A
Aloysium
Guest
Seems to me that doubt is another type of faith.
In the end, is this not all wondrous mystery?
- Status
In the end, is this not all wondrous mystery?
D
davidv
Guest
The problem here is the man is not a completely spiritual being. The question is based on a faulty starting point.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.
G
grannymh
Guest
Clarification of “If man” based on Catholic teaching.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.
The human person is a “spiritual creature.” Please note that the “spiritual creature” man is not a complete spiritual being because man has blood and guts, skin and bones. Human nature is a single union of both the spiritual world and the material world. That “union” Genesis 1: 26-27 is human’s ticket to heaven.
Questions about Catholic teaching. Please pardon my confusion.
What is meant by “appetites” being in man before God made him a higher being?
What would be the differences between a man and a higher being man?
G
grannymh
Guest
You posted while I was editing my early morning mistakes. A couple were rather funny.
It is comforting to know that some Catholic teachings are already known.
S
simpleas
Guest
Ok wrong choice of word, I mean by complete spiritual being as a human created without sin. Not a pure spiritual being like an angel.
S
simpleas
Guest
So what is a spiritual creature?
G
grannymh
Guest
A spiritual creature is one whose nature is an unique unification of both the spiritual world (rational spiritual soul) and the material world (decomposing anatomy). *CCC *355 and Genesis 1: 26-27. Because humans have a soul created by God, each human is a spiritual creature who is called by God to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s life via the State of Sanctifying Grace. *CCC *356; CCC 1730-1732 and CCC Glossary, Sanctifying Grace, page 898. In my personal opinion, I fear that some, not all, people do not spend sufficient time on the Catholic doctrines surrounding Sanctifying Grace. That may be one of the problems of the Big Tent idea.
I wonder what Neanderthals thought if they were descendants from the one couple, Adam and Eve.
S
simpleas
Guest
So, I’m thinking when that union was broken, aka Original sin, man was inclined to favour the material world, favour his own well being over others. Becoming selfish, dominate to others. Alot like other animals he is some what different from. So couldn’t these inclinations have been present before in the material, before the union of the spiritual, or why else would man have the need of God in the spiritual(staying in a state of grace in order to see God in the next life) Once material and spiritual were united, then there was a choice between them, choose God, (live spiritually) or choose your own way(live material) but then we do live with one foot in each, sort of speak.
O
OneSheep
Guest
Hello Generous Granny,
Sure. Here is post 311:
Granny was objecting to the possibility that Neanderthals were human. She is also objecting to the claim that the story of Adam and Eve is not necessarily literal, which I will clarify.
Now, back to your post, sweetie:
Of course it is acceptable in the Church to believe that Adam and Eve are literally the first true humans, spiritually speaking. It is not the “Catholic position” that all Catholics are* required* to believe in a literal Adam and Eve, though.
The Church “affirms a primeval event” but does not require an individual Catholic’s faith to depend on this primeval event. Some Catholics have a faith that does not depend on belief in a literal Adam and Eve, and this approach is not condemned. Faith is much, much more than a particular approach to anthropology or doctrine.
Okay, you want a solid roof, a solid Catholic doctrine, and you do not want doctrine promoting the idea of a random breeding originating humanizing population as your personal origin. You are requesting that I stop inviting people to “my” anthropological/theological camp" as you describe it.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.
First of all, I am not claiming that there was necessarily a “random breeding originating humanizing population”. This was the “slippery slope” that you continued claiming was my aim. It never was. The fact is, I don’t know the exact manner of how genetics and soul came into play, and I am open-minded to a number of possibilities, and I have no objection whatsoever to the “affirmation of a primeval event”, nor its importance to many Christians, but my own faith in Christ does not depend on the affirmation of this event.
