Why didn't God save Neanderthals?

[grannymh]

Yes, again Granny!

390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.

The Holy Spirit has guided us to acknowledge the significance of an original fault within a non-scientific scripture story that we are to read figuratively.

What specifically is an original fault and what is the specific significance. Trying to find a response to generality is …

I am a down to earth granny. I need specifics. And what specifically is the problem of a non-scientific scripture story when it comes to Catholic doctrines which flow from the first three chapters of the 50-chapter Genesis?

When we are to read *figuratively, *does that mean there are figuratively doctrines?

God Bless you, Granny, and for all the attempts to isolate yourself, you will always be in my “Big Tent”.

 

[grannymh]

Scientific finding are not, and never will be, a threat to the central tenets of our faith, these findings only threaten the faith of *some *Catholics.

I am a tad confused. Are there two Catholic Churches one for “our faith” and another for “some Catholics?”

And please give some examples of the central tenets of “our faith” which might be threatened by the central tenets of our science. Or maybe there is a third Catholic Church where everyone’s opinion is counted as *their truth. *Isn’t that part of the Big Tent idea?

I hope you notice that I am trying to respond to you. You did make a request.

 

[OneSheep]

This interpretation from post 294, in bold, needs close examination.
"We do not know the genetic configuration or level of intelligence of those first 2 humans, but CCC 365 tells us that they were not human until they had a soul."
First it says “those first 2 humans” and then it explains that they were not human
until they had a *soul. *What is happening here is that the human person anatomy is separate from the soul. According to this error, there is human blood and guts, skin and bones, bouncing around on earth waiting to gain a super soul to make a fully human person.

As I pointed out, the emphasis of CCC 365 is on unity, not separation.
it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

Matter is matter until it is animated by a God-created rational spiritual soul. The human person has one instantly complete human nature; not two natures with one waiting for the other.

CCC 365 needs a proper understanding. A good way to do this is to read surrounding paragraphs such as *CCC *364 and 366.

Obviously, *CCC 364, *365, 366, refute the science theory that human soul-like
characteristics developed as part the anatomical progress taking place as the brains of hominins increased in size waiting for rational intellective tools to evolve. (soul in church-speak).

Philosophically speaking. CCC 364, 365, 356 refutes Cartesian dualism.

Perhaps, your original comment …
"We do not know the genetic configuration or level of intelligence of those first 2 humans, but CCC 365 tells us that they were not human until they had a soul."

… accidentally left out some words. That often happens with me. Nonetheless, your comment implies a serious misunderstanding of CCC 365.

Note:
The history of man begins with the first human person, Adam. This is a Catholic teaching. The exact day and year when Adam appeared is not a Catholic teaching.

Homework is to study CCC 1730-1732.

Hi Granny,

Is that all you can find to refute? But you misinterpreted my use of the word “until”, that was not the way I meant to use it. Saying a man has a soul and a body is no more dualistic than saying he has a head and a torso, unless it is meant that they are not unified.

What I meant was that the genetic human is incomplete without a soul. We don’t know when genetic “humans” were given a soul, but their “humanity” was not complete, according to the anthropology presented in the CCC, until they had a soul, given by God. Indeed, it appears that the soul was given to two adults, not children, in the creation story. So, if one were to take the story literally in that sense, the soul was certainly not a genetic “addition”.

The CCC does not refute that there may have been genetic humans walking around, before Adam, that were incomplete. Once the genetic human gained a soul, he was a complete, unified human. This is not dualism. Humans have a soul, but we are one in person. The soul is an aspect, a part, of the whole. The human with a soul is a unity.

This is not refuted by the CCC. We don’t know whether Neanderthals had a soul or not, even if they were genetically “human”. The human is much, much more than a material, genetic, “phenotype”. We are not completely “human” until we have a soul. This is not refuted, it is supported, by the CCC.

CCC 1730-1732 do not refute what I said in post 281. Those don’t seem to even address what I wrote.

Like I mentioned, if you are refuting post 281, you are not reflecting the CCC. Unless, of course, you are misreading my post.

