Does the Catholic Church recognize the story of Noah and the flood as being literally true?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rwillenborg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
prettylarge said:
Can I just say that if you believe that the flood happened as it said in the bible (even though the bible actually contradicts itself, so even that would be impossible) you cannot consider yourself an intelligent person. This goes the same for believing in Adam and Eve. These things did not happen, we have no evidence of them happening, and it is nonsense to believe they actually happened. I can’t believe this is an argument…because if people were rational, it would not be. What is wrong with some of you people…seriously, WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU!!!
Click to expand...
The Bible, especially the many miracles in the New Testament, may seem impossible to your mind, perhaps even paradoxical, but eyes that see with the gift of Faith, see the truth in the paradoxes. The crux of the matter is the Cross. One must first believe in God who became man, so that man may become God. We believe that we may understand.
 
StAnastasia said:
Demands I can handle; divine drowning of innocent babies I can’t.
Click to expand...
In the Middle Ages, when the tendency was to read Noah literally in the historic sense, many Rabbis commenting on Genesis saw the Deluge as harsh, and did not number Noah as highly righteous as were Abraham or Moses because he lacked compassion. They saw no evidence in the story of compassion on Noah’s part for the men, women and children who were destroyed.
 
edwest2 said:
The Catholic Encyclopedia indicates the world.

newadvent.org/cathen/11088a.htm

And from the Library of Catholic Answers: “Noah’s flood, once the butt of scholarly ridicule, finds support in the oral and pictorial record of primitive peoples.”

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
I assume that’s the 1913 Encyclopedia?

Here’s what the 2003 Catholic Encyclopedia says, in part, in it’s article on “Flood”:
The ancient authors of the Genesis flood story wove their Israelite traditions around one such devastating flood to create a compelling story about their God and His relationship with humanity. The scientific or historical accuracy of the biblical narrative, measured by modern human standards, is irrelevant to the accounts’ abiding theological significance.
Click to expand...
 
CWBetts said:
The blood of the innocent is on the hands of those responsible (that is, their parents) for not heeding the warnings of wrath.
Click to expand...
No, the blood is on the hands of the guy who sent the flood. If a man warns parents at a shopping mall to get out with their kids because he’s going to attack in five minutes, would you say the childrens’ blood is on their parents’ hands because they refused to heed his warnings of wrath?
 
what about the notion that the Flood was not wrath but merciful chastisement. After all, is it too difficult to imagine that the fall of humanity quickly descends into a near total wickedness, which is spiritual death, and that, as JPII, put it, the end result of culture of death is… “death”, which would imply, had God not done anything to mercifully start over, the world would have ended of its volition on account of the fact that if man does not love God, how can he love his fellow man, who is a sinner?

The end of sin is destruction. This is why our world will eventually end, which is to say, once humanity falls away irrevocably from the Gospel, the self destruction of the world is the inevitable fruit.

Toward that end, God would not need to be lashing out in wrath, but mercifully ending the majority of human life to prevent the end of the world and start anew with the righteous remnant.

A passage in Peter says that some spirits repented in the Flood. Therefore, although they still had to die, they were saved spiritually by their change of heart.
 
StAnastasia said:
No, the blood is on the hands of the guy who sent the flood. If a man warns parents at a shopping mall to get out with their kids because he’s going to attack in five minutes, would you say the childrens’ blood is on their parents’ hands because they refused to heed his warnings of wrath?
Click to expand...
Huge difference. Your scenario involves one who does not have the right to do what he is doing. God has the right to destroy His own creation, and would be justified. We are not entitled to life. It is God’s gift.
 
also, again, look at my essays.

Of course, the Church can believe certain portions of Scripture are nothing more than parables and not history in any sense, such as Job, Jonah, and Tobias.

On the other hand, to reduce the totality of greater OT history to nothing but fables that teach lessons and that have no history in any sense is undermining the Gospel, for no other reason than that certain stages of Revelation and Intervention were necessary to prepare humanity for the Coming of the Incarnate One. If OT were nothing but Fables, were are forced to ask, why did Christ come when He did?

Christ’s coming is not arbitrary. Further, the nature of the fall necessarily limits the possibilities of what God can do to redeem humanity, part of which involves meeting humanity where it is at. If the Jews couldn’t handle the Trinity and Incarnation, how the hell could God reveal it to early pagans? Therefore, in some sense, there are greater ages that need to precede the Coming of the Incarnate One, in order that His Coming be efficacious toward the greater acceptance of humanity. The essay links I posted earlier address these issues in great detail
 
spauline said:
Toward that end, God would not need to be lashing out in wrath, but mercifully ending the majority of human life to prevent the end of the world and start anew with the righteous remnant.
Click to expand...
The flood story can of course have many interpretations. I do not interpret it with a wrathful or vengeful God in mind. In any case, humanity after Noah turned out to be just as sinful after a few generations, so the death of all those innocent babies drowned in their mothers wombs was a complete waste, if what “merciful chastisement” is what God had in mind.

StAnastasia
 
I think the issue as to whether God has the right to destroy His own creation is quite problematic, even a pseudo-problem, again, if one is considering the matter only from the Noah story.

Supposing there was an actual global inundation that wiped out the planet. Whatever the human population was at that time, and it could not have been too large, many times more people have been killed by natural disasters and plagues since those early days. Who, if anyone, is responsible for these deaths?

And what about the several mass extinctions that have occurred on earth since life began? Is anyone responsible.