Secondly, my invitation is a pastoral motion. Many Catholics are “turned off” when the Church (some of its members) insist that there is only one way to look at the story of A&E, and if that is a deal-breaker for someone who is learning about the faith, that is unfortunate; for as I said, faith does not need to depend on a belief in a literal Adam and Eve or any of the literal creation story, for that matter. I am not asking you to change your ideas, I am only requesting that you include the Catholics I am describing in your notion of Church, not to tell people that variations such as thinking Neanderthals are human is unacceptable. This is the “Big Tent” invitation you are referring to, I guess. Or are you thinking of something else?
I wrote more, but decided to stop here for now. Do you want to change your request, now that I gave my approach some clarification?
Also, what is going to happen if we get rain in the tent?
Here in CA we take rain however we can get it. It is raining a little this morning, yay!.
Have a great day, Granny!
G
grannymh
Guest
I respect the intelligence of readers.Hello Generous Granny,
Sure. Here is post 311:
Granny was objecting to the possibility that Neanderthals were human. She is also objecting to the claim that the story of Adam and Eve is not necessarily literal, which I will clarify.
Now, back to your post, sweetie:
Of course it is acceptable in the Church to believe that Adam and Eve are literally the first true humans, spiritually speaking. It is not the “Catholic position” that all Catholics are* required* to believe in a literal Adam and Eve, though.
The Church “affirms a primeval event” but does not require an individual Catholic’s faith to depend on this primeval event. Some Catholics have a faith that does not depend on belief in a literal Adam and Eve, and this approach is not condemned. Faith is much, much more than a particular approach to anthropology or doctrine.
Okay, you want a solid roof, a solid Catholic doctrine, and you do not want doctrine promoting the idea of a random breeding originating humanizing population as your personal origin. You are requesting that I stop inviting people to “my” anthropological/theological camp" as you describe it.
First of all, I am not claiming that there was necessarily a “random breeding originating humanizing population”. This was the “slippery slope” that you continued claiming was my aim. It never was. The fact is, I don’t know the exact manner of how genetics and soul came into play, and I am open-minded to a number of possibilities, and I have no objection whatsoever to the “affirmation of a primeval event”, nor its importance to many Christians, but my own faith in Christ does not depend on the affirmation of this event.
Secondly, my invitation is a pastoral motion. Many Catholics are “turned off” when the Church (some of its members) insist that there is only one way to look at the story of A&E, and if that is a deal-breaker for someone who is learning about the faith, that is unfortunate; for as I said, faith does not need to depend on a belief in a literal Adam and Eve or any of the literal creation story, for that matter. I am not asking you to change your ideas, I am only requesting that you include the Catholics I am describing in your notion of Church, not to tell people that variations such as thinking Neanderthals are human is unacceptable. This is the “Big Tent” invitation you are referring to, I guess. Or are you thinking of something else?
I wrote more, but decided to stop here for now. Do you want to change your request, now that I gave my approach some clarification?
Also, what is going to happen if we get rain in the tent?
Here in CA we take rain however we can get it. It is raining a little this morning, yay!.
Have a great day, Granny!
Thus, I am sure that they are very familiar with the Catholic doctrine that two sole real true fully-complete human parents are the progenitors of all humanity.
In answer to those who have questions about the Catholic challenge to one of the basic tenets of natural science regarding all living organisms, including humankind, here are some informative links.
crisismagazine.com/2014/did-adam-and-eve-really-exist
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
hprweb.com/2014/07/time-to-abandon-the-genesis-story/
drbonnette.com/
Apparently, there are a few misunderstandings regarding *CCC *390. This is understandable since a well-known priest author was quoted in the media some years back. He was speaking about the Catholic Church approach to the established doctrines relating to Original Sin and the progenitors of the human species in *CCC *390. From the news article.
“It recognizes that Genesis is figurative language,” he pointed out, “but it also wants to hold to historicity. Unfortunately, you can’t really have both. The catechism is clearly not the place to argue theological discussions, so whoever wrote it decided, as it were, to have it both ways.”
For general information. The authors who contributed to the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition can be found in the *CCC *Index of Citations beginning on page 689.
