Adam, Eve, and Early Humans (amp; More Weird Questions) - Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World
Jimmy Akin | 26 April 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5b9yu5wGLM
I can't afford to miss this one.
Last year, I heard some views about Theistic Evolution, and I possibly misconstrued as Jimmy Akin's own position what may not have been so. If so, I was inattentive, and I'll try to make up for it this time
4:43 Non-corporeal.
This would c. 70 years ago have been defended like "all four theological schools have by now agreed internally and with each other" (I think that means Thomistic Dominicans, Scotistic Franciscans, Jesuits and Augustinians) "that angels are entirely immaterial."
However, this leaves out orientals.
In some Oriental source, you'll find "angels are incorporeal compared to us, corporeal compared to God" ...
Or in other words, we don't experience them as material, but God knows they are material.
I think that could be St. John of Damascus, On the Orthodox faith, not sure if there is maybe even a Council statement on the Ecumenical Councils I through VIII (somewhere in Nicaea I through Constantinople IV, whichever of the two meetings about Photius you consider ecumenical, or both).
5:27 This argument for Dark Matter is pretty moot.
a) Because the distances, sizes and consequently gravity factors of "galaxies" or spiral nebulas are moot, as derived from Heliocentric error. "Proven" from an unproven counterfact.
b) Because the idea that objects of this scale of size are moved only by vectors of inertia and gravity, both of which are dominated by mass, is part of their proof, it's neither proven, nor a first principle evident in itself, except it will be perceived like that to Atheists.
So, when the matter astronomers think is there won't explain movements as observed, instead of revising that assumption (and in doing so reverting to Geocentrism as per observations), they will add another layer of complexity to their theories by invoking dark matter.
"there may be a hidden substance hidden which is why it's called Dark 5:38 there may be a hidden form of matter or a dark form of matter that doesn't interact with light which is why we 5:46 can't see it because light just goes right through it um but does interact 5:52 gravitationally so it would have mass that's capable of influencing the visible matter that we can see"
Angels, angelic beings:
1) do not show visually (except by taking bodily form, which is a capacity but not a default state, this is by the way distinct from whether they are or aren't normally in some way corporeal)
2) do not need mass, but have will, to interact with any given body they chose to interact with, either on God's errand or with God's permission.
That's sufficient to motivate not just funny patterns of rotations on spiral nebulas (by some the last 100 years thought to be "galaxies"), but even Tychonian orbits. Actual spirograph patterns in relation to a space that rotates around earth each day.
It can be admitted, my own view also involves some kind of invisible matter, which I call aether.
It's not just the medium of light, but also of spatiality. Both physical vectors and angelic action would move bodies within this larger space, and down to earth, so does standing on the ground or humanly deciding to move a finger.
If I stood on the equator and dropped a stone having had no speed at all in relation to the aether, it would fly westward real fast. But this can't happen, unless I create the stone the moment I drop it, which I can't. While I hold it, it already acquires an eastward speed through the aether.
That's also why geostationary satellites work, the speed that's relevant for keeping them up is not in relation to absolute space or to earth, but in relation to the rotating aether.
That's also why Sirius can move around the Earth 2 pi the speed of light, if fix stars are one light day up. The speed of light is concerned with movement through the aether.
The speed of Sirius we observe is mainly speed of the aether, which at that height has that speed.
I would say, if angels are made of some kind of matter, it would be aether rather than particles.
8:27 For spirits known to be damned, like Satan, one Church father did pray, and he got pushback for it.
I think it was St. Basil.
For people who in fact are in Hell, but we don't know it, yes, one may pray.
It might cause temporary relief, it might be a prayer (specifically in the case of indulgenced prayers) that God uses for someone else, like a soul in Purgatory.
12:16 Do you think there are situations when an act against the faith on part of someone (not received into the Church) can be determined as either apostasy or part of a martyrdom, so that the person either went to Hell or to Heaven?
My mother's getting buried by a Lutheran seemed to me, last year, to fall within this range. She had prayed the rosary with me before I left Sweden.
