Author Topic: Yoslings/Neanderthals and the Children of God/Cro-Magnon  (Read 7053 times)

October 30, 2014, 03:04:59 AM

Offline Len

  • Administrator
  • Magus Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1478
Yoslings/Neanderthals and the Children of God/Cro-Magnon
« on: October 30, 2014, 03:04:59 AM »
Who or what were the Yoslings of the Kolbrin? Descriptions of them are rather scanty, but they are called ‘half-folk’, ‘not true men’, and ‘kinsfolk to the beasts’. (Emphasis and parenthesis mine):

“He (Fanvar) fell asleep in the heat of the day and awoke to find himself surrounded by the Sons of Bothas, not true men but Yoslings, kinsfolk to the beasts of the forest

"About the land of The Children of God was the wasteland where Yoslings, called The Children of Zumat, which means They Who Inherit Death, dwelt.” – The Kolbrin, Book of Creation, Chapter 5

“Time went by and the half-folk called Yoslings began to gather around her (Gwineva the Cuckoochild) habitation and they thought she was a goddess and worshipped her.” – The Kolbrin, Book of Creation, Chapter 8

While clearly of a more primitive and animalistic species than modern humans, these Yoslings did possess traits not known in any other current species of animal today besides man, these namely being consciousness, language, and reason. They used fashioned tools and performed rituals, at a more primitive level than our modern ancestors, yet at a higher level than any other primate known in the fossil record besides anatomically modern humans. Going by the fossil record and the Kolbrin stories of the Yoslings, these beings seem to be none other than the extinct species of primates now called Neanderthals.

The Kolbrin tells a tragic story of miscegenation between beings much farther apart than a tribal or racial level, but of a mixture at the level of separate species (Emphasis and parenthesis mine):

“It was the custom of Maeva (Child of God) to wander there in the sunshine and Lewid (Yosling) also went there; so it came about that they met among the trees. Maeva knew the man but had shunned him in the past, now she saw he was handsome, possessed of many attractions, so her foot was stayed and she did not run away.

As the days passed they dallied longer together and Lewid talked of things Maeva had not heard before. She felt a stirring in her blood but did not respond or heed his temptations, because of the things which were forbidden. So Lewid went to the Moonmother, wise woman of the Yoslings, and telling of his desires beseeched her to help him. The Moonmother gave him two apples containing a vile substance which they had drawn through their stalks; this Lewid gave to Maeva who then became helpless in his hands…

“Dadam (Child of God) said to the woman, "What have you done, for what has happened to us cannot be unless the things which are forbidden have been done". The woman replied, "Lord, I was tempted and I fell, I have done that which is forbidden and unforgivable".

Dadam said, "I am bound by duty to do certain things, but first let us go into the Gisar to the place called Bethkelcris, where I will seek enlightenment". So they went there together and stood before the shrine beneath the Tree of Wisdom. There they were filled with an inflowing vision, seeing themselves as they were and as they should have been, and they were ashamed. He because he had not followed the proper path of a man and she because of her falsity. There, in the reflecting mist, the contamination of the woman was revealed, and the man's heart shrivelled within him like a flower licked by flame.

Then they saw a great Spiritbeing materialising in the reflecting mist and he said to them, "Woe to you and your house, for the greatest of evils has befallen the race of The Children of God and it is defiled. The heritage of Kadamhapa is lost. The fetid flow defiling the woman results from the incompatible intermingling, but it is not all, for sicknesses and diseases are also generating from the ferments of the impure implantation".

“Dadam then married Maeva (Child of God) who had a daughter, not by him, and this was Gwineva, the cuckoochild fathered by Abrimenid of Gwarthon, son of Namtenigal, whom we call Lewid the Darkfather (Yosling).” – The Kolbrin, Book of Creation, Chapter 5

What is most interesting about this tale, first openly published in 1993 in the Kolbrin, is that while Neanderthal/Cro-Magnon interbreeding was a fringe hypothesis, the scientific consensus at that time considered such an interbreeding impossible. This is because once two divergent species evolve far enough apart from common ancestors, gene linkage first results in often deformed or sterile offspring, and then finally becomes impossible due to incompatibility. Geneticists were certainly firm on the belief of incompatibility between Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon in 1993.

However, in 2010, the Neanderthal genome was fully sequenced, and compared to our own. Genetic science was rewritten in light of the new discoveries. It was found that not only that modern humans carried Neanderthal DNA (between 1-4%), but that different modern races carried different amounts of the extinct species’ DNA. Caucasian (whites), interbred most with the Neanderthals, carrying the highest on average percentage of this DNA. Asians and Hispanics carry the second most amount of Neanderthal DNA. And tellingly, sub-Saharan Africans carry no Neanderthal DNA, meaning the Black African race did not interbreed with Neanderthals.   