**If anyone has a genuine question about figurative language and historicity which are correct in CCC 390, I will explain. **
Sometimes authors choose to leave out essential facts in order to promote their own personal preferences.
Those who are familiar with the protocol of the Catholic Church already understand that both figurative language and historicity are essential contributions to the major Ecumenical Church Councils which duly define and properly proclaim Catholic doctrines such as those on human origin, human nature, and Original Sin.
Those who are familiar with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition
already understand that *CCC *390 is a type of summary. Regarding the use of small print, CCC readers should read *CCC *20-21. Regular readers of the CCC follow the cross-references in the margins. CCC 289 is a good example.
Philosophically and theologically speaking, it is important to understand what exactly the Catholic Church is saying about the* beginning of the history of man*. That should be part of any discussion about archaic fossils such as the Neanderthals.
Regarding all the side issues in post 327. I am sure that readers already know my position. However, if someone has a genuine question about a point, I will do my best to clarify the issue.
O
OneSheep
Guest
Well, Granny, that was a great post, but why did you quote me and then not address anything that I wrote?
I do not represent the “antagonist” against which the articles you cited are making a case. I have not stated anything on this thread that is refuted by the CCC, and you continue to refrain from addressing my suggestions, particularly those on post 281. Never have I said that a 2-parent Adam and Eve scenario is impossible.
Do note this from Humani Generis:
“…37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way **apparent **how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]”
So, at that time, there was no apparent means. I and others have presented “apparent means” by which Neanderthals could be human and the purpose, spirit, even the 2-parentage aspect of the story remain intact. I especially liked afthomercy’s thoughts in post 308.
But all I have said so far does not address the root of your concerns, Granny. And it is your concerns that I am still wondering about, as in "What will have to occur in order that Granny’s concerns are alleviated? And, what is it that Granny is asking of all fellow Catholics? That we believe in the scripture the way that you do, as Dr. Bonnette does, and not the “many professors of religious studies and theology in Catholic colleges and universities” and “priests who deal with evolutionary thought” that he argues against? Are all the people he is arguing against IN THE WRONG and he is IN THE RIGHT?
As we say in my neck of the woods, Basta!! Enough!! All of this is opinion, and absolutely none of it should be divisive, ever. We are all in the same tent, period. We are One Body.
And, if it rains in the “tent”, what is the worst that can happen? What is it, of apparently ominous significance, that we are trying to avoid? I am hearing your fear, and I am not judging it. All of us have fears at times. If the language in CCC 390 were to extract the word “figurative”, would you feel better? Does that word trigger fear in you?
You know, Granny, we all love you…even if you are in your own little tent.
God Bless
I do not represent the “antagonist” against which the articles you cited are making a case. I have not stated anything on this thread that is refuted by the CCC, and you continue to refrain from addressing my suggestions, particularly those on post 281. Never have I said that a 2-parent Adam and Eve scenario is impossible.
Do note this from Humani Generis:
“…37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way **apparent **how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]”
So, at that time, there was no apparent means. I and others have presented “apparent means” by which Neanderthals could be human and the purpose, spirit, even the 2-parentage aspect of the story remain intact. I especially liked afthomercy’s thoughts in post 308.
But all I have said so far does not address the root of your concerns, Granny. And it is your concerns that I am still wondering about, as in "What will have to occur in order that Granny’s concerns are alleviated? And, what is it that Granny is asking of all fellow Catholics? That we believe in the scripture the way that you do, as Dr. Bonnette does, and not the “many professors of religious studies and theology in Catholic colleges and universities” and “priests who deal with evolutionary thought” that he argues against? Are all the people he is arguing against IN THE WRONG and he is IN THE RIGHT?
As we say in my neck of the woods, Basta!! Enough!!
All of this is opinion, and absolutely none of it should be divisive, ever. We are all in the same tent, period. We are One Body.And, if it rains in the “tent”, what is the worst that can happen? What is it, of apparently ominous significance, that we are trying to avoid? I am hearing your fear, and I am not judging it. All of us have fears at times. If the language in CCC 390 were to extract the word “figurative”, would you feel better? Does that word trigger fear in you?
