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

[Leela]

Of course you have a stake in this. If not, why do you post here?

What I mean is that I don’t feel any need to find a way to make such problematic passages work for me. For example, not being commited to the idea that the Bible is the word of God, I don’t need to do any mental gymnastics to reconcile my belief that slavery is evil and the lines supporting slavery at the end of the Noah tale.

I noticed your blogspot link. What kind of hope do you offer?

I don’t offer hope, but I have hope and I would like to be able to inspire others by articulating my personal sense of hope. I think hope is pretty much the attitude that remains once we have dropped the idea of the importance of factual belief from the concept of spiritual faith. (We have discussed such things before, so I well know that you have little hope for this world and instead look to Heaven. I on the other hand believe in the possibility of humanity to create a future that is unimaginably better than the past and hope that my children and grandchildren will live in an even better place than this perfect world of ours.)

Best,
Leela

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

What I mean is that I don’t feel any need to find a way to make such problematic passages work for me. For example, not being commited to the idea that the Bible is the word of God, I don’t need to do any mental gymnastics to reconcile my belief that slavery is evil and the lines supporting slavery at the end of the Noah tale.

I don’t offer hope, but I have hope and I would like to be able to inspire others by articulating my personal sense of hope. I think hope is pretty much the attitude that remains once we have dropped the idea of the importance of factual belief from the concept of spiritual faith. (We have discussed such things before, so I well know that you have little hope for this world and instead look to Heaven. I on the other hand believe in the possibility of humanity to create a future that is unimaginably better than the past and hope that my children and grandchildren will live in an even better place than this perfect world of ours.)

Best,
Leela

Peace,
Ed

Why do you find it necessary to post here and mock the Word of God? That is what I meant.

I do have hope for the present but I do know how this story ends. Of course, I don’t know when. The Humanist thought process assigns to the mind of man the role of his own saviour and builder of a better world. I remember reading that once international phone service was established, people would come to know each other better. But nothing changed. The wealthy remain in power, robbing the citizenry at will, and deciding what to fund and not to fund. Any progress you may be hoping for humanity as a whole is in the hands of a select few.

Peace,
Ed

 

[CWBetts]

What I mean is that I don’t feel any need to find a way to make such problematic passages work for me. For example, not being commited to the idea that the Bible is the word of God, I don’t need to do any mental gymnastics to reconcile my belief that slavery is evil and the lines supporting slavery at the end of the Noah tale.

I don’t offer hope, but I have hope and I would like to be able to inspire others by articulating my personal sense of hope. I think hope is pretty much the attitude that remains once we have dropped the idea of the importance of factual belief from the concept of spiritual faith. (We have discussed such things before, so I well know that you have little hope for this world and instead look to Heaven. I on the other hand believe in the possibility of humanity to create a future that is unimaginably better than the past and hope that my children and grandchildren will live in an even better place than this perfect world of ours.)

Best,
Leela

Peace,
Ed

I think you have a misunderstanding of slavery. The mental image that is conjured up is an invention of the age of exploration. Slavery in the ancient near east was altogether different. Just look at the relationship between Abraham and Eleazar. Eleazar was not only Abraham’s slave, but also his heir, had Isaac not been born.

 

[grannymh]

No, but this story specifically says that God got angry because people were being bad, so he decided to kill everyone and everything. If that isn’t a punishment for bad behavior, I don’t know what is.

You are right. I did leave out the bad guys. The consequence of their behavior was death.

(And I’m glad you didn’t blame it on Eve like people usually do!)

:thumbsup:

No, but is drowning the way a just and omnipotent God chooses to deal with the situation? The babies didn’t have to drown to arrive in heaven, did they?

Speaking from hospice and hospital experience with death, I have seen different ways of dying from similar causes. What may be a bad experience for one, may be a peaceful experience for another. I have often told those who are watching a loved one of any age die, that we should not underestimate the power of God to be with that person through the process of death.

This is similar to what you said previously:
“If I may, since we are talking about ideas of what God is like, offer the comment that ideas coming from human knowledge don’t necessarily apply to a transcendent spiritual being known as God.”

The problem is that if we simply can’t hope to have any intellectual understanding of God’s actions and motivations then there is no point to the Bible or any sermons or theology. We should always just throw up our hands and say “there is simply no way to comprehend God.” No one’s ideas about God are then any better or worse then anyone else’s if God is so inscrutible.

A lack of hope is a problem. And being a pooh bear with a very little brain, often I am ready to throw up my hands in frustration. Yet, there is something innate in my soul which longs for God. My deepest longings are my strongest hope. Noah is an example of hope in spite of low odds.