This coincides with the ‘out of Africa’ theory, which posits that modern humans originated in Africa, migrated first to Europe and the Middle East, and then on to Asia (later spreading to Australia and the Americas). The DNA percentages coincide here as Neanderthals resided between Europe and west Asia, with White Europeans having the most contact, Asians passing contact, and Africans no contact. Some articles on these findings below:

 http://www.centnews.com/Tech/Oldest-DNA-ever-found-sheds-light-on-humans-global-trek/S-2014-10-22/99027.html

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/710.full

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/723.full

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/neandertals/neandertal_dna/1000-genomes-introgression-among-populations-2012.html

This is not all that the Kolbrin told of ahead of science. It got much more specific. (It mentions disease as well, which I shall not address here, but which others may work on if desired: 

http://www.ibtimes.com/neanderthal-genetic-legacy-lingers-skin-hair-disease-risks-1550892   , 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/01/140129-neanderthal-genes-genetics-migration-africa-eurasian-science/  ,

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129542.600-neanderthalhuman-sex-bred-light-skins-and-infertility.html#.VFHoQRYgm-4     )

In sequencing the Neanderthal genome, scientists were surprised to discover lighter shades of skin and hair that were passed along to modern humans, but the gene for red hair specifically seems to be a trait that came from no other source than Neanderthals:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-38826/The-ginger-gene-revealed.html

http://www.dhamurian.org.au/anthropology/neanderthal1.html

http://www.dailytech.com/NeanderthalHuman+Breeding+Was+Hard+But+Yielded+Benefits/article34236.htm

Now, before any scientist, researcher, or theoretician ever made any publicized link between red hair and Neanderthals, the Kolbrin points out the fact clearly in the story of the first Neanderthal/Cro-Magnon offspring, Gwineva the Cuckoochild (Emphasis and parenthesis mine):

“Maeva (the Child of God who first bred with Lewid the Yosling), one time wife of Dadam, found refuge among people of Ardis where she gave birth to Gwineva the Cuckoochild (the first offspring between the Yoslings and Children of God), but as the child grew it was seen that she had red hair. Though all knew there were fair-haired and dark-haired people, none had ever seen anyone with red hair. Also, strange maladies had manifested in Ardis for which the strangers were blamed; therefore, because of these things, Maeva and her child were driven out.” -- The Kolbrin, Book of Creation, Chapter 8

November 27, 2014, 08:05:04 AMReply #1

Offline BillyLou

  • Novice Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 5
Re: Yoslings/Neanderthals and the Children of God/Cro-Magnon
« Reply #1 on: November 27, 2014, 08:05:04 AM »


 Hi. I've been equally fascinated and intrigued reading the pages and the account of Maeva
Quote
(the first offspring between the Yoslings and Children of God), but as the child grew it was seen that she had red hair
. I knew already about the study results regarding Neanderthals and their likely red hair gene. So this becomes interesting. Now take a look at this article-http://www.heritagedaily.com/2013/11/neanderthal-viruses-found-in-modern-humans/100135
Makes for more curious consideration. :o
However,aligning this story and recent emerging evidence,raises questions regarding this story.
For example, if Maeva had contaminated the Children of God by the impure implantation- and that she knew it-doesnt it seem reasonable to terminate the possibility of that child from being able to have further children? For the sake of a race becoming... let's say  genetically corrupted because that is what it seems to say. That is a reasonable question.
Also,supposing that it were the interbreeding of Neanderthal and its line with our Cro-Magnon that this story speaks of, the fact that Sub Saharan Africans carry 0%  of Neanderthal heritage,why are we not looking at their(S.S.A) story as a model story in the story of modern humans? Although ,I know I am assuming without confirmation that modern Sub-Saharan Africans are equal to the same ancestral humans before they migrated out of Africa.It is not necessarily so. These are just questions the story raises in my mind.

November 29, 2014, 08:47:08 PMReply #2

Offline Len

  • Administrator
  • Magus Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1478
Re: Yoslings/Neanderthals and the Children of God/Cro-Magnon
« Reply #2 on: November 29, 2014, 08:47:08 PM »
Welcome to the forum BillyLou! :)

For example, if Maeva had contaminated the Children of God by the impure implantation- and that she knew it-doesnt it seem reasonable to terminate the possibility of that child from being able to have further children? For the sake of a race becoming... let's say  genetically corrupted because that is what it seems to say. That is a reasonable question.