You know, Granny, we all love you…even if you are in your own little tent.
God Bless
G
grannymh
Guest
CAF allows posters to post a post from another poster. Please refer to the “Quote” button at the bottom right of a post. Using this “Quote” button assures readers that I am not changing the printed message from a post contributed by another poster.Well, Granny, that was a great post, but why did you quote me and then not address anything that I wrote?
Every poster is free to post an actual quote of mine.
CAF allows posters to post their concerns.
Extract the word “figurative” ??? I will quote myself.
From post 328
**If anyone has a genuine question about figurative language and historicity which are correct in CCC 390, I will explain. **
From post 328
Those who are familiar with the protocol of the Catholic Church already understand that both figurative language and historicity are essential contributions to the major Ecumenical Church Councils which duly define and properly proclaim Catholic doctrines such as those on human origin, human nature, and Original Sin.
Those who are familiar with the *Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition *already understand that *CCC *390 is a type of summary. Regarding the use of small print, CCC readers should read *CCC *20-21. Regular readers of the CCC follow the cross-references in the margins. CCC 289 is a good example.
Philosophically and theologically speaking, it is important to understand what exactly the Catholic Church is saying about the* beginning of the history of man*. That should be part of any discussion about archaic fossils such as the Neanderthals.
**If anyone has a genuine question about figurative language and historicity which are correct in CCC 390, I will explain. **
From post 328
Those who are familiar with the protocol of the Catholic Church already understand that both figurative language and historicity are essential contributions to the major Ecumenical Church Councils which duly define and properly proclaim Catholic doctrines such as those on human origin, human nature, and Original Sin.
Those who are familiar with the *Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition *already understand that *CCC *390 is a type of summary. Regarding the use of small print, CCC readers should read *CCC *20-21. Regular readers of the CCC follow the cross-references in the margins. CCC 289 is a good example.
Philosophically and theologically speaking, it is important to understand what exactly the Catholic Church is saying about the* beginning of the history of man*. That should be part of any discussion about archaic fossils such as the Neanderthals.
G
grannymh
Guest
Paragraph 390, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.
**“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.”
Quote from post 328
“Those who are familiar with the *Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition *already understand that *CCC *390 is a type of summary.”
One can legitimately inquire about the contents of the summary. The content is the *beginning of the history of man highlighted in italics. *Because this history was explained before smart phones, it is obviously necessary to consider both the figurative language and the historical primeval event.
In relationship to the topic of this thread,
because the Neanderthals are a verifiable population, they either descended from the scientific described population of thousands or a Catholic described population of two.
Please notice that this is not a statement of my own personal private speculation as to the humanity or non-humanity of archaic Neanderthal fossils.
Obviously, the non-scientist author of the first three chapters of Genesis was very interested in his ancestors. What I am personally curious about is the absence of glorifying the accomplishments of the Hebrew people. (plural intended) Human nature normally seeks the best ancestral history not the history of a “criminal” hanging from an early branch of the family ancestral tree.
Was Adam really a criminal? It kind of depends on one’s perspective. Personally, I do not like the word criminal. However, if I ever meet Adam, I will slap him upside the head. Nonetheless, the perspective of the author of those mysterious first three chapters of Genesis was determined to present the truth at the beginning of human history.
Do keep in mind that the Hebrew people believed in God and worshiped God as the Creator. Refer to Genesis 1: 1. Like a scientist, the author observed without prejudice. Right away, he concluded that there were some major differences between species as evinced in the language shift from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1:26. Obviously, the Hebrew people recognized human’s relationship with God. Refer to the remaining 47 chapters of Genesis. The difficulty was how does one describe God on parchment.
The chosen method was some figurative language. The “figurative language” in Genesis 2: 7 describes the action in Genesis 1: 27. Because the author was a genius inspired by the Holy Spirit, Genesis 2: 7 also describes the reality of human nature which is a union of the material and spiritual. The clay of the ground is really material and God’s breath is really spiritual.