Anything else?

 

[grannymh]

Hi Granny,

Is that all you can find to refute? But you misinterpreted my use of the word “until”, that was not the way I meant to use it.

What I meant was that the genetic human is incomplete without a soul. We don’t know when genetic “humans” were given a soul, but their “humanity” was not complete, according to the anthropology presented in the CCC, until they had a soul, given by God. Indeed, it appears that the soul was given to two adults, not children, in the creation story. So, if one were to take the story literally in that sense, the soul was certainly not a genetic “addition”.

The CCC does not refute that there may have been genetic humans walking around, before Adam, that were incomplete. Once the genetic human gained a soul, he was a complete, unified human. This is not dualism. Humans have a soul, but we are one in person. The soul is an aspect, a part, of the whole. The human with a soul is a unity.

This is not refuted by the CCC. We don’t know whether Neanderthals had a soul or not, even if they were genetically “human”. The human is much, much more than a material, genetic, “phenotype”. We are not completely “human” until we have a soul. This is not refuted, it is supported, by the CCC.

CCC 1730-1732 do not refute what I said in post 281. Those don’t seem to even address what I wrote.

Like I mentioned, if you are refuting post 281, you are not reflecting the CCC. Unless, of course, you are misreading my post.

Anything else?

Please do not bother to answer my questions.
Please do not bother to read my posts.
Just ignore me.
Thank you.

 

[OneSheep]

Please do not bother to answer my questions.
Please do not bother to read my posts.
Just ignore me.
Thank you.

I’m sorry, Granny, what did I miss? Which question did I not address? Please, I thought I addressed everything.

Good night. Do you ever sleep?

 

[Hans_W]

I’m sorry,It gets very tough when you no longer believe in your Thesis. Yet if you turned the whole paper around you are asking for a D or F. That is the lack of Freedom I’m talking about.

Did you read the title of my thesis? I am actually arguing in favour of a supernatural realm. Where do you see a “lack of freedom”? - I could very much have argued for the opposite. That would have given me support from atheists and many philosophers (including my supervisor). Not sure where you get this “horrible cost of academic and cultural isolation” and “academic martyrs” from (in your previous post).

Scientists love to argue and be sceptical about other findings which contradicts what we think to be right. But once we have been proven wrong, we admit it and move on. Example: ID with its “irreducible complexity”.

I agree that the evidence must meet a very high standard, but there must be a reasonable way to investigate miracles.

Science can disprove miracles by showing that there was a natural explanation, but you can’t use it to prove a miracle. A miraculous healing could have a natural explanation which we haven’t uncovered. This does not mean that there are no miracles.

I agree, but we are talking about one of the few possible exceptions that the human species was founded by two.

Well, that’s one of the cases where science wins by giving us evidence (I hope that Granny doesn’t read this) - when you refer to our physical bodies. When it comes to souls, then you are free to believe that it all started with two. Science has nothing to say about souls.

When you say it in a colloquial way it is quite reasonable. Still, the Catholic approach is as you quoted Gottfried Leibnitz, “if God constructs something, it’s done perfectly and doesn’t need any correction”; so, if we have a natural unfolding of creation from the Initial Big Bang this is to be expected. Yet, Adam&Eve, Mary, Jesus, maybe Enoch these are the exceptions where God acted, & not from the initial Big Bang.

Leibnitz was referring to the stability of the solar system. And that’s only stable in a certain limited time frame. There were a couple of major mass extinctions, during the Permian, for example, 96% of all species vanished. So God’s ways are very different from what we would call perfect.

You list a couple of exceptions where God acted directly. I assume you mean that God suspended what we call the laws of nature. Does that also include the parting of the Red Sea, Aaron’s rod turning into a serpent, the 10 plagues, the Flood, Jonah in the belly, the standing still of the sun, and so on? I think we agree that we Catholics are allowed to read certain Bible passages as figuratively. Why are Adam and Eve such big stumbling blocks?

