• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Neanderthals and God

Some say they were apes.
Some say they were normal people.
Some say they were people with bad arthritis.

My favorite is the notion that they were in the process of "devolving." I think this is orthodontist Jack Cuozzo's pet idea, although "devolution" may be Michael Cremo's baby http://humandevolution.com/
 
Like the bible is consistent! Murder, incest, theft. 'Thou shall not kill', but an 'eye for an eye' is ok.

Confusing. Good thing it's a myth!
 
cloud_strife said:
so you're saying if we have sex with dogs and cats, they suddenly have souls?

There's some mighty happy sheep in Tennessee then.
 
I remember a fundie saying that "ape-men" derived from a common sin back in Noha's times, interbreeding between humans and apes. And since God did not liked that...
 
Correa Neto said:
I remember a fundie saying that "ape-men" derived from a common sin back in Noha's times, interbreeding between humans and apes. And since God did not liked that...

That's a new one to me
 
Neanderthals are just really old people because back then, people lived to be 600 years old, like Noah. They've just got arthritis and stuff, and since no one today (due to our evil ways), lives to be 600, we just don't know what they look like.

Duh.
 
cloud_strife said:
Only if God says it's ok.

And God says it's bad to have sex with things that aren't human. So either Cain met up with people that were humans already, or he was going against Gods will.

Ah, but they hadn't been given the rules yet. Which is was okay for Adam's children to have kids together, because the law wasn't given to them until Moses came around.
 
Jas said:
Neanderthals are just really old people because back then, people lived to be 600 years old, like Noah. They've just got arthritis and stuff, and since no one today (due to our evil ways), lives to be 600, we just don't know what they look like.

Duh.

We don't live to be 600 years old because after the flood, the heavy cloud cover (all that water had to come from somewhere) that kept out UV and other radiation was gone, the effects causing the reduction in our lifespans.
 
Here's a link to a fundamentalist article addressing the possibility of "pre-Adamic people".

I haven't been able to locate much in the way of online sources addressing the more subtle theological questions raised by the existence of Neanderthals and so forth, such as the spiritual fate of pre-modern hominids. For what it's worth, here's one view:
The non-Homo Sapiens people of ancient times, then, may well have enjoyed life intensely much as children do today before they reach adulthood. They could speak and think to some extent and carry on social life in conformity with their comparatively limited intellectual powers. Their power to think abstractly indicates that they had immaterial and immortal souls which do not die. What about their eternal destiny?

The Lord has not seen fit to reveal this to us. But we know that every single person whom He once creates, lives forever after. This is true of all persons, whether they are children or adults, whether born or unborn. We know also that God loves everything He has made, and that He is infinitely good. We entrust the non-Homo Sapiens hominids to His goodness, just as we entrust to Him the children whom He has created and who die without Baptism before they could be born, or who died after birth but before reaching the use of reason.
On a somewhat related note; I also found this observation in The Range of Reason (1947) by the estimable philosopher Jacques Maritain:
Primitive men did not philosophize; but, for all that, they had their own way, an instinctive, non-conceptual way, of believing in the soul's immortality. It was a belief rooted in an obscure experience of the self, and in the natural aspirations of the spirit in us to overcome death. We need not embark on an analysis of this natural and instinctive, non-philosophical belief in immortality. I should like merely to quote a passage from a book by the late scientist Pierre Lecomte du Noüy. Speaking of prehistoric man, he said: "Not only did the Neanderthal Man, who lived in Paleolithic times, bury his dead, but sometimes he buried them in a common ground. An example of this is the Grotte des Enfants near Mentone. Because of this respect he had for his dead, we have reached an anatomical knowledge of the Neanderthal Man that is more perfect than that which we have of certain races which have recently become extinct, or which still exist, such as the Tasmanians. This is no longer a question of instinct. We are dealing already with the dawn of human thought, which reveals itself in a kind of revolt against death. And revolt against death implies love for those who have gone as well as the hope that their disappearance is not final. We see these ideas, the first perhaps, develop progressively alongside the first artistic feelings. Flat rocks in the shape of dolmens are placed so as to protect the faces and heads of those who are buried. Later, ornaments, weapons, food, and the colors which serve to adorn the body, are placed in the tombs. The idea of finality is unbearable. The dead man will awaken, he will be hungry, he will have to defend himself, he will want to adorn himself."
 
ceo_esq said:
Here's a link to a fundamentalist article addressing the possibility of "pre-Adamic people".

I haven't been able to locate much in the way of online sources addressing the more subtle theological questions raised by the existence of Neanderthals and so forth, such as the spiritual fate of pre-modern hominids. For what it's worth, here's one view:
On a somewhat related note; I also found this observation in The Range of Reason (1947) by the estimable philosopher Jacques Maritain:

Am I the only one who finds something unbearably sad about that last passage?

Regardless, there are any number of creatures known to have existed that are not mentioned as having been on the ark.

So the neanderthals had burial traditions and mourned for their dead, so what? So do elephants, to an extent. Why should neanderthals worry the religious more than elephants do? Just because they look more like us?

Graham
 
ceo_esq said:
Here's a link to a fundamentalist article addressing the possibility of "pre-Adamic people".

Thanks ceo_esq.

Notice that Ross states that Adam and Eve lived 10–25 thousand years ago (he realizes that he can’t push the genealogies too far). However, when the same dating methods in which he trusts said that the Australian Aborigines and American Indians lived 40–60,000 years ago, he changed the sentence in the above quote to read: ‘Then about 10 to 60 thousand years ago, God replaced them with Adam and Eve.’14 Presumably the change was made because the 25,000 year limit would mean that the Aborigines and Indians could not have been descendants of Adam and Eve. However, his adjusted range of dates does not solve the problem. If it is possible that Adam and Eve lived 10,000 years ago, then this implies it is possible that such indigenous people are not descendants of Adam and Eve (which would mean that they could not be saved through Christ, our kinsman/redeemer—Isaiah 59:20).15

A lot of tap-dancing going on. It seems simpler to just say: Adam and Eve is a 'just so' story about the beginning of man. It should never be taken as history.
 
Lets not forget that a few centuries ago the catholic church was discussing if natives from the americas had souls or not.

Useless discussions. They don't. Neither we.
 
Correa Neto said:
Lets not forget that a few centuries ago the catholic church was discussing if natives from the americas had souls or not.

Amazing. What audacity!
 
it's also ironic and interesting to note that the europeans (including the catholic church) thought they were more civilized and moral than the Natives....yet the natives were slaughtered and conquered...
 
Correa Neto said:
Lets not forget that a few centuries ago the catholic church was discussing if natives from the americas had souls or not.

Source for this?
 
Correa Neto said:
Lets not forget that a few centuries ago the catholic church was discussing if natives from the americas had souls or not.

Useless discussions. They don't. Neither we.

Well the natives brought back from Columbus's first expedition were baptised and the second expedition of 1493 included 12 missionaries. So when did this discussion take place.
 
Correa Neto said:
Lets not forget that a few centuries ago the catholic church was discussing if natives from the americas had souls or not.

Actually, it's worse than that. The Catholics eventually decided that Native Americans had souls. The Church of England, however, did not. This had an effect on the ways that natives were differentially treated in Hispanic versus English colonies. They were treated very badly everywhere, but the native population of South America never went below 3 million estimated, wheras north of the Mexican border, the native population is estimated to have gone as low as 150,000. It's much higher, now, fortunately.

Anyway, if you go to Mexico and stay there for a while, you'll notice that many people are clearly identifiable as having Mayan ancestry, and that there is an entrenched racial distinction in the culture between them and more European-looking mexicans.
 

Back
Top Bottom