It could be that Joe’s conscience is undeveloped, and his internal rule is limited to “do not steal from friends and family.” At this point, it is only fear of the law or of other consequence that keeps him from theft. Fear is a natural emotion, and the avoidance of loss of status (from getting caught) is instinctual. If he has no fear, his status is already low, or in his circles, stealing stuff elevates status, he may choose to steal the car.

You may be saying “Wait a minute, he had a choice!” Yes, he had choices all along. At every step of the way, a choice to love would have ended the problem. However, people have to have awareness of the choice to love, and they have to be aware of when they are not choosing love. Empathy takes some nurture and time to develop. Overcoming blindness takes a lot of awareness.

Do you see what I am saying, as far as the role of instinct? Did I leave something out?

The crowd who hung Jesus was blind, and they did not know it.

Thanks for your reply.

 

[davidv]

Good point, David, but Granny is not denying that those who hold different opinions are not in her tent, she opposes the “Big tent”.

So, if another Catholic is “stinking up your tent” how do you approach the person?

Depends on many factors that are not presented in this question.

It is the manner of the approach that will truly communicate whether the person is in your idea of the “Catholic tent” or not, right?

Does the truth need to be compromised in the process?

Indeed, one must first be able to look objectively at the opinions of others and forgive a person for “stinking up the tent”, if that is what is perceived.

Often this is not very difficult as the person will definitively state there rejection of Church teaching.

What has happened on this thread is not such objectivity, David, what has occurred from some directions are fear and accusation. Now, fear and accusation are understandable, but reconciliation becomes the higher goal. People must take the time, prayer, and Gift of Undersanding to forgive positions they find offensive, or those sentiments (i.e. "You are stinking up the tent!) can (and will!) enter into the approach.

Do you see what I mean?

Not really. I have not seen anything that I would call fear, nor accusation.

Thanks.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . The crowd who hung Jesus was blind, and they did not know it. . .

They knew what they were doing, as do we ourselves. They ignored the full horror of their act. We will all know at some point.

Matt 25:31 - "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

 

[grannymh]

Does the truth need to be compromised in the process?

From a small amount of personal research, my answer is Yes, there will be times when the Catholic truth is tweaked in order to happily fit everyone in the tent. Obviously, the tampered truth will depend on one’s geographical location or on one’s group of friends.

This closed thread did not get very far because the terminology was unfamiliar. The troubles on this thread were due to my errors.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=918073

 

[OneSheep]

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.

Plenty of inside plumbing!

Let’s do a little “thread history/overview” here. People have come forth with acceptance of the genomic evidence for Neanderthals being human, and you have objected to the acceptance in terms of Catholic teachings.

Our continued discussion has been about my explanation as to how acceptance of the genomic evidence is not contrary to Catholic doctrine, and you have not acknowledged this, you seem to be insisting that believing Neanderthals were human is contrary to Catholic doctrine.

So, this not a matter of my having a “precise example of a personal disagreement about a particular Catholic doctrine” it has been, and continues to be, a matter of your believing that the genomic evidence about neanderthalensis is contrary to Catholic doctrine, but you have not proven this at all.

What is clear to me is that the genomic evidence presents an insurmountable challenge to your faith, and as I have said too many times already, in such cases the individual should ignore the science. Can we who ignore the science and we who believe the science share the same “big tent”? Yes, absolutely, and the CCC does not say otherwise.

But my question to you remains unanswered: As I accept your rejection of the science, are you capable of accepting that I and many Catholics find truth in the science, and that such seeing is not contrary to Catholic teachings?

Give it a think, and a prayer, Granny. I extend my hand to you.

 

[OneSheep]

They knew what they were doing, as do we ourselves. They ignored the full horror of their act. We will all know at some point.

Hello Aloysium!

Luke 23:34
34 Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”[a] And they divided up his clothes by casting lots.

Either Jesus was wrong, or they did not know what they were doing.

The crowd was blinded by compulsion for justice.

I understand, though. We often think, when we have sinned, “I should have known better.” However, it takes a lot of awareness to realize when blindness has automatically occurred. The only clue we have is when we hold something against someone, and we are called to forgive when such happens. The crowd was not seeing themselves as blind, they thought they were right.

Do you see what I mean?

Oh, and as far as “sheep and goats” go, I very highly recommend Good Goats: Healing our Image of God by Dennis Linn, Sheila Fabricant Linn, and Matthew Linn.

The message: we are all sheep, and we are all goats. The verse you quoted aims to address parts of ourselves that lead us astray, to sinful behaviors. In the end, God’s love and mercy is infinite.

God Bless your day.

 

[ajecphotos]

Maybe he didn’t save them because they were just dead ugly!!

 

[simpleas]

Me thinks we need a new thread opened on what it means… “the big tent” or is the church inclusive or exclusive? And what that actually means…

 

[simpleas]

Maybe he didn’t save them because they were just dead ugly!!