 

[grannymh]

Gentle Readers,

When I suggested a study of CCC 1730-1732, I was suggesting another source of information regarding Adam and ourselves and how different we are from other species. This literal fact is recognized in the language shift from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1: 26.

This idea from post 301 –
that the genetic human is incomplete without a soul. We don’t know when genetic “humans” were given a soul, but their “humanity” was not complete, according to the anthropology presented in the CCC, until they had a soul, given by God.
– raises numerous questions about Adam’s incompleteness. While Adam is a human without a soul, Genesis 2: 15-17 would be a problem because it requires the presence of a true, fully-complete human with a rational soul. A soul means intellect and will as described in CCC 1730-1732. If Genesis 2: 15-17 disappeared, then the opportunity for humans with souls to live in heaven is gone. That well-known tree gives humans with souls the opportunity to seek God as in *CCC *1730-1732. Without that opportunity, what happens to genetic humans incomplete or complete?

Another thought. It is the spiritual soul which is essentially needed in order for us to have a relationship with God. Does it really make sense that God would keep that gift, Genesis 1: 26-27 away from the people He loved. What if genetic humans had to earn that soul gift. Or we can picture blood and guts, skin and bones, bouncing around the Garden of Eden waiting to gain a soul.

Personally, I do not see any benefit in discussing this hidden attack of confusion.
It certainly is not a blessing for humankind.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . I think we agree that we Catholics are allowed to read certain Bible passages as figuratively. Why are Adam and Eve such big stumbling blocks?

The next person one meets is a holy eternal being, becoming more Christ-like or demonic.
Each moment involves a relationship with the Divine; this is real life.
If we want to manipulate matter, we go search the manual - science.

Adam and Eve represent a new level of creation which exists ontologically,
understood as being composed at its base, of very, very small substances,
but ultimately manifested as the infinitely complex and sophisticated being that is human.
This structure was created in time, Divine days if you like, which according to current thinking, spanned eons.

Science is divided into various fields: physics, chemistry, earth sciences, botany, zoology, psychiatry.
Each of these areas reflect the reality of “substances” as real as those that compose the subatomic.
The study of human beings involves something more complex that the study of animals, than plants, than the weather or geology, than biochemistry, than the subatomic.

In dealing with human beings we are contemplating holy creatures, the existence of whom science has absolutely no realistic explanation.
Scripture reveals the truth of our creation, “science” is seemingly uninterested in picking up the ball and running with it.

 

[simpleas]

Hi Granny,

Is that all you can find to refute? But you misinterpreted my use of the word “until”, that was not the way I meant to use it. Saying a man has a soul and a body is no more dualistic than saying he has a head and a torso, unless it is meant that they are not unified.

What I meant was that the genetic human is incomplete without a soul. We don’t know when genetic “humans” were given a soul, but their “humanity” was not complete, according to the anthropology presented in the CCC, until they had a soul, given by God. Indeed, it appears that the soul was given to two adults, not children, in the creation story. So, if one were to take the story literally in that sense, the soul was certainly not a genetic “addition”.
The CCC does not refute that there may have been genetic humans walking around, before Adam, that were incomplete. Once the genetic human gained a soul, he was a complete, unified human. This is not dualism. Humans have a soul, but we are one in person. The soul is an aspect, a part, of the whole. The human with a soul is a unity.

This is not refuted by the CCC. We don’t know whether Neanderthals had a soul or not, even if they were genetically “human”. The human is much, much more than a material, genetic, “phenotype”. We are not completely “human” until we have a soul. This is not refuted, it is supported, by the CCC.

CCC 1730-1732 do not refute what I said in post 281. Those don’t seem to even address what I wrote.

Like I mentioned, if you are refuting post 281, you are not reflecting the CCC. Unless, of course, you are misreading my post.

Anything else?

What would be the difference in God giving an Adult rather than a child a soul? Both would have had to be created by God.

It’s this separate teaching on God made the man from the earth and then breathed life into him. We know that’s the point were we believe that God gave the man a soul, not just oxygen because the animals would be breathing in order to live, but God doesn’t breath into them .