That's a very reasonable question. But it can be a question difficult to conclusively answer due to how long ago these events took place. However, we can make reasonable guesses based on certain clues and by looking at the way humans instinctively act today. Certain behaviors and instincts are not much different to our ancestors.

When you say "terminate the possibility of that child from being able to have further children", this could mean euthanizing the child or sterilizing it. It is unlikely these particular ancient peoples had the medical acumen to perform safe sterilization, so this leaves euthanasia. Now, you must ask yourself, would you be able to murder your child for the betterment of the human gene pool? What would it take for you to be able to murder your child for any reason? What may be better for the species genetically might not be what’s best for the soul, or what’s best for the culture ethically. It is not easy to murder, it weighs heavily. Instead, what we see happening to Gwineva the Cuckoochild is that she is ostracized and isolated from her mother’s people. This behavior, rightly or wrongly, is in line with how humans have in more recent times reacted to the children of forbidden or culturally unacceptable mating (mixing of class, race, culture, etc.). 

Also,supposing that it were the interbreeding of Neanderthal and its line with our Cro-Magnon that this story speaks of, the fact that Sub Saharan Africans carry 0%  of Neanderthal heritage,why are we not looking at their(S.S.A) story as a model story in the story of modern humans? Although ,I know I am assuming without confirmation that modern Sub-Saharan Africans are equal to the same ancestral humans before they migrated out of Africa.It is not necessarily so. These are just questions the story raises in my mind.

Generally speaking, ancient mythologies and histories are local geographically to the cultures or tribes they are discussing. The stories of Moses concern Egypt and Israel, for example. Lao Tzu's (or Laozi, the mythical figure who founded Taoism in ancient China) placement in ancient history concerns the Chinese. While people who are not Egyptian, Hebrew, or Chinese can learn much from Moses or Lao Tzu, their actions and teachings remain in the framework of their time and place. The Kolbrin’s history is mainly related to the specific places in and around ancient Egypt and Britain.

Sub Saharan Africans would have no reference or moral instruction against mixing with another species like the Yoslings/Neanderthals, as the Neanderthals did not live in Sub Saharan Africa. These Africans have had their own set of challenges, and one can learn much by studying the ethnographies, oral histories, and mythologies of the various African tribes. Even looking at this data, however, one finds that the behavior here is often less than ideal. Ethics are put in place anywhere, and for any people, due to human weakness and ignorance. Ancient and modern teachings of all places are to elevate the race from a lesser to a greater condition. There are no cultural saints (except on a limited, short term basis), and one can find examples going to the ultimate heights of virtue to the lowest depths of depravity in any race, culture, or time period. We certainly see plenty of both in the Kolbrin, as we do in African oral history.

But it is necessary to study the bad along with the good. Just as in daily life, how can we truly know right action, if we do not see or experience wrong action?
« Last Edit: November 29, 2014, 08:49:24 PM by Len »

November 30, 2014, 04:08:10 PMReply #3

Offline BillyLou

  • Novice Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 5
Re: Yoslings/Neanderthals and the Children of God/Cro-Magnon
« Reply #3 on: November 30, 2014, 04:08:10 PM »
Thanks for your responding thoughts on this Len. I'm going to mull over these considerations and read again the story we are discussing. However I still bring those points back to the table. I don't say to euthanise a new born. I understand that is a severe personal decision to act on-of course. So thats why I worded ' terminate the possibility'. Meaning that Maeva understood the profound consequences of the 'impure implantation'. If (a person) understood for example  that their child would, without doubt inherit such debilitating diseases as(examples here not needed), that person would not allow further procreation. I note what you reminded me that she was cast out of her group. But the implication must have been clear,so I still don't quite follow its logic.
I consider the two(3 including the red hair gene) scientific findings recently published highly curious and interesting. The finding regarding certain viruses aboard human dna possibly introduced originally from Neanderthal crossbreeding. The other,which I don't have a link for at this moment is the startling revelation that Neanderthal and Cro Mag crossbreeding took place briefly and was possibly isolated as it never happened again for several thousand years ( I read 30 but I will re-check)despite us sharing the space with them.
Regarding SSA. I pointed that out just as something to consider,seeing as they have 0% Neanderthal. I know they had no Neanderthal contact (seeing as the Northern hemisphere was the Neanderthal domain..although interestingly various Australian Aboriginals in N.T carry Neanderthal genes too.)  I suppose what we are trying to place here is either one of two  things.The story of Man or the story of one culture's specific story of origin and progression.(which in that case has me asking about what is all modern human's place in this in general) Anyway- I continue to find these links food for thought. Thanks for you thoughts too.

