Why didn't God save Neanderthals?

[Ridgerunner]

I’m not an anthropologist and don’t know in detail how they decide that one group of hominids is sufficiently distinct from another to be given a separate name. But modern humans are classified as Homo sapiens sapiens and Neanderthals are classified as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. Our respective branches are thought to have separated about 600,000 years ago. The two are certainly much more different from each other than any modern “race” of humans is from another modern race.

But are they that different? If one looks at the bone structure of an Australoid and compares with that of, say, an Annamese, can one really say there’s less difference than between a Neanderthal and, say, that Australoid, or perhaps a modern Swede of stocky build?

I realize people classify Neanderthals as if there is some dramatic difference between that particular “homo sapiens” and another. But if one has paid attention for some time, one notices that the acknowledged distinction gets narrower and narrower.

 

[oldcelt]

But are they that different? If one looks at the bone structure of an Australoid and compares with that of, say, an Annamese, can one really say there’s less difference than between a Neanderthal and, say, that Australoid, or perhaps a modern Swede of stocky build?

I realize people classify Neanderthals as if there is some dramatic difference between that particular “homo sapiens” and another. But if one has paid attention for some time, one notices that the acknowledged distinction gets narrower and narrower.

Not that narrow. The salvation of Neanderthals, to me, is not the real question. The question I have is. Why would an all-knowing God meed to experiment?

John

 

[grannymh]

Not that narrow. The salvation of Neanderthals, to me, is not the real question. The question I have is. Why would an all-knowing God meed to experiment?

John

At last, someone comes close to my question. I never thought of the word experiment–but that is a rather interesting concept. On the other hand, I am the only human I know who does not place Adam millions of years going backwards.

 

[OneSheep]

Not that narrow. The salvation of Neanderthals, to me, is not the real question. The question I have is. Why would an all-knowing God meed to experiment?

John

Good Morning John,

Well, the question sort of “begs the question”.

We need not think of the existence of the Neanderthal race as an “experiment” any more than thinking of Homo Erectus as an experiment. All of our ancestry has contributed in some way to who we are today, and genomic research has shown that the Neanderthal race is part of our ancestry.

That said, would you also agree with me that a person whose faith relies on not having Neanderthal ancestry should deny/ignore the genomic evidence?

God Bless

 

[OneSheep]

My poor paraphrase. A quote would be:

"…methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God.”

Good Morning wmw!

I understand your reading of this, but I look at that line differently. What that line says to me, and I would like to see the source, is that when scientific research is carried out in the manner described, it will not conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. I agree with that statement completely.

However, I can understand a reading of it that says, “science can never be allowed to conflict with my faith”, this reading is to be respected, and is certainly not condemned by the Church, as neither is the reading I proposed.

St. Thomas Aquinas said that revelation comes from two sources: from scripture, and from creation. Scientific research, when it is carried out with sound methodology and done morally, continues to contribute to unfolding revelation.

Thanks for bringing this forward.

 

[opusAquinas]

Neanderthals did not have souls.

I believe they did not have souls.

If you’ve read what they did murder, incest and rape and … they would pull out their own teeth and wear them as jewelry… other unspeakable things…

 

[Thorolfr]

Neanderthals did not have souls.

I believe they did not have souls.

If you’ve read what they did murder, incest and rape and … they would pull out their own teeth and wear them as jewelry… other unspeakable things…

And of course we all know that human beings with souls would never do such terrible things… only beings without souls

 

[opusAquinas]

And of course we all know that human beings with souls would never do such terrible things… only beings without souls

They had no souls therefore no sense of the natural law. They act from instinct alone just as animals. Humans are fallen. Humans once knew how to love completely. Neanderthals never knew love.

Love is wanting the good of the other for the sake of the other. It does not require you demanding anything back.

Neaderthals cared about each other - one hand washes the other.
But not having been made in God’s likeness or image. They never loved.

Most human beings cannot Feel love for God.
Most do not love God. They know or some feel God loves them.
They receive but cannot give.
If they did they could they would have perfect contrition. And that is nearly impossible.
But we ask God forgiveness because we fear hell and we know God loves US.
We don’t feel love for God.
Unless you are the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Or John the Baptist as he received mystical baptism.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Neanderthals did not have souls.

I believe they did not have souls.

If you’ve read what they did murder, incest and rape and … they would pull out their own teeth and wear them as jewelry… other unspeakable things…

You wrote, “If you’ve read what they did murder, incest and rape and … they would pull out their own teeth and wear them as jewelry… other unspeakable things…”

Are you speaking about Neanderthals or Homo Sapiens (modern humans)?