Hasn’t for the longest time, man believed that God is “out there” rather than in us that has been a major fault in religious teachings. That is until Jesus came, and taught that the human is the temple of the spirit, not a building, the sky or whatever.

 

[afthomercy]

I agree with grannymh that it is not licit to state that an already existing living being can “gain a soul”, because he/it already has a soul of some sort (vegetative/sensitive/spiritual) a.k.a. Aristotle/Aquinas.

In the conception of Adam and Eve (A&E) in their respective mother’s wombs, spiritual souls were created for the first time, making these two genetic humans the very first true humans. Hence, even if there existed genetic humans prior to or alongside A&E, they would have had purely sensitive or animal souls and hence would not have been truly human.

If the test to determine whether a soul is spiritual or not is its capacity to reason out (morally/rationally) and take its own decisions (free will), then the neanderthals would qualify as true humans and that would automatically place A&E in the era of archaic humankind.

I think that renders the OP moot, because as members of the truly human race, Christ’s redemptive act would extend to the neanderthals also!

 

[simpleas]

Gentle Readers,

When I suggested a study of CCC 1730-1732, I was suggesting another source of information regarding Adam and ourselves and how different we are from other species. This literal fact is recognized in the language shift from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1: 26.

This idea from post 301 –
that the genetic human is incomplete without a soul. We don’t know when genetic “humans” were given a soul, but their “humanity” was not complete, according to the anthropology presented in the CCC, until they had a soul, given by God.
– raises numerous questions about Adam’s incompleteness. While Adam is a human without a soul, Genesis 2: 15-17 would be a problem because it requires the presence of a true, fully-complete human with a rational soul. A soul means intellect and will as described in CCC 1730-1732. If Genesis 2: 15-17 disappeared, then the opportunity for humans with souls to live in heaven is gone. That well-known tree gives humans with souls the opportunity to seek God as in *CCC *1730-1732. Without that opportunity, what happens to genetic humans incomplete or complete?

Another thought. It is the spiritual soul which is essentially needed in order for us to have a relationship with God. Does it really make sense that God would keep that gift, Genesis 1: 26-27 away from the people He loved. What if genetic humans had to earn that soul gift. Or we can picture blood and guts, skin and bones, bouncing around the Garden of Eden waiting to gain a soul.

Personally, I do not see any benefit in discussing this hidden attack of confusion.
It certainly is not a blessing for humankind.

In this science fiction, space age world we now live in, most anything is considered a possibilty, as you will know.
Thinking God gave two creatures that had evolved from his own creation, a soul at some point in history, who then went on to be fruitful and multiply, sounds like we are very much part of all creation, with the unique ability to choose. We know we share our dna with many animals, so this might be why people wonder about how we really were created to be, and have this unique relationship with God. Although I can’t say for sure that animals do not have their own unique relationship with the creator, just because I don’t see it

Thought on the garden question :

God placed the man in the garden after he had given the soul to him, there wouldn’t have been any other type of human creature waiting around in there for a soul. The garden was made for the man.
(eve didn’t get a say in what the garden would look like! can you imagine how she would rearrange it once she came to be!)

 

[OneSheep]

What would be the difference in God giving an Adult rather than a child a soul? Both would have had to be created by God.

It’s this separate teaching on God made the man from the earth and then breathed life into him. We know that’s the point were we believe that God gave the man a soul, not just oxygen because the animals would be breathing in order to live, but God doesn’t breath into them .

Hasn’t for the longest time, man believed that God is “out there” rather than in us that has been a major fault in religious teachings. That is until Jesus came, and taught that the human is the temple of the spirit, not a building, the sky or whatever.

Good Morning Simpleas,

If “humanness” started with a child, then that would be more along the lines of a genetic means by which God gave us a soul. This part of the discussion falls along the lines of “How many angels can sit on the head of a pin”. Does it really matter, anyway? We can lose the point of the Genesis story in such discussions, right?

As far as a good summary goes, I like this one:

I agree with grannymh that it is not licit to state that an already existing living being can “gain a soul”, because he/it already has a soul of some sort (vegetative/sensitive/spiritual) a.k.a. Aristotle/Aquinas.