December 01, 2014, 06:48:17 PMReply #4

Offline Len

  • Administrator
  • Magus Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1478
Re: Yoslings/Neanderthals and the Children of God/Cro-Magnon
« Reply #4 on: December 01, 2014, 06:48:17 PM »
I don't say to euthanise a new born. I understand that is a severe personal decision to act on-of course. So thats why I worded ' terminate the possibility'. Meaning that Maeva understood the profound consequences of the 'impure implantation'. If (a person) understood for example  that their child would, without doubt inherit such debilitating diseases as(examples here not needed), that person would not allow further procreation. I note what you reminded me that she was cast out of her group. But the implication must have been clear,so I still don't quite follow its logic.

Understanding that doing something bad for you or your family or the species is a good and necessary deterrent for preventing a bad action, but it does not remove the possibility that the bad will be acted upon. People do wildly evil things that are forbidden by society, many that have had severe consequences to the species as a whole. Maeva’s transgression is not necessarily an exception or unique compared to more modern transgressions. 

Regarding SSA. I pointed that out just as something to consider,seeing as they have 0% Neanderthal. I know they had no Neanderthal contact (seeing as the Northern hemisphere was the Neanderthal domain..although interestingly various Australian Aboriginals in N.T carry Neanderthal genes too.)  I suppose what we are trying to place here is either one of two  things.The story of Man or the story of one culture's specific story of origin and progression.(which in that case has me asking about what is all modern human's place in this in general)

There are stories so old that they affect the entire Story of Man, and there are also less ancient stories that directly affect only certain tribes, cultures, or regions. The Kolbrin contains both.

Eventually, the Neanderthal cross breeding will affect the entire Story of Man, and even now, this story indirectly affects Sub Saharan Africans.

Every particular ultimately connects with the whole, the difference is only one of time and scope. A boulder thrown into a still pond creates waves and violently ripples the shores almost immediately. A pebble thrown into the same pond is felt less strongly, but it’s ripples still reach the shores after a longer time and with less disturbance.

December 02, 2014, 08:44:38 AMReply #5

Offline BillyLou

  • Novice Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 5
Re: Yoslings/Neanderthals and the Children of God/Cro-Magnon
« Reply #5 on: December 02, 2014, 08:44:38 AM »
Thanks for recent posting Len. Your writing seems to say that you yourself already accept this story in the Story of Creation and its correlation regarding Neanderthal and correlation with human/society behaviour. I myself find it fascinating but it remains with some parts conflicting or difficult to accept in straight transition. And those points are still very apparent. I don't know if you are seeing them too or not Len. In discussion,my interest is to find what holds water and what does not. To bring you back to a point or points is not to dismiss your own explanations but to say,it still doesn't quite hold water as it stands and has not been explained away convincingly.

Quote
There are stories so old that they affect the entire Story of Man, and there are also less ancient stories that directly affect only certain tribes, cultures, or regions. The Kolbrin contains both.

To establish this first question-
This particular story regarding Maeva. This is from the Story of Creation. Is that correct? If that is correct, then this story involves the story of Man from the beginning of our story. If this is so- then what of those early humans who still inhabit Africa with no contamination of Neanderthal?
I did note of course what your reply was to this-
Quote
ancient mythologies and histories are local geographically to the cultures or tribes they are discussing

Then this story of creation does not recognise its S.S.A origin. It is very interesting to read how it may be talking of connections with a suspect hominid long extinct and a corruption of genetics. Is it saying, I wonder that its specific creation story is regarding the creation of a specific human group that is apart and unrelated to other humans at that time? emerging from somewhere in the northern hemisphere rather than Africa? I don't know.Otherwise,its apparent correlations with modern facts and historical human presence in the world also have large conflicting accounts.

Quote
Eventually, the Neanderthal cross breeding will affect the entire Story of Man, and even now, this story indirectly affects Sub Saharan Africans
.

Quote
Every particular ultimately connects with the whole, the difference is only one of time and scope. A boulder thrown into a still pond creates waves and violently ripples the shores almost immediately. A pebble thrown into the same pond is felt less strongly, but it’s ripples still reach the shores after a longer time and with less disturbance.