The “summary” aspect of *CCC *390 is based on the tiny word “affirms”. This connects figurative language and real historical events. Those who oppose the reality of Adam and Eve sidestep the definition of the word “affirms”. They also ignore the really important role of Divine Revelation when it comes to the Catholic doctrines surrounding Original Sin and the necessity of a Divine Jesus Christ.
The media quote in post 328 is a prime example of ways to avoid recognizing some annoying Catholic doctrines. The fall out of this type of publicity affects those who are looking for truth answers to questions about basic Catholic doctrines. Pastoral concern should be on explanation of doctrines and not simply implying that apparently there could be some kind of symbolism which is not a necessary believable document.
Questions?
**“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.”
Quote from post 328
“Those who are familiar with the *Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition *already understand that *CCC *390 is a type of summary.”
One can legitimately inquire about the contents of the summary. The content is the *beginning of the history of man highlighted in italics. *Because this history was explained before smart phones, it is obviously necessary to consider both the figurative language and the historical primeval event.
In relationship to the topic of this thread,
because the Neanderthals are a verifiable population, they either descended from the scientific described population of thousands or a Catholic described population of two.
Please notice that this is not a statement of my own personal private speculation as to the humanity or non-humanity of archaic Neanderthal fossils.
Obviously, the non-scientist author of the first three chapters of Genesis was very interested in his ancestors. What I am personally curious about is the absence of glorifying the accomplishments of the Hebrew people. (plural intended) Human nature normally seeks the best ancestral history not the history of a “criminal” hanging from an early branch of the family ancestral tree.
Was Adam really a criminal? It kind of depends on one’s perspective. Personally, I do not like the word criminal. However, if I ever meet Adam, I will slap him upside the head. Nonetheless, the perspective of the author of those mysterious first three chapters of Genesis was determined to present the truth at the beginning of human history.
Do keep in mind that the Hebrew people believed in God and worshiped God as the Creator. Refer to Genesis 1: 1. Like a scientist, the author observed without prejudice. Right away, he concluded that there were some major differences between species as evinced in the language shift from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1:26. Obviously, the Hebrew people recognized human’s relationship with God. Refer to the remaining 47 chapters of Genesis. The difficulty was how does one describe God on parchment.
The chosen method was some figurative language. The “figurative language” in Genesis 2: 7 describes the action in Genesis 1: 27. Because the author was a genius inspired by the Holy Spirit, Genesis 2: 7 also describes the reality of human nature which is a union of the material and spiritual. The clay of the ground is really material and God’s breath is really spiritual.
The “summary” aspect of *CCC *390 is based on the tiny word “affirms”. This connects figurative language and real historical events. Those who oppose the reality of Adam and Eve sidestep the definition of the word “affirms”. They also ignore the really important role of Divine Revelation when it comes to the Catholic doctrines surrounding Original Sin and the necessity of a Divine Jesus Christ.
The media quote in post 328 is a prime example of ways to avoid recognizing some annoying Catholic doctrines. The fall out of this type of publicity affects those who are looking for truth answers to questions about basic Catholic doctrines. Pastoral concern should be on explanation of doctrines and not simply implying that apparently there could be some kind of symbolism which is not a necessary believable document.
Questions?
G
grannymh
Guest
Of course, the word apparent should be put in bold. It is one of the most significant words in the Encyclical* Humani Generis*. Thank you.
**Apparent **directly refers to the Teaching Authority of the Catholic Church which is based on Divine Revelation in Holy Scripture. (chapter 14, Gospel of John) Please continue reading paragraph 37 all the way to its end.
I do recognize that there are some, not all, Catholic authors and teachers who prefer to sidestep the centuries of the Catholic Church being guided by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit. However, they do not have the power to turn the number two prominent in the Catholic doctrine of human origin into a polygenism population in the hundreds to thousands.