Welcome, afthomercy!

I’m not sure about “licit” one way or the other, but what you say above works for me!

In the conception of Adam and Eve (A&E) in their respective mother’s wombs, spiritual souls were created for the first time, making these two genetic humans the very first true humans. Hence, even if there existed genetic humans prior to or alongside A&E, they would have had purely sensitive or animal souls and hence would not have been truly human.

I love the way you are expressing this. If granny agrees to accept this, then once and for all we are all in the same anthropological/theological camp, even though we may be not “exactly” in sinc.

If the test to determine whether a soul is spiritual or not is its capacity to reason out (morally/rationally) and take its own decisions (free will), then the neanderthals would qualify as true humans and that would automatically place A&E in the era of archaic humankind.

I think that renders the OP moot, because as members of the truly human race, Christ’s redemptive act would extend to the neanderthals also!

I don’t know about the “test”, I’d have to give it some thought, but I agree with what you are saying here.

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut!

 

[davidv]

Hi David,

The fact remains that the CCC does not refute the points I made in post 281, and they are meaningful because they allow theology to free itself from genomics, and vice versa.

But hey, never mind the ideas I present. You got flowers from Granny, and I got diddly squat.

I lose.:bighanky:

Have a great day.

I have concluded that we are not understanding each other.

It is not clear to me which points are in contention. Could you, in your own words, describe what you think grannymh is objecting to?

Thanks

 

[grannymh]

Quote from post 308
In the conception of Adam and Eve (A&E) in their respective mother’s wombs, spiritual souls were created for the first time, making these two genetic humans the very first true humans. Hence, even if there existed genetic humans prior to or alongside A&E, they would have had purely sensitive or animal souls and hence would not have been truly human.

Welcome, afthomercy!

I love the way you are expressing this. If granny agrees to accept this, then once and for all we are all in the same anthropological/theological camp, even though we may be not “exactly” in sinc.

Because of all the hot air, mine included, would you kindly first answer post 311?

**In addition **do you recognize that post 308 affrms the Catholic position that all humankind descended from Adam and Eve? This means that Adam and Eve are a literal reality in the first three chapters of Genesis. This means that a literal Original Sin (in the first three chapters of Genesis) exists because Adam is the only original literal true human. This means that there is literal truth in the first three chapters which means that *CCC *390 affirms these literal events.

As a Catholic,I have a firm belief in a literal Adam and a literal Original Sin and a literal Divine Jesus Christ Who literally restored the literal first friendship relationship of humanity with Divinity.

I am not interested in a Big Tent with holes in the roof and forecasted rain. I want a solid roof that maintains Catholic doctrines regarding my very own original human ancestor, singular. I am not interested in having a random breeding originating humanizing population as my personal origin. So you may stop inviting me and others to your anthropological/theological camp where everyone’s opinion is legitimate even if it is not “exactly” in sinc.

I want stable truth. And yes, unchanging truth is very comforting.

 

[Hans_W]

I want stable truth. And yes, unchanging truth is very comforting.

Wasn’t that the problem St Thomas had? He needed proof, absolute certainty. Belief wasn’t good enough. What did Jesus answer?

 

[Tomdstone]

I want stable truth.

You may want such, but can you get it?

 

[Tom_Baum]

Sometimes, it makes one wonder if God knows just how many people have all of the details of God’s Plan figured out.

Or should I say how many think that they know everything about God’s Plan of Salvation?

 

[davidv]

You may want such, but can you get it?

Why not?

 

[Tomdstone]

Why not?

Because there are certain things that cannot be known with certainty.

 

[simpleas]

If man was made a complete spiritual being from the word go, why does he have animal like instincts? This might sound a stupid question to some but i was thinking about the higher and lower appetites of humans, wouldn’t these appetites have been in man before God made him a higher being? That when he lost his relationship with God he slipped back into the natural tendencies that a creature has, although not fully of course because he is made to be spiritual.