 

[Tom_Baum]

They had no souls therefore no sense of the natural law. They act from instinct alone just as animals. Humans are fallen. Humans once knew how to love completely. Neanderthals never knew love.

Love is wanting the good of the other for the sake of the other. It does not require you demanding anything back.

Neaderthals cared about each other - one hand washes the other.
But not having been made in God’s likeness or image. They never loved.

Most human beings cannot Feel love for God.
Most do not love God. They know or some feel God loves them.
They receive but cannot give.
If they did they could they would have perfect contrition. And that is nearly impossible.
But we ask God forgiveness because we fear hell and we know God loves US.
We don’t feel love for God.
Unless you are the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Or John the Baptist as he received mystical baptism.

As far as, “Or John the Baptist as he received mystical baptism”.

Did you pull this out of thin air and if not where?

Concerning, “They had no souls therefore no sense of the natural law” however two posts back you said, “Neanderthals did not have souls. I believe they did not have souls.”, you went from believing that they did not have souls to knowing that they didn’t have souls, how do you know that they didn’t have souls?

You wrote, “Love is wanting the good of the other for the sake of the other. It does not require you demanding anything back.”

Are you speaking about a human having “Love” wanting this?

Wouldn’t you say that it would be even more so for God?

 

[opusAquinas]

As far as, “Or John the Baptist as he received mystical baptism”.

Did you pull this out of thin air and if not where?

Concerning, “They had no souls therefore no sense of the natural law” however two posts back you said, “Neanderthals did not have souls. I believe they did not have souls.”, you went from believing that they did not have souls to knowing that they didn’t have souls, how do you know that they didn’t have souls?

You wrote, “Love is wanting the good of the other for the sake of the other. It does not require you demanding anything back.”

Are you speaking about a human having “Love” wanting this?

Wouldn’t you say that it would be even more so for God?

Esoteric and exoteric knowledge.
Agape love definition.
Perfect contrition which is extremely rare requires agape love of God.

 

[oldcelt]

Good Morning John,

Well, the question sort of “begs the question”.

We need not think of the existence of the Neanderthal race as an “experiment” any more than thinking of Homo Erectus as an experiment. All of our ancestry has contributed in some way to who we are today, and genomic research has shown that the Neanderthal race is part of our ancestry.

That said, would you also agree with me that a person whose faith relies on not having Neanderthal ancestry should deny/ignore the genomic evidence?

God Bless

When you accept direct creation, you have to acknowledge that your creator went through numerous prototypes before he got to us. If, however, the creator only set up the universe and let it do what it would, that problem vanishes.

A person who denies all Neanderthal ancestry would have to deny the evidence. I’m not certain that this extends to all humans, but it certainly impacts those of European descent.

John

 

[oldcelt]

Esoteric and exoteric knowledge.
Agape love definition.
Perfect contrition which is extremely rare requires agape love of God.

I have to go with Tom…how do you know? Having worked in archaeology for some time I can assure you that information such as you mention cannot be substantiated. You may want to expand your knowledge on Neanderthals. smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/rethinking-neanderthals-83341003/?no-ist
You are turning your beliefs into dogma.

John

 

[opusAquinas]

I have to go with Tom…how do you know? Having worked in archaeology for some time I can assure you that information such as you mention cannot be substantiated. You may want to expand your knowledge on Neanderthals. smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/rethinking-neanderthals-83341003/?no-ist
You are turning your beliefs into dogma.

John

Actually I have it on good authority regarding neanderthals. As in everyday life, there’s a lot of information that is suppressed.

 

[Bradski]

Actually I have it on good authority regarding neanderthals. As in everyday life, there’s a lot of information that is suppressed.

Un-suppress it, Opus. Share the knowledge. Set the truth free!

 

[opusAquinas]

Un-suppress it, Opus. Share the knowledge. Set the truth free!

Basically they were totally barbaric. The stereotype is true. Yes, they cared about each other like most animals but they were animals -without souls.

Ok let me put it another way. They did not love.
Love. Agape. Love is willing the good of the other for the sake of the other.
They could not feel love for each other.
Here an interlocutor might say. “but Opus surely they could feel love for each other like we humans can?”
Here is where I smile and say “Oh really? We humans feel love for each other? I say you are wrong. 99.99% of men can’t feel love for others though they can feel loved. For example: perfect contrition is considered rare or impossible. Why? because p.c. looks like this: I’m sorry God for what I did because it offends you because I love you.”
Interlocutor: “Irrelevant. Proof. But I love my wife.”
Opus: “No you don’t. You care about her. Caring is one hand washing the other. I do something for you if you do something for me. Love is I want to do this for you just because it makes you feel good because it pleases the other.”
Int: “I do that.”
Opus: “No. Ask a girl. Some girls for some reason are not as horribly affected by original sin can actually feel love for others. Caring is not love. You do something nice for another because it makes you feel good or it makes you feel bad if you don’t. It’s about you - not really still pure about the other. Jesus is God. He loved. He is love.”

