Why didn't God save Neanderthals?

[oldcelt]

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

Good authority? Who? Neanderthals buried their dead and did so with tools for possible use in an afterlife.

 

[opusAquinas]

Good authority? Who? Neanderthals buried their dead and did so with tools for possible use in an afterlife.

So elephants remember their dead. So dogs pine for their dead master.

 

[Thorolfr]

The Catholic Church remains firm, regardless of who is disturbed, that the human species descended from a population of two.

It doesn’t make much sense for the Church to insist that the part of Genesis is factual which says that humans descend from only two individuals when we know that other parts of Genesis are not factual at all. For example, Genesis 4 says that their son Cain built the first city. But because the first humans lived many thousands of years before there were any cities on earth, this part of Genesis 4 cannot be factually true.

 

[oldcelt]

So elephants remember their dead. So dogs pine for their dead master.

They don’t ceremonially inter them. That is a notable sign of respect for the deceased. Still no answer on your authority? I offered one of many…your turn.

 

[opusAquinas]

They don’t ceremonially inter them. That is a notable sign of respect for the deceased. Still no answer on your authority? I offered one of many…your turn.

This is the internet you can just say it is based on hearsay.

So dogs don’t have paws to ceremoniously do it - however you define it. Elephants do step on the bones. Is that ceremoniously?
The point is they don’t have souls.

 

[grannymh]

It doesn’t make much sense for the Church to insist that the part of Genesis is factual which says that humans descend from only two individuals when we know that other parts of Genesis are not factual at all. For example, Genesis 4 says that their son Cain built the first city. But because the first humans lived many thousands of years before there were any cities on earth, this part of Genesis 4 cannot be factually true.

Please understand that not every verse in every chapter of the Book of Genesis automatically transforms into a Catholic doctrine. To be clear, not all Catholic doctrines are specific in the first three chapters of Genesis. A good reference for how the Catholic Church properly defines Catholic doctrines is chapter 14, Gospel of John.

Because I am familiar with the first three chapters of Genesis–I do not do Noah nor Cain’s problems in chapter 4–would you kindly give me the “facts” in those first three chapters which you are concerned about?

 

[opusAquinas]

Please understand that not every verse in every chapter of the Book of Genesis automatically transforms into a Catholic doctrine. To be clear, not all Catholic doctrines are specific in the first three chapters of Genesis. A good reference for how the Catholic Church properly defines Catholic doctrines is chapter 14, Gospel of John.

Because I am familiar with the first three chapters of Genesis–I do not do Noah nor Cain’s problems in chapter 4–would you kindly give me the “facts” in those first three chapters which you are concerned about?

The Church says I believe it is dogma: that a man and woman were tested and failed.

 

[oldcelt]

This is the internet you can just say it is based on hearsay.

So dogs don’t have paws to ceremoniously do it - however you define it. Elephants do step on the bones. Is that ceremoniously?
The point is they don’t have souls.

Smithsonian Magazine is hearsay? You just don’t like that all reputable science refutes your view of Neanderthals. They were an advanced hominid species whose DNA has been located in many modern humans. They probably didn’t go extinct, but inter-bred with homoerectus.

As for who or what has souls, how are you such an expert on what sounds like a divine issue to me?

 

[oldcelt]

It doesn’t make much sense for the Church to insist that the part of Genesis is factual which says that humans descend from only two individuals when we know that other parts of Genesis are not factual at all. For example, Genesis 4 says that their son Cain built the first city. But because the first humans lived many thousands of years before there were any cities on earth, this part of Genesis 4 cannot be factually true.

Actually it makes perfect sense. Those who developed the biblical canon chose the books that best compiled to their beliefs. They have been picking and choosing what to take literally or metaphorically ever since.

 

[grannymh]

The Church says I believe it is dogma: that a man and woman were tested and failed.

The dogma is that the first original man committed the Original Sin which shattered humanity’s relationship with Divinity. That information is in paragraphs 388-390 and paragraphs 396-411 in the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. In addition, paragraphs 355-373 are helpful in understanding Adam and Eve’s nature. Paragraphs 374-379 is more specific about Adam and Eve in the Garden.

Personally, I like to start with Genesis 1: 26-27 and close with Genesis 3:15

Links to the Catechism.

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[grannymh]

Actually it makes perfect sense. Those who developed the biblical canon chose the books that best compiled to their beliefs. They have been picking and choosing what to take literally or metaphorically ever since.