I believe in Purgatory. I do not believe mother went there. Just as I don't believe Sr. Clare Crockett went there. With the latter, even though she accepted a wrong Pope, I do not envisage her as even optionally gone to Hell.
So, if upcoming 6.VI you think I am wrong, you can pray for my mother in Purgatory. But first try to pray to her. If she doesn't cure someone's bad cold or sth, you may proceed to pray for her.
14:58 The words do not amount to actual proof of exasperation.
She could have wanted to have a clarification, like She asked of the angel.
15:35 Consternation is far more like it.
She probably experienced lots of consternation until the parallel to Genesis 3:15 told her that Her Sisera or Holophernes was not a man of flesh and blood, but the author of sin.
Like Patrick Madrid said somewhere, the only OT parallels to the greeting "blessed among women" (in the OT there are qualifications, so less absolute than the words to Mary), were Jael and Judith.
So, since their heroism was about getting someone's throat cut, I think She was on and off consterned up to getting clarification by St. Elisabeth on what it meant.
17:17 Why would "selfish" be sinful?
Kant introduced the equation altruism = virtue, egoism / selfishness = sin.
This is followed in lots of modern Protestant moral theology, a k a heretical morality.
In the NIV, there are at least 8 items condemning selfishness. In the Douay Rheims, each is condemning something else.
And no, "lovers of self" does not equate with selfish, it's probably more like lovers of self at systematic expense of others or infatuated with self.
What I found is:
What does the word mean, in everyday language? It means for "contend" to quarrel or dispute, and for contentions "quarrels" or for contention "being quarrelsome" - so the verdict of those verses is, not about selfishness, but about quarrelsomeness. While we sometimes do need to quarrel for a good cause (Jude 1:3, or David taking up a quarrel with Goliath), we are forbidden to be quarrelsome, to be eager to find something to quarrel about.
Another word is "covetuousness" - it means one thing classified as "selfish" by those using the word, but not everything else so classified. It means specifically being greedy.
somewhere else: Is Selfishness Condemned in the Bible?
Publié par Hans Georg Lundahl à 05:09 dimanche 29 janvier 2023
https://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2023/01/is-selfishness-condemned-in-bible.html
23:42 You are aware how the long neck of the giraffe could never have developed from shorter necks gradually, because it involves safety valves in the blood vessels. Are you?
24:45 You are aware that a gradual emergence of a new cell type in any living organism type has never been observed?
Another major hurdle for the theory of evolution!
25:55 Wonder how many of my persecutors round here in Paris are involved in Pavlovian manipulation.
There are several occasions when I took some kind of contact with some kind of right wing thing (for instance Rivarol, last occasion, yesterday, I contacted Jean des Cars via his daughter, that's a man claiming Russia (rather than Ukraine) being founded in 882, in the intro to his book on the Romanovs.
I obviously thought he had been dupe of some Russian nationalists who were far better qualified to talk of Romanovs than of Kievan Rus', so I wrote about it, contacted his daughter who directs the Louvre. When I came to my luggage yesterday afternoon or evening, I saw someone had burrowed in it, making an ugly disorder.
Not totally sure if it comes from lefties who are mad I even get in touch with righties, or from righties who get mad, I am not their naive admirer. I tend to begin suspecting the latter.
27:54 A predisposition to alcoholism is not a disordered desire.
One can speak of disordered desire once a person who has developed alcoholism starts taking a sip intending to take no more, and ends up getting drunk.
By the way, if you have heard this is my case, that is a lie. If I have any disordered desire that strong, it's to food or rest. I have trouble staying away from a treat that's offered, even if I know it's beyond my allowed meals on a fasting day.
On Good Friday evening and Holy Saturday morning, I got into trouble by refusing meals offered despite this, and in order to not sin in food, I was a bit impatient in rejecting an offer from someone. That happened the evening. The morning I was woke up by someone poking in my luggage behind my sleeping bag. I tried to shove him away, got kicked down, got kicked on the head while down, had a brain concussion for one month. Police wrote it off as my getting into a drunk brawl because I was drunk.