I do realize that Len  ;)  I was talking of piecing together what we know from genetic evidence and populations and what it tells us of ancient population movements

Some Aboriginal Australian groups carrying Neanderthal genes is highly likely not from recent modern eventuality. All of man worldwide will no doubt eventually share Neanderthal genetics,yes,but I was talking about ancient connections according to genetic population mapping. 

With regard to the story of Maeva, I follow that you talk of her transgression was as to allow her cuckold child to flourish and reproduce and not solely for the 'incompatible intermingling'.  That so, it is a story to explain how human genetic corruption took place. It does and you are right there. However, its allowance to flourish is difficult to understand when as I said ,its implications were understood. I know you took the viewpoint of selfish behaviour over detriment. But I am looking at examples of plague ridden societies historically. When the implications are understood, the behaviour here is to isolate and contain, not to go or be sent to another community. These actions in plague affected societies directly saved further contamination. Painful though separation no doubt was.Its handling is not seen as cruel action,but necessary for the society's survival. So, I  don't follow the logic of this story as it stands so far. I can't put it down to ancient or uncivilised ways.
 
Quote
It is unlikely these particular ancient peoples had the medical acumen to perform safe sterilization
I believe such ancient societies were much more sophisticated than that.-And we are talking about a character that apparently understood the meaning of her transgression. I also believe that an understanding of herbal medicines to have likely been at an optimum level (referenced often by ancient greek and biblical writers)so as to curtail further fertility in this case would be known-but that is just likelihood speculation on my part. Like I say, highly intriguing but its connections make inconsistencies apparent and explanations needed that could plausibly hold water. Remaining intrigued  :)

December 04, 2014, 02:20:30 PMReply #6

Offline Len

  • Administrator
  • Magus Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1478
Re: Yoslings/Neanderthals and the Children of God/Cro-Magnon
« Reply #6 on: December 04, 2014, 02:20:30 PM »
Your writing seems to say that you yourself already accept this story in the Story of Creation and its correlation regarding Neanderthal and correlation with human/society behaviour. I myself find it fascinating but it remains with some parts conflicting or difficult to accept in straight transition. And those points are still very apparent. I don't know if you are seeing them too or not Len. In discussion,my interest is to find what holds water and what does not.

Perhaps I am not quite understanding your confusion. To claim that bad and unhealthy behavior, even to the detriment of everyone around you, does not hold water in ancient history really does not make any sense to me in my study of ancient history in all cultures and mythologies. I cannot think of any ancient mythology that does not include some sort of bad or evil behavior that has harmed the society. Even among the gods of ancient Greece or India, for example, we see uncontrolled lusts, incest, rape, murder, betrayal, and all other manner of depravity. The ancients, or their own gods and ancestors, never claimed to be above such behavior. The fact that these events happened, and are confirmed by genetics, simply verifies what the ancients have already told us. Pretty simple really.

Not so different from today, so it is hard for me to understand where your confusion lays.

This particular story regarding Maeva. This is from the Story of Creation. Is that correct? If that is correct, then this story involves the story of Man from the beginning of our story. If this is so- then what of those early humans who still inhabit Africa with no contamination of Neanderthal?

Then this story of creation does not recognise its S.S.A origin. It is very interesting to read how it may be talking of connections with a suspect hominid long extinct and a corruption of genetics. Is it saying, I wonder that its specific creation story is regarding the creation of a specific human group that is apart and unrelated to other humans at that time? emerging from somewhere in the northern hemisphere rather than Africa? I don't know.Otherwise,its apparent correlations with modern facts and historical human presence in the world also have large conflicting accounts.

Modern humans mating with Neanderthals is an aspect of creation affecting most of the people on earth. While this is not the beginning, it is an aspect of what we are today and how.

The story of Maeva comes quite late in the Book of Creation. Perhaps if you read the entire book, you will see that the Kolbrin describes vastly earlier eras in human history and formation. Creation is not one single point in time, but a long process of stages. Modern humans mating with Neanderthals is one of those stages, but the Kolbrin describes even earlier stages over vast time periods. You might be interested to read about these, and perhaps this will reconcile some of your confusion.

But I am looking at examples of plague ridden societies historically. When the implications are understood, the behaviour here is to isolate and contain, not to go or be sent to another community. These actions in plague affected societies directly saved further contamination. Painful though separation no doubt was.Its handling is not seen as cruel action,but necessary for the society's survival. So, I  don't follow the logic of this story as it stands so far. I can't put it down to ancient or uncivilised ways.