Refer to chapter 14, Gospel of John, and pages 688-752 of the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

 

[Hans_W]

The dogma is that the first original man committed the Original Sin which shattered humanity’s relationship with Divinity. That information is in paragraphs 388-390 and paragraphs 396-411 in the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. In addition, paragraphs 355-373 are helpful in understanding Adam and Eve’s nature. Paragraphs 374-379 is more specific about Adam and Eve in the Garden.

Personally, I like to start with Genesis 1: 26-27 and close with Genesis 3:15

Links to the Catechism.

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

You are continuously mixing up science, philosophy and theology. I am specifically referring to your posts #118 and #120.

When we talk about Homo Sapiens, Neanderthals, elephants and dinosaurs, as we observe them in nature, then we talk in the language of science, not philosophy, and not theology. We don’t start with the conclusion in science, you go wherever the evidence leads you. If the conclusion contradicts our current interpretation of scripture, then we need to go back and look at how we can re-interpret those passages. We had to do that a lot of times in the last 400 years.

St Augustine has pointed that out already 1,600 years ago!

 

[opusAquinas]

You are continuously mixing up science, philosophy and theology. I am specifically referring to your posts #118 and #120.

When we talk about Homo Sapiens, Neanderthals, elephants and dinosaurs, as we observe them in nature, then we talk in the language of science, not philosophy, and not theology. We don’t start with the conclusion in science, you go wherever the evidence leads you. If the conclusion contradicts our current interpretation of scripture, then we need to go back and look at how we can re-interpret those passages. We had to do that a lot of times in the last 400 years.

St Augustine has pointed that out already 1,600 years ago!

Actually, I think she was doing that - not what you accuse her of.

 

[Aloysium]

You are continuously mixing up science, philosophy and theology. I am specifically referring to your posts #118 and #120.

When we talk about Homo Sapiens, Neanderthals, elephants and dinosaurs, as we observe them in nature, then we talk in the language of science, not philosophy, and not theology. We don’t start with the conclusion in science, you go wherever the evidence leads you. If the conclusion contradicts our current interpretation of scripture, then we need to go back and look at how we can re-interpret those passages. We had to do that a lot of times in the last 400 years.

St Augustine has pointed that out already 1,600 years ago!

You may wish to begin by acknowledging that these are your opinions.
Nothing is being mixed up as far as I can see in granny’s arguments.

You may also wish to reconsider your views in light of the fact that there is ultimately one reality, and that it can be approached in various ways.
There is no mixing up of science, philosophy and theology. Each has something to add to understand the larger picture.

Since you have decided to speak for us all about “Homo Sapiens, Neaderthals, elephants and dinosaurs”, I assume you realize that these somewhat scientific designations are based on the philosophical understanding that things in themselves, substances, or whatever you may wich to call them, do exist and that the rational mind can discern them.
Whether Homo Sapiens = man and Neanderthal =/= man is unfortunately something science by itself cannot determine, since it cannot weigh, measure or otherwise analyze the soul or spirit that defines man.

The fact is that science is always a work in progress, revised by the elaboration of simpler, more comprehensive ways of understanding things.
What was cutting edge long ago was the Ptolemaic system. This was supplanted by the simpler, more explanatory view of the solar system.
Similar to the Ptolemaic understanding of the stars, we now have “Homo sapiens” as a descriptive attempt to understand ourselves.
You do realize I am sure, that it offers little if any explanation about the formation of the complex phenomenon that is human experience - the colours, images, language, understanding, feelings that all come together to form you in this moment, as an obvious example.

It sounds like you are trying to bring it all together by keeping things apart; the consequent understanding is too simplistic for my liking.

 

[Hans_W]

You may wish to begin by acknowledging that these are your opinions.
Nothing is being mixed up as far as I can see in granny’s arguments.

You may also wish to reconsider your views in light of the fact that there is ultimately one reality, and that it can be approached in various ways.
There is no mixing up of science, philosophy and theology. Each has something to add to understand the larger picture.

Since you have decided to speak for us all about “Homo Sapiens, Neaderthals, elephants and dinosaurs”, I assume you realize that these somewhat scientific designations are based on the philosophical understanding that things in themselves, substances, or whatever you may wich to call them, do exist and that the rational mind can discern them.
Whether Homo Sapiens = man and Neanderthal =/= man is unfortunately something science by itself cannot determine, since it cannot weigh, measure or otherwise analyze the soul or spirit that defines man.