It’s funny really, but they say in findings that these were “creatures” that had human behaviours, but because we don’t have any written scrolls on how they conducted their families and worshipped God then they can’t possibly have had souls

 

[OneSheep]

Depends on many factors that are not presented in this question.

David,

Is it Christian to approach Catholics or anyone who holds different views with objectivity and forgiveness, or with judgment and accusation? In what cases is it Christian to approach people with judgment and accusation?

Which of the approaches communicates love? Are we called to approach people with judgement and accusation when they reject Church teachings? This is not “separating the opinion from the person.” No, we must forgive first, before approaching the person.

And if you don’t believe that, consider yourself judged… Just kidding.

Do you see what I mean?

 

[Ridgerunner]

It’s funny really, but they say in findings that these were “creatures” that had human behaviours, but because we don’t have any written scrolls on how they conducted their families and worshipped God then they can’t possibly have had souls

No scrolls from the Cahokia Mound Builders either, but nobody doubts they were human. As to ugliness, they might not have been a bit uglier than your average professional wrestler.

 

[davidv]

David,

Is it Christian to approach Catholics or anyone who holds different views with objectivity and forgiveness, or with judgment and accusation? In what cases is it Christian to approach people with judgment and accusation?

Which of the approaches communicates love? Are we called to approach people with judgement and accusation when they reject Church teachings? This is not “separating the opinion from the person.” No, we must forgive first, before approaching the person.

And if you don’t believe that, consider yourself judged… Just kidding.

Do you see what I mean?

No comment. This seems far afield of the OP topic.

 

[grannymh]

Give it a think, and a prayer, Granny. I extend my hand to you.

Come to think about it, it may have been a different thread where I updated Catholics on the current science of human evolution. There was one thread where I had to update Catholics that the word “polygenism” used in 1950 requires a large population in 2015.

Regarding “genomic evidence” which was mentioned in post 211.

Here is an update which needs to be considered when we talk about one or the other Catholic doctrine which flows from the first three chapters of Genesis. Basically, today, all the genomic evidence is constantly being evaluated as to where it belongs on a cladogram.

Here is a brief link with some initial information on human origin as developed in the current science of human evolution. Be sure to scroll down to misconceptions.
evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/evo_07

That link belongs in a section which begins here.
evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_toc_01

Catholicism challenges the position that each cladogram point, including the common ancestor, is a rather large genetic population which, over many years, eventually produced an indiscriminate random-breeding humanizing population which is our origin. Catholicism clearly states that humankind descended directly from a population of two, Adam and Eve.

My apology, but I do not readily recall discussing “genomic evidence for Neanderthals being human.” That is because I find that there is more evidence in archaic artifacts. Actually, off CAF, I have expressed disagreement with some of the interpretations of these artifacts.

Regarding this last question in post 211.

“But my question to you remains unanswered: As I accept your rejection of the science, are you capable of accepting that I and many Catholics find truth in the science, and that such seeing is not contrary to Catholic teachings?”
Hopefully, I correctly understand the “science” you say I am rejecting refers to the genomic evidence talked about in post 211. Briefly, I do reject the interpretation of the genomic evidence in Francisco Ayala’s 1995 bombshell. This is based on a published review of the literature by another scientist. Refer to the chapters by Dr. Ann Gauger in the book Science & Human Origins amazon.com/Science-Human-Origins-Ann-Gauger/dp/193659904X

Post 186 above contains links to the scientific aspects of human origin. I agree with the information in these links.

Obviously, I understand various scientific positions relating to Genesis 1: 27-28. Obviously, I have read many posts on what Catholics consider as truth in science. I do reject some of the “truth” interpretations because some of the “truth” interpretations conflict with established Catholic doctrines.

I consider all people as worthy of profound respect.

 

[grannymh]

No scrolls from the Cahokia Mound Builders either, but nobody doubts they were human. As to ugliness, they might not have been a bit uglier than your average professional wrestler.

Cahokia Mound sounds familiar. Is that in Illinois or Missouri? If you have citations, would you please get them to me.

 

[grannymh]

Obviously, I understand various scientific positions relating to Genesis 1: 27-28. Obviously, I have read many posts on what Catholics consider as truth in science. I do reject some of the “truth” interpretations because some of the “truth” interpretations conflict with established Catholic doctrines.

Big clarification needed.

Please notice that I referred to “truth” interpretations and not to particular science research. Examples of these interpretations are in the book listed in post 219 and in the links listed in post 186.

Difficulties in interpretation are usually in the materials and methods sections of published research. In addition, a particular universal conclusion may not be warranted by the presented evidence. We need to be aware of the “Black Swan” principle. We cannot universally exclude the possibility of a real literal Adam and Eve.
svswans.com/black.html