Well, if you reread the story of Gwineva the Cuckoochild, you'll find that she was "isolated and contained" as you suggest. Unfortunately, this did not "terminate the possibility of that child from being able to have further children".

It seems that part of your confusion comes from being unable to reconcile your image of ancient societies compared to oral and written history's along with the genetic data. The story of Maeva, for example, confirms the genetic record. So, I might suggest you reevaluate certain opinions you might have on ancient societies, or at least certain groups among ancient peoples. When a theory or an opinion conflicts with the facts and the data, it is time to reform the theory or opinion.

Like I say, highly intriguing but its connections make inconsistencies apparent and explanations needed that could plausibly hold water.

I would be most interested if you demonstrated some of these inconsistencies. :)

December 23, 2014, 05:35:59 PMReply #7

Offline BillyLou

  • Novice Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 5
Re: Yoslings/Neanderthals and the Children of God/Cro-Magnon
« Reply #7 on: December 23, 2014, 05:35:59 PM »
Hello. I've been away from my computer for a while,but time now to read through that last post.
I am not confused,as you suggest several times.To say that I am confused because I raise the point that the story of Maeva and Dadam  features an unseemly aspect to the story when reading it as an actual account-is a dogmatic stance to take.
Why would your verdict for someone who says that in order for this myth to be taken literally as fact requires some further explaining -that they are confused?

Quote
It seems that part of your confusion comes from being unable to reconcile your image of ancient societies compared to oral and written history's along with the genetic data. The story of Maeva, for example, confirms the genetic record. So, I might suggest you reevaluate certain opinions you might have on ancient societies, or at least certain groups among ancient peoples. When a theory or an opinion conflicts with the facts and the data, it is time to reform the theory or opinion.

Golly, that is quite an adamant claim. Peremptory attitudes have consigned many in history to a society of fools. To make it clear, my query is a certain part of the Maeva Dadam story which I felt was either missing some further explanation or needed some further explanation. This particular point is not to dispute whether it actually happened or not,but that it is not fully explained. You may feel that this part is adequate and fitting,showing equal examples of evil,murder depravity in other ancient myths and stories ancient and contemporary. In this part it is you who is either confused or no longer feels objective questions are acceptable here. I am pointing out that I understand Maeva transgressed by coupling with the Yosling. I understand that Maeva knew she had transgressed because she was forbidden. The story then relates how what had happened and its implications explained
Quote
There, in the reflecting mist, the contamination of the woman was revealed,
T
Quote
hen they saw a great Spiritbeing materialising in the reflecting mist and he said to them, "Woe to you and your house, for the greatest of evils has befallen the race of The Children of God and it is defiled. The heritage of Kadamhapa is lost. The fetid flow defiling the woman results from the incompatible intermingling, but it is not all, for sicknesses and diseases are also generating from the ferments of the impure implantation".
Here, Maeva now understands the meaning of what has happened. To allow the continued procreation from her child to flourish is what does not make sense here. From here ,to say that she was or acted badly or evilly  is your own accounting - Unless it states that specifically in the story or explains the apparent lax of her and everyone else who understood the ramification for humanity regarding of Maeva's daughter being allowed to procreate.
Quote
People do wildly evil things that are forbidden by society, many that have had severe consequences to the species as a whole. Maeva’s transgression is not necessarily an exception or unique compared to more modern transgressions.