The fact is that science is always a work in progress, revised by the elaboration of simpler, more comprehensive ways of understanding things.
What was cutting edge long ago was the Ptolemaic system. This was supplanted by the simpler, more explanatory view of the solar system.
Similar to the Ptolemaic understanding of the stars, we now have “Homo sapiens” as a descriptive attempt to understand ourselves.
You do realize I am sure, that it offers little if any explanation about the formation of the complex phenomenon that is human experience - the colours, images, language, understanding, feelings that all come together to form you in this moment, as an obvious example.

It sounds like you are trying to bring it all together by keeping things apart; the consequent understanding is too simplistic for my liking.

Goodness me!

We are trying to answer the questions if, how and when Homo sapiens sapiens interbred with Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. These are a scientific questions. I would not go to the Bible or the Catechism to answer them.

If you ask how much this type of knowledge relies on inductive reasoning, then it becomes a philosophical question (philosophy of science).

If you ask at what stage did Homo sapiens get a soul - that’s a question for theology.

Fairly clear cut for me, but I am open to be corrected.

 

[oldcelt]

Goodness me!

We are trying to answer the questions if, how and when Homo sapiens sapiens interbred with Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. These are a scientific questions. I would not go to the Bible or the Catechism to answer them.

If you ask how much this type of knowledge relies on inductive reasoning, then it becomes a philosophical question (philosophy of science).

If you ask at what stage did Homo sapiens get a soul - that’s a question for theology.

Fairly clear cut for me, but I am open to be corrected.

Then, it either comes down to proof or faith.

John

 

[Hans_W]

Then, it either comes down to proof or faith.

John

I don’t see it as an either/or.

When we investigate the physical world we look for proof. When we talk of God, angels and souls, we need to rely on faith.
These two worlds complement each other.

 

[grannymh]

I don’t see it as an either/or.

When we investigate the physical world we look for proof. When we talk of God, angels and souls, we need to rely on faith.
These two worlds complement each other.

In real life, it is possible that individual interpretations of natural events going millions of years backwards will oppose Divine Revelation. The real life example is the clash between the Catholic Deposit of Faith and the cladistics system (large random-breeding populations) used in the modern science of human heredity.

In real life, in order for “truth” not to contradict “truth”, science must be conducted properly and Catholic doctrines must be properly understood. Unfortunately, a variety of Catholics want to eliminate annoying Catholic doctrines.

 

[Hans_W]

In real life, in order for “truth” not to contradict “truth”, science must be conducted properly and Catholic doctrines must be properly understood. Unfortunately, a variety of Catholics want to eliminate annoying Catholic doctrines.

You are advocating a “Christian science”, but then we also need to have a Hindu science, a Muslim science, a Feminist science and what have you. Here in New Zealand some Maori groups are pushing for a Maori science which integrates some of their Maori values.

How do you feel about that? Or should we just go for a Catholic science?

 

[grannymh]

You are advocating a “Christian science”, but then we also need to have a Hindu science, a Muslim science, a Feminist science and what have you. Here in New Zealand some Maori groups are pushing for a Maori science which integrates some of their Maori values.

How do you feel about that? Or should we just go for a Catholic science?

The basic definition of natural science is that it explores the material physical world.

Therefore, when I am searching for information about the material physical world such as which direction rain goes, up or down, I follow the basic natural science position which is to observe without prejudice.

When I am searching for information about my decomposing material physical anatomy, I look at the section of natural science which is known as medical science.

However, because I believe in God as Creator and I believe that God as Creator interacts with human creatures, I am very curious about the difference between animals and humans. For example: the difference between a beaver dam and the Hoover Dam, Colorado River, U.S. Another example: the dramatic shift from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1: 26-27. It should be obvious that this fascinating shift is not a natural science textbook.

Personally, I have decided to stick with the Catholic Church. As a cradle Catholic, I learned the basic doctrines. As a cranky granny, I have determined that these doctrines are sound truths about life and humans. Believe it or not, logic, not physical science, follows from Genesis 1: 1. Now, I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer; however, I prefer the knowledge which beckons me to joy eternal after bodily death. That is more appealing than becoming a fossil on a scientist’s shelf.