The ancient Hebrews would attribute all calamities to Yahweh, because they believed Yahweh controlled everything in the heavens and on earth. However, a lot of the traditional wisdom of Israel was overthrown by Job. Job’s three interlocutors presented all of the traditional arguments of Israel to try and account for Job’s losses. In the end Yahweh rebukes Job’s friends. This rebuke is a confirmation that the ancient casuistry was inadequate to explain evil. The reasons for evil in a particular situation may be true for those individual circumstances, but no rule of thumb will suffice. Yahweh explains how much about the problem of evil will remain a mystery to man when he says His ways are as high above man’s ways as the heaven is above the earth.

The Mesopotamians and many other ancient cultures believed that natural disasters, such as floods, were caused by the gods. Their anger or revenge on man was arbitrary.

The Hebrews responded by re-working the Babylonian accounts of arbitrary gods to say that God would only destroy with a flood out of justice. It is significant that in the Noah account, God says he will never destroy all of life again. It’s almost like a relenting on God’s part, and He promises from then on to also be merciful towards mankind because man’s heart is inclined to evil.
 
itinerant1 said:
Soap box time: :cool:

If “We don’t have to be intelligent or rational,” as you just stated, then why did God give us intellects and an innate desire to learn?

Aristotle said, “All men by nature desire to know.” We have a moral obligation to be educated, and to the best that our individual circumstances permit, everyone according to his own abilities.

In the area of religion, there is little merit to a blind faith. According to St. Augustine, faith is only the first step. Understanding is the reward of faith. We believe in order that we may understand.

Orestes Brownson says (Catholic Polemics, Works, 20),

**“No amount of pious training or pious culture will protect the faithful, or preserve them from the contamination of the age, if they are left inferior to non-Catholics in secular learning and intellectual development. The faithful must be guarded and protected by being trained and disciplined to grapple the errors and false systems of the age. They must be not only more religiously, but also more intellectually educated. They must be better armed than their opponents,—surpass them in the strength and vigor of their minds, and in the extent and variety of their knowledge. They must on all occasions and against all adversaries, be ready to give a reason for the hope that is in them.”

**
Click to expand...
All this is true. And, notwithstanding that, it is faith as the foundation of intellect and hope and education, that brings about conversions and defends the Church. These things without faith in God and the Church become base and ungodly. It is faith that is the foundation of my personal hope in God and for the Church. It is from this believing hope that I can taste God’s love (“Your loving kindness is sweeter than life”). Just as we are empty without loving God and others, we gain reason to do so, from faith.

And, to give the appearance of having left faith behind because of higher education disappoints the less educated of your example and gives poor testimony of Christendom to those we must withstand.imho.

Don
 
donsnow said:
And, to give the appearance of having left faith behind because of higher education disappoints the less educated of your example and gives poor testimony of Christendom to those we must withstand.imho.

Don
Click to expand...
I must say that I have no idea what you are talking about.
 
itinerant1 said:
Uh, donsnow…

“Oh you of little wisdom.”

Thomas

“The pursuit of wisdom especially joins man to God in friendship.”
– St. Thomas Aquinas
Click to expand...
Well, itinerant1 -

I’m happy with the little wisdom I have, so’s I don’t get too smart for my nor the kingdom of God’s good. A little wisdom goes a long way, but I wouldn’t mind a little more.🙂

Let’s put it this way. You live in a different neighborhood than I do. Believe it or not, there are people on the streets here and some come off the street, that have less education than I do. And, if I try to talk to them from the fullness of the little knowledge that I have, which is greater than theirs, I would either intimidate them or leave myself open to charges of mocking them. So, I remember St. Francis of Assissi’s words, with which I will close.

“In all things, preach Christ crucified; when necessary, use words.”

Don
 
StAnastasia said:
Thanks, Donsnow! I find diesel engines pretty dramatic. Happy Midnight Mass!

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
Sure, StAnastasia -

Do you like fast cars, too?:rolleyes:

A joyful Christmas mass to you, too.
I don’t think I’ll make a midnight mass this year, as I want to go to the early morning Christmas mass. And, unless I can get a ride, the holiday bus schedule is for the birds. And, I’m not a bird:D.

Don
 
StAnastasia said:
Beautifully put, Donsnow! What you say is so true: “we must believe the theological, spiritual and moral messages in all the stories in the whole Holy Bible”

War regards,
StAnastasia
Click to expand...
Thank you, StAnastasia:blush:-

My little military mind accepts your “War regards”😃

Warm regards, too, to you and all of yours.🙂

Don
 
donsnow said:
Well, itinerant1 -

I’m happy with the little wisdom I have, so’s I don’t get too smart for my nor the kingdom of God’s good. A little wisdom goes a long way, but I wouldn’t mind a little more.🙂

Let’s put it this way. You live in a different neighborhood than I do. Believe it or not, there are people on the streets here and some come off the street, that have less education than I do. And, if I try to talk to them from the fullness of the little knowledge that I have, which is greater than theirs, I would either intimidate them or leave myself open to charges of mocking them. So, I remember St. Francis of Assissi’s words, with which I will close.

“In all things, preach Christ crucified; when necessary, use words.”

Don
Click to expand...
So. So, what is your point? What does anything you said have to do with how to read the story of Noah?

The answer is, “Nothing whatsoever”. For some reason, you have gone off on an irrelevant tangent.

If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen, and don’t start going “Holier than thou” on people. I could be a total wretch, but that would be independent of the arguments I am making. Get relevant, because you are totally off-track on this thread. Or, start your own thread to discuss whatever it is that bothers you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top