This is not my inability to evaluate opinions of ancient societies, or as you put it  'not so different from today'
Quote
I might suggest you reevaluate certain opinions you might have on ancient societies,
I dont refute that a Neanderthal crossbred with a Cromagnon, that is evident. That is fact. You are confusing and using that fact to dismiss my query about the  apparent feeble behaviour that followed to manage and arrest further contamination of the human race forever after. This is a query about behaviour in this story that is actually counter to usual human behaviour. Its not about transgression. Let me illustrate this point.
If a child is told not to throw stones at bottles on a wall by a superior,the child may transgress and throw stones again when he/she is not watched. That is transgression. If however, the child is later then shown what damage the stones have inflicted on someone on the otherside of the garden wall as a direct result of those stones thrown, the child then understands. Now it is different. The child cannot omit his new understanding. If the child then continued to throw stones -that is odd behaviour and one would expect further explanation of behaviour. That is my point with the story of Maeva, Lewid and Dadam  and one looks for further explanation of behaviour here too. Inconsistency demonstrated.
Quote
It seems that part of your confusion comes from being unable to reconcile your image of ancient societies compared to oral and written history's along with the genetic data. The story of Maeva, for example, confirms the genetic record. So, I might suggest you reevaluate certain opinions you might have on ancient societies, or at least certain groups among ancient peoples. When a theory or an opinion conflicts with the facts and the data, it is time to reform the theory or opinion.
1. There is no relevance of genetic data in this query.This query regards a story, its telling and a certain part of it which needs further explaining according to certain human behaviour in that story. If you have that explanation available to quote from the story,please release it,so it may make sense.(not to reconcile my own image of ancient societies,but to make sense. Regarding your mention of your study of ancient history and mythology in all cultures you will then be aware that even the most ancient mythologies and histories commonly reveal a profound understanding of human behaviours and emotional motivations and intelligence. These are the stories that remain with us and that is probably why.The lack of such in a story cannot be relegated away by saying the reader doesn't understand ancient societies ) 2. My opinions on ancient societies are open,not closed. To ask a question is already asking to re-evaluate others certain opinions. Asking a question is not a theory, so it does not conflict with fact and data.
On the subject of Neanderthal and Cromagnon hybridisation. I never refuted it in my writing. The story of Maeva and the Yosling ,their interbreeding and the resulting daughter with red hair, and strange ailments associated is as i said, very intriguing. I don't throw it out. But unless you have further information,I really don't think it is 'confirmed by the genetic record' at this point, because all the evidence is not yet in.We know very little about Neanderthals considering.Red hair is in their genetics but does not mean that they all or even most had it or that it came exclusively from them. Most lived to an age no more than 30 years old. Which makes you wonder about a grandmother Yosling.Its not pretty simple really. But intriguing, yes.

December 23, 2014, 11:45:08 PMReply #8

Offline Len

  • Administrator
  • Magus Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1478
Re: Yoslings/Neanderthals and the Children of God/Cro-Magnon
« Reply #8 on: December 23, 2014, 11:45:08 PM »
Hi BillyLou. I’m glad to see you have replied. And it seems that your confusion regarding earlier periods of human history in relation to the Kolbrin has been cleared up, as you make no further mention of the earlier eras of history the Kolbrin describes or of sub-Saharan Africans. Hopefully, we can do the same in regards to your confusion with human behavior.

To say that I am confused because I raise the point that the story of Maeva and Dadam  features an unseemly aspect to the story when reading it as an actual account-is a dogmatic stance to take.

If you believe the story is unreal, this may possibly be a form of dogmatism.

I am not claiming the story is real or unreal, allegory or literal account… That is for the reader to decide. What I am saying is that Neanderthal mating with modern humans is STRONGLY indicated, and the Kolbrin was published at a time when the scientific community rejected this particular claim. We have since learned that the scientific opinion was wrong, and that modern, more accurate genetics testing confirms what the Kolbrin has strongly implied.

Why would your verdict for someone who says that in order for this myth to be taken literally as fact requires some further explaining -that they are confused?

If you do not take the Kolbrin literally, it is your prerogative. In fact, I do not take the Kolbrin literally in every instance myself. Some parts are metaphorical, and there are other parts which attempt to put into words things beyond material existence… not an easy thing to do.

You have said you require further explanation of human behavior, and this is the very definition of confusion along these lines. Below, we shall attempt to help in clarifying the issue for you.

Peremptory attitudes have consigned many in history to a society of fools.

Yes… I guess the pertinent example of that in this topic would be the scientists that once rejected Neanderthal crossbreeding…

In this part it is you who is either confused or no longer feels objective questions are acceptable here.

In a sense, you are very correct here. Your confusion in relation to typical human behavior is confusing to me. Many people have read this story, and I have discussed it with many. Never once have I encountered anyone that could not understand how it might be possible for people to transgress, commit forbidden acts, or hurt their society or race. Most people seem to take these actions, both ancient and modern, as something that is obvious. It is possible you are aware of something no one else is, and if that is the case, I hope you can better educate us.

Now, please don’t think questions that seem obvious to nearly everyone are unacceptable here. To ask a question shows that there is a possible ignorance or confusion in the subject being queried. This is quite natural, and we have all been there. Again, I will try to help with your questions.

To allow the continued procreation from her child to flourish is what does not make sense here.

We have gone over this above, but let us try to restate the situation. What EXACTLY should Maeva have done with her child? Do you have evidence that these particular people had knowledge of safe sterilization, or merely conjecture? Should Maeva have murdered her child? I’ve already asked you this, and you seem to imply that you yourself could not murder your own child… so I guess that solution is crossed out. You suggested that Gwineva the Cuckoochild be “isolated and contained”. I mentioned that the story follows just as you suggest. Gwineva became an outcast, an exile… having then to live among the Yoslings/Neanderthals… you make no response to this. As the story follows what you claim to be the most logical action, I’m not sure what you don’t understand… I guess I remain confused…  ???