 

[grannymh]

If I may express a bit of annoyance. It is the words or implications of [human] ancestry. We humans are vertebrates. Does that really mean that we descended from all vertebrates? Are all vertebrates our ancestry?

In real science, it should be obvious that fossils which walked upright would share similar functioning genes with ourselves. Because we have a true human nature, Genesis 1: 26-27, does that mean that all archaic beings which walked upright have a true human nature?

If we ask “Why didn’t God save Neanderthals?” then it is scientifically reasonable to ask “Why didn’t God save dinosaurs?”

Philosophically, answers to these questions pertain to the nature of the beast and the unity of its species. Philosophically, one needs to decide which is primary, saving a similar species anatomy or saving the spiritual principle of an individual peerless species.

Personally, I think that the first philosophical question would be "Did the various Neaderthal, aka Neandertal, fossils fit the description in paragraphs 1730-1732 in the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition?"

 

[OneSheep]

If I may express a bit of annoyance. It is the words or implications of [human] ancestry. We humans are vertebrates. Does that really mean that we descended from all vertebrates? Are all vertebrates our ancestry?

Good Morning, Granny!

It sounds like you are annoyed by the suggestion that we have vertebrate ancestors. You are not forced to believe this, and the Church does not condemn either position, so you are free to choose.

In the science of heredity, no, we are not descended from all vertebrates, any more than we are descendents of all our fellow humans. All humans and all vertebrates, if you believe the genomics, share a common ancestry. If this science disturbs your faith, ignore it.

In real science, it should be obvious that fossils which walked upright would share similar functioning genes with ourselves. Because we have a true human nature, Genesis 1: 26-27, does that mean that all archaic beings which walked upright have a true human nature?

If we ask “Why didn’t God save Neanderthals?” then it is scientifically reasonable to ask “Why didn’t God save dinosaurs?”

Walking upright in itself will not designate us as the same species, scientifically speaking. There are some “fuzzy lines” concerning when a new species has evolved, but, for example, if there were an Australopithecus walking around today, and if she were to mate with a modern human and have viable offspring capable of reproducing, then we would be of the same species. However, the possibility of there being something even close to an unevolved Australopithecene, or any other species, for that matter, would have to be close to zero.

Yes, that is “scientifically reasonable”. Hmmm. Would we share the afterlife with dinosaurs? Tame ones, maybe…

Philosophically, answers to these questions pertain to the nature of the beast and the unity of its species. Philosophically, one needs to decide which is primary, saving a similar species anatomy or saving the spiritual principle of an individual peerless species.

Personally, I think that the first philosophical question would be "Did the various Neaderthal, aka Neandertal, fossils fit the description in paragraphs 1730-1732 in the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition?"

I don’t think we will ever know the answer to that question. Many modern humans can hardly be called “free” in some respects. People caught up in revenge, sexual desire, material acquisition, depression, fear, status, power, addiction, and other human compulsions are not free, they are enslaved.

The truth sets us free, right?

 

[grannymh]

Good Morning, Granny!

It sounds like you are annoyed by the suggestion that we have vertebrate ancestors. You are not forced to believe this, and the Church does not condemn either position, so you are free to choose.

In the science of heredity, no, we are not descended from all vertebrates, any more than we are descendents of all our fellow humans. All humans and all vertebrates, if you believe the genomics, share a common ancestry. If this science disturbs your faith, ignore it.

The Catholic Church challenges the real science of heredity because it posits that the human species emerged over time in indiscriminate random humanizing breeding populations in the hundreds to thousands. The Catholic Church remains firm, regardless of who is disturbed, that the human species descended from a population of two.

By the way, CCC 1730-1732 refers to the human goal set by the Creator God – in case anyone wants to comment about our Creator Who did not save the Neanderthals from extinction. The human species is the only extant hominin.

 

[opusAquinas]

The Catholic Church challenges the real science of heredity because it posits that the human species emerged over time in indiscriminate random humanizing breeding populations in the hundreds to thousands. The Catholic Church remains firm, regardless of who is disturbed, that the human species descended from a population of two.

By the way, CCC 1730-1732 refers to the human goal set by the Creator God – in case anyone wants to comment about our Creator Who did not save the Neanderthals from extinction. The human species is the only extant hominin.

I agree with you. But I figured it differently.