It should be **apparent **that the Catholic Church does not consider mountains of scientific interpretations on the same level as God’s Revelation.
Questions?
O
OneSheep
Guest
Granny, dear, good morning.
I guess it is my turn to pout about not getting my questions answered. You are asking for questions, and I gave you several in my last post. You are being verrrry selective about which questions you wish to answer.
BTW: what I posted from Humani Generis was the entire paragraph 37.
John 14 tells us about the Holy Spirit teaching us. How can we be taught, if we refuse to let a little rain into the tent? Water helps us grow, right? There are 3, not 2, foundations of faith. There is Scripture, there is tradition, and there is personal experience.
Prius vita quam doctrina St Thomas Aquinas (life takes priority over doctrine)
If we read something in doctrine that does not make sense personally, then it is either rejected or ignored. For example, it makes perfect sense to you that God would severely punish Adam and Eve, for you have said yourself that you would like to give Adam a slap upside the head. We project our own sentiments onto God. If it does not make sense to someone that God punished A&E the way Genesis says, then the doctrine is ignored or rejected. Our life experience, Granny, will always take priority in our minds. I am not ruling out inspiration, but much of our inspiration comes from personal experience of Love.
Sure I have questions! Are you going to answer them?
- Which “Catholic authors and teachers” are you talking about? Who are you asking us to be wary of? Dr. Bonnette? No way.
- If it rains in the “tent”, what is the worst that can happen? What is it, of apparently ominous significance, that we are trying to avoid?
- What will have to occur in order that Granny’s concerns are alleviated? Shut that tent up “tight as a button” where nothing can go in and nothing can go out?
- What is it that Granny is asking of all fellow Catholics? That we believe in the scripture the way that you do, as Dr. Bonnette does, and not the “many professors of religious studies and theology in Catholic colleges and universities” and “priests who deal with evolutionary thought” that he argues against? Are all the people he is arguing against IN THE WRONG and he is IN THE RIGHT?
- With the help of the Spirit, we have the CCC. The CCC explains the scripture into the modern context. What is the difference between “sola scriptura” and “sola scriptura as explained by the CCC” if we are not continuing to explain our faith in the modern context, open to the Spirit’s voice from a multitude of sources?
- Are you admitting that the humanity of Neanderthals is possible?
- Are you finished implying that I am trying to promote “polygenism” or whatever it is that Dr. Bonnette is set against? Are you finally willing to admit that I have written nothing on this thread that contradicts the CCC? If not, please show me.
Thanks for your response.
A
afthomercy
Guest
In continuation of my post#308, I see one major problem with A&E being neanderthals: The spiritual soul doesn’t evolve (quoting grannymh on this thread). Since the soul is “the form of the body”, a constant soul will always return a constant kind of body. Hence the neanderthals could’nt have had spiritual souls, because if/when they evolved into homo sapiens sapiens, their souls would necessarily have undergone evolution too and that is a no-no.
If however the neanderthals didn’t have spiritual souls, how do we explain them having morality/rationality and free will? Which forces us to ask the question: What is the criterion for recognising whether a soul is spiritual or not?
BTW, if we are ruling out A&E being neanderthals, then we have to explain how the present diversity in human genes could have happened over a relatively short span of 200,000 years (which is the known age of the homo sapiens sapiens race), given the known rate of mutation in human genes. From previous interactions, I believe this issue is a project on which grannymh is/was working.
So I hope you appreciate the tensions here: If A&E were neanderthals, how do you explain the spiritual human soul evolving? If on the other hand the neanderthals weren’t true humans, how do you explain their morality, rationality and free will? And if A&E were the very first anatomically modern humans, how do you explain the vast diversity in human genes given the relatively short time span of 200,000 years in which all these mutations supposedly happened?
If however the neanderthals didn’t have spiritual souls, how do we explain them having morality/rationality and free will? Which forces us to ask the question: What is the criterion for recognising whether a soul is spiritual or not?