One day in high school, I stamped my foot and said to God-- I want to know right now if You exist. Since there was no voice from the sky, I started thinking about how I could know God’s existence. Being imaginative by nature, all kinds of ideas flew across my brain until I settled on a reason why God existed. By anyone’s standards the reason I chose for God’s existence was the most illogical, unreasonable, non-scientific, non-intellectual one possible. But it worked. So I said to God-- o.k. I believe You exist. I don’t want to be late to class so I will deal with Jesus Christ and Your Church later.

What I am trying to say is that if we keep our hearts and minds open and allow our deepest longings to surface, we will be able to start the life-long process of getting to know God. (I do not recommend stamping one’s foot.) It may be a Bible passage, a sermon, studying a favorite subject, relaxing with a Harry Potter book, getting upset with Adam or Noah, that will provide the spark which will become the light of God’s presence. As we come closer to our loving God, we will become more confident in our natural ability to comprehend. Yes, our soul’s intellect and will have the power to do more than what can be dreamed.

I will reply to the rest of your thought-provoking post a bit later.

Blessings
granny

The quest for knowledge is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[praise_Jesus_1]

CWBetts:

I think you have a misunderstanding of slavery. The mental image that is conjured up is an invention of the age of exploration. Slavery in the ancient near east was altogether different. Just look at the relationship between Abraham and Eleazar. Eleazar was not only Abraham’s slave, but also his heir, had Isaac not been born.

Thanks for pointing this out CWBetts. We have to remember to consider the context of these writings and not bring in our own preconceived notions of what they mean based on our present day experience.

 

[Leela]

CWBetts:
I think you have a misunderstanding of slavery. The mental image that is conjured up is an invention of the age of exploration. Slavery in the ancient near east was altogether different. Just look at the relationship between Abraham and Eleazar. Eleazar was not only Abraham’s slave, but also his heir, had Isaac not been born.

There was more social mobility in slavery in ancient times than there is now, but this is all beside the point. I’m just saying that there are problematic passages in the Bible such as slavery, praising the smashing of babies heads against rocks, God’s anger toward Joshua for not following his command to kill every man, woman, and child as well as all animals in Ai, the same celebrated violence celebtrated in Jericho, animal sacrifice, commandments to stone adulterers and homosexuals, etc. I’d be concerned about the moral development of anyone who never had a problem with any such passages. You may have worked out ways of fitting all the above into your understanding of the Bible as the word of God. My point is that doing so must have required some effort and that I personally haven’t felt like I needed to expend any such effort to spin these stories to fit my views about love and justice and God since I am not commited to the idea that the Bible is infallible. I just read that stuff and note that the Bible has a lot of good parts and includes some excellent articulation and illustration of moral behavior but a lot of bad parts as well that people should not follow as moral guides today. Ed takes me as “bashing the word of God,” but I don’t consider the Bible to be the word of God. From my point of view, even if some parts are divinely inspired others are the product of fallible human beings with some pretty sick ideas about God, love, and justice (no matter how relatively enlightened some of these views may have been in their own time.)

I also don’t think that struggling to make sense of the Bible rather than just take it at face value is anything to be ashamed of. It is what I think you ought to do. Do you remember when Jacob was renamed Israel in that bit about wrestling by the river with what turned out to be an angel or God himself? The name Israel when bestowed on Jacob was said to mean something like “he who wrestles with God.” Israel is also used as the name of the people as a whole. Jacob was injured in the fight, but he was also blessed and renamed Israel at the end of it. Do you wrestle with God? Are you not like Jacob simultaneously blessed and wounded in the struggle? Is such struggle not part of a healthy relationship from time to time?

Best,
Leela

 

[grannymh]

Do you wrestle with God? Are you not like Jacob simultaneously blessed and wounded in the struggle? Is such struggle not part of a healthy relationship from time to time?
Best,
Leela

Brief note before I leave. Being very much human, of course I struggle with God at times. Please don’t say a word. But I secretly want God to win. Like Noah, I bet on God.

 

[CWBetts]

I think you have a misunderstanding of slavery. The mental image that is conjured up is an invention of the age of exploration. Slavery in the ancient near east was altogether different. Just look at the relationship between Abraham and Eleazar. Eleazar was not only Abraham’s slave, but also his heir, had Isaac not been born.