Perhaps they protected someone. After the event, it struck me, he had some resemblance to Zelensky.
Well, I was not drunk.
28:52 I'd reject that one.
Adam was not created in grace, he was given grace, according to some, but even before grace he was in an original innocense which superpassed anything we have now.
Even if this is not true, on reflection I think it isn't, the abstract idea of it, what Adam before the fall would have been without grace, would still be far superior to us.
29:48 I'd go with this one rather.
a) making synthesis of vitamin C a pseudo-gene would be one thing hastening our death
b) and this would need some compensation, a drive to eat more fruit
c) and other biological signals of a more urgent situation.
When desires are to be expressed under a stress of urgency, they are more likely to become disordered in their expression.
But there is also a metaphysical loss, the interaction between (immaterial or aethereal) soul and body was re-geared to body less obedient to soul.
45:04 Perhaps, if you are prepared to deny the humanity of Neanderthals, maybe you shouldn't pray for my mother.
Nor a priest agreeing with you.
Neanderthals, not just made jewelry and buried dead, they kept a one armed man alive whose amputation had time to heal (Shanidar), they invented very roundabout glues to attach spear heads to shafts, they burned fat with wicks in bones to light dark caves, if they were already caves back then, we have their genes in vestigial amounts (also true for Denisovans), we would not descend from them if they didn't descend from Adam and Eve, and, even more.
Language.
They had our FOXP2 gene or a very similar version. They had Broca's area. They had human ears and human hyoid bones (Kebara), which have been worn in exactly the same way as that of a modern human wears his hyoid.
They were very clearly human.
One more. Dental calculus in El Sidrón reveals a vegetarian diet. Dental calculus in Belgium, also Neanderthals, reveals they ate woolly rhino and other men. Now, a split between vegetarians and cannibals suggest the pre-Flood world to me. Just vegetarians, see Genesis 9:2. Unjust into cannibalism and vampyrism, gay marriage and forced marriage, if I get the hint in Matthew 24:38 correct (some who were less close to the end times than we are have obviously held He meant ordinary food, drink, marriage arrangements).
Human language doesn't exist without the human soul. If some wacky theologian pretended it could back in the day of Pius XII, that could explain (along with non-condemnation in Humani Generis) the subsequent McCarrick-like scandals via a Romans 1 punishment. Plus all the disorders after Vatican II, whatever you believe of the Council. Plus the existence of four claimants to the papacy, I obviously think the one agreeing with you is for that reason the least likely.
You mentioned pushing Adam and Eve far back.
Not if there is something funny with the dating methods. Read this paragraph in context, you may find it instructive:
When it comes to radiometric dates, the carbon dates concern only Neanderthals and Denisovans, when it comes to Heidelbergians and Antecessors (whom I suspect of being simply Denisovans, but they are other finds and other dates) and to Homo erectus, we are more typically dealing with K-Ar, with Potassium Argon. In a Flood setting, how old would reflect how much argon was trapped by rapid cooling of lava spreading above the mud their bodies were in. For Neanderthals and Denisovans, where we have carbon dates, these end at or perhaps a bit before 40 000 BP. This is why for long I took the carbon date 40 000 BP or 38 000 BC as the carbon date of the Flood year.
Creation vs. Evolution : I Had a Dream : a Discussion About Human Skeleta
Publié par Hans Georg Lundahl à 00:34 mardi 23 avril 2024
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/04/i-had-dream-discussion-about-human.html
Note, I said "if" ...
45:50 Pretending Denisovans and Neanderthals are not rational men, not descendants of Adam and Eve, brings on the evil suggestion we descend from what would, on the level of consensus, have amounted to Bestiality.
If the problem with accepting Neanderthals as human is, you prefer not putting Adam and Eve 40 000 years back, me neither. But the solution is not stating Homo sapiens is the only real human descendants of Adam, since you have Homo sapiens dated this far back or further. The solution is an extra look at the dating methods.