BTW, if we are ruling out A&E being neanderthals, then we have to explain how the present diversity in human genes could have happened over a relatively short span of 200,000 years (which is the known age of the homo sapiens sapiens race), given the known rate of mutation in human genes. From previous interactions, I believe this issue is a project on which grannymh is/was working.
So I hope you appreciate the tensions here: If A&E were neanderthals, how do you explain the spiritual human soul evolving? If on the other hand the neanderthals weren’t true humans, how do you explain their morality, rationality and free will? And if A&E were the very first anatomically modern humans, how do you explain the vast diversity in human genes given the relatively short time span of 200,000 years in which all these mutations supposedly happened?
O
OneSheep
Guest
Afthomercy my Hero,
If the constant soul will always return a constant kind of body, we would all look like clones. I don’t know if you have read much of this thread, but no one has claimed that A&E were Neanderthals. What science has shown us is that Neanderthals were probably a race within the human species.
Great questions, all the answers are speculative. Doesn’t matter much, right? And yes, the Neanderthals could have had “spiritual souls” if they were human, according to our theological/anthropological definitions, I guess…
We really don’t know much about the morality, rationality, or free will of Neanderthals. We don’t know if A&E were the first anatomically modern humans. I am coming from the position that if we dwell on those questions, we lose the point of the creation story, the garden story.
Which makes me wonder, “Why am I bothering here?” This is all so much silliness.
But the deeper questions are more interesting: From where speaks the Spirit? Can we accept the humanity of people of a different race? Can we include in our “tent” those of differing opinions? Is there something to fear from scientific discovery?
“Why didn’t God save Neanderthals?” is one of those questions that breaks a philosophical rule, it begins with an unsupported premise - that God “didn’t”.
Thanks for the continued (name removed by moderator)ut!
G
grannymh
Guest
You are correct.Granny, dear, good morning.
I guess it is my turn to pout about not getting my questions answered. You are asking for questions, and I gave you several in my last post. You are being verrrry selective about which questions you wish to answer.
I could see that. Here is what I actually suggested. “Please continue reading paragraph 37 all the way to its end.”
The proper citations to be thoroughly studied are John 14: 15-18 and John 14: 25-26
That is an interesting way to be taught. I was taught during the era of the Baltimore Catechism, revised edition.
When you have some free time, would you kindly provide citations of proper examples? Thank you.
My Catholic education did not teach this.
I never indicated in post 331 that it makes perfect sense to me that God would severely punish Adam and Eve. My desire to slap Adam upside the head comes from my very own cranky (feminine of snarky) personality. My personality is separate from Catholic doctrines.
That often happens.
My Catholic education did not take the easy way out.
That is certainly understandable.
As a former journalist, I do understand that authors and teachers are capable of changing their minds. Therefore, I respect their privacy.Sure I have questions! Are you going to answer them?
- Which “Catholic authors and teachers” are you talking about?
I sincerely respect the intelligence of our readers. They are capable of making up the own minds regarding the links in post 328 above.
I do not own any tents.
Catholics will accept Catholic doctrines.
I do not own any tents.
Accept Catholic doctrines.
I sincerely respect the intelligence of our readers. They are capable of making up the own minds regarding the links in post 328 above.
I have no clue about this subject. Please ask someone else. However, I do have a couple of guesses which I do not have to reveal.
I do have a couple of guesses which I do not have to reveal.
I will to my best to present the Catholic position regarding the scientific position of a polygenism population as the originating source of humankind. I will do my best to present the Catholic position when something contradicts Catholic doctrine.
Right now my brain is all thought out. I need a nap, not a prayer.
No problem.
O
OneSheep
Guest
Rest well and be well, Granny. Your friend Onesheep accepts Catholic doctrines.
God Bless.
God Bless.
S
simpleas
Guest
Great glad this is sorted. Interesting discussion thanks grannymh and Onesheep.Rest well and be well, Granny. Your friend Onesheep accepts Catholic doctrines.
God Bless.
Have a lovely day all.
- Status