Perhaps by “isolated and contained” you mean guarded imprisonment? There are not many examples of this in tribal, or primitive, societies. Exile or execution were the ultimate answers among these types of people. And exile is what the story tells of… Again, just as you suggest.

If Gwineva, or others like her, found isolated humans or outside tribes to find a mate, this would no longer be the concern of the original community that exiled her. Tribes, in both ancient and modern times, are concerned with the health of their own band or community, usually caring little for other tribes.

You are confusing and using that fact to dismiss my query about the  apparent feeble behaviour that followed to manage and arrest further contamination of the human race forever after.

Humans offer myriads of examples of feeble behavior. Groups make foolish decisions as well as individuals. One does not have to look too far into history to find countless examples of this. If you require demonstrations of national, tribal, or group foolishness, let me know, and I’ll help you with some examples.

Asking a question is not a theory, so it does not conflict with fact and data.

Questions are not theories, but they do indicate a lack of comprehension, or confusion, or a search for what one does not know… But you did not only ask a question. You have unequivocally stated there are inconsistencies with the Maeva story. To make such a definitive statement posits a theory or hypothesis. And your theory, unfortunately, does not match up with the facts and data demonstrating bad, foolish, and often illogical behavior enacted by groups and individuals from time immemorial. 

I really don't think it is 'confirmed by the genetic record' at this point

Supposing that Yoslings were Neanderthals and that the Children of God were Cro-Magnons, the story of Maeva does confirm the genetic record. Unless you’d like to contradict yourself, and say that this cross breeding did not occur, you have made no case for your argument, and have actually already agreed with me on all points except for the issue of human behavior regarding transgressions.

If a child is told not to throw stones at bottles on a wall by a superior,the child may transgress and throw stones again when he/she is not watched. That is transgression. If however, the child is later then shown what damage the stones have inflicted on someone on the otherside of the garden wall as a direct result of those stones thrown, the child then understands. Now it is different. The child cannot omit his new understanding. If the child then continued to throw stones -that is odd behaviour and one would expect further explanation of behaviour. That is my point with the story of Maeva, Lewid and Dadam  and one looks for further explanation of behaviour here too. Inconsistency demonstrated.

Are you claiming children do not throw stones even after they are caught and punished? Remarkable!

The only inconsistency you demonstrate here is that people continue to act badly despite rational explanation. That criminals and humans often act badly (in groups as well) is ‘inconsistent’ with rationality and logic, but whoever claimed that people and their actions are always (or even often) rational and logical? Do you not think there are repeat offenders of crimes? Criminals are often punished, given counseling, and harshly face the consequences of their bad actions. Yet these crimes are often repeated. Why is this? Do you think there are ‘inconsistencies’ with the uncountable reports of repeat offenders? That would be a rather bold claim, and would probably require a complete revision of criminal science and psychology… a rather enormous task you have set for yourself!

Now, let us return to the topic at hand with a modern example of a similar problem. Take the issue of incest. Like Neanderthal interbreeding, incest is a sexual taboo, causes diseases, damages the gene pool, and hurts all of society. Believe it or not, people actually continue to commit incest after witnessing the deformities of their children.

For one thing, incest is not even illegal in all places, despite the damage it causes to the children of such breeding or society at large. Even in most places, where it is illegal, what is done with the children of such a union to prevent further contamination? The answer is nothing… Forced sterilization is illegal even with the children of incest. Society does not, as you say, "terminate the possibility of that child from being able to have further children". These children are not euthanized, nor are they even “isolated and contained” as you claim always happens. In fact, this never happens in the modern world, no matter how much disease and contamination it causes, and the children of incest are allowed to live and breed fully in the very society they were born into. It’s funny actually, the exile of Gwineva the Cuckoochild in the Creation story is actually MORE rational than the actions you can clearly witness in the modern world.

Perhaps you would say, if you were to live 50,000 years in the future, that what is happening today in regards to incest is an ‘inconsistency’, and shouldn’t be taken literally. Perhaps you would say that people and society do not act in this manner.

Unfortunately, you would be wrong…

Its not pretty simple really. But intriguing, yes.

Another trait of human behavior is to confuse and complicate what is simple. This certainly adds spice to life and makes things more intriguing!
« Last Edit: December 23, 2014, 11:58:02 PM by Len »