There was more social mobility in slavery in ancient times than there is now, but this is all beside the point. I’m just saying that there are problematic passages in the Bible such as slavery, praising the smashing of babies heads against rocks, God’s anger toward Joshua for not following his command to kill every man, woman, and child as well as all animals in Ai, the same celebrated violence celebtrated in Jericho, animal sacrifice, commandments to stone adulterers and homosexuals, etc. I’d be concerned about the moral development of anyone who never had a problem with any such passages. You may have worked out ways of fitting all the above into your understanding of the Bible as the word of God. My point is that doing so must have required some effort and that I personally haven’t felt like I needed to expend any such effort to spin these stories to fit my views about love and justice and God since I am not commited to the idea that the Bible is infallible. I just read that stuff and note that the Bible has a lot of good parts and includes some excellent articulation and illustration of moral behavior but a lot of bad parts as well that people should not follow as moral guides today. Ed takes me as “bashing the word of God,” but I don’t consider the Bible to be the word of God. From my point of view, even if some parts are divinely inspired others are the product of fallible human beings with some pretty sick ideas about God, love, and justice (no matter how relatively enlightened some of these views may have been in their own time.)

I also don’t think that struggling to make sense of the Bible rather than just take it at face value is anything to be ashamed of. It is what I think you ought to do. Do you remember when Jacob was renamed Israel in that bit about wrestling by the river with what turned out to be an angel or God himself? The name Israel when bestowed on Jacob was said to mean something like “he who wrestles with God.” Israel is also used as the name of the people as a whole. Jacob was injured in the fight, but he was also blessed and renamed Israel at the end of it. Do you wrestle with God? Are you not like Jacob simultaneously blessed and wounded in the struggle? Is such struggle not part of a healthy relationship from time to time?

Best,
Leela

I can’t respond to all the silliness in this rant other than to say that you cannot understand the harshness of Deuteronomy without first fully comprehending the failings in Numbers

 

[StAnastasia]

You’re missing the point, Ed. The question is not how could a just God allow puppies to die. The question is how a just God could punish infants and puppies by drowning them in response to the sins of others? Best, Leela

Perhaps God aborted all those babies because he knew they were not among the elect, and that they would sin when they arrived at the age of reason.

 

[rdscheirer]

Robert Ballard- the one who discovered the site of the Titanic - went to the Black sea a few years ago and found evidence of a catastrophic flood with relics dating to the time that archeolgists think Noah may have lived.

 

[grannymh]

StAnastasia;:

Perhaps God …

Perhaps one should think about what abortion entails before writing. Perhaps one should think – period.

 

[donsnow]

Like I’ve mentioned before…the sins of the people before the flood had corrupted all the unborn babies, all the land, all the animals and all the plants. Noah and his family had prevented themselves from being so corrupted by the sins of others. The deluge was not so much a punishment as a necessary cleansing of all that.

 

[grannymh]

As I said to Ed, this isn’t “the problem evil” scenario (does God passively allow bad things happen), this is God actively choosing to do something violent and unjust out of anger and then promising never to do it again.

The story of Noah starts with *Genesis Chapter 6 *when wickedness of His people grieves God. But not all people have deliberately chosen to leave God’s friendship. Noah had found favor with God.

When writing about God, humans have only their words which describe their own actions and feelings. Readers also come to Scripture with their individual human background, experiences, knowledge, and emotions. The particular quote above expresses one view of God whereas I have another view of God. At this point, we need to agree to disagree.

For me this interpretation is quite a stretch. But if the story functions that way for you in your life then it sounds like it is worth your periodic reflection.

This refers to my comment: “The plight of Noah is a timeless reminder that it takes effort to walk in friendship with our Creator.” I am pleased with Leela’s remark.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred.

 

[edwest2]

The story of Noah starts with *Genesis Chapter 6 *when wickedness of His people grieves God. But not all people have deliberately chosen to leave God’s friendship. Noah had found favor with God.

When writing about God, humans have only their words which describe their own actions and feelings. Readers also come to Scripture with their individual human background, experiences, knowledge, and emotions. The particular quote above expresses one view of God whereas I have another view of God. At this point, we need to agree to disagree.

This refers to my comment: “The plight of Noah is a timeless reminder that it takes effort to walk in friendship with our Creator.” I am pleased with Leela’s remark.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred.

The Bible is not open to individual interpretation. The Church is our interpreter. A reading of the encyclical Humani Generis shows the grave and serious matter of interpreting what was written. To deny that the Holy Spirit inspired the Bible is to bring it into the realm of secular books. And while secular books may sometimes inspire or offer a word of advice, they are the works of men.

II Timothy 3:16 “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”

Please note, it says 'by inspiration of God," not men. That is why there is a heading here titled “Sacred Scripture.” It is not made sacred by men but by God.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Leela]

Like I’ve mentioned before…the sins of the people before the flood had corrupted all the unborn babies, all the land, all the animals and all the plants. Noah and his family had prevented themselves from being so corrupted by the sins of others. The deluge was not so much a punishment as a necessary cleansing of all that.

You may have said this, but you haven’t argued this point in a way that is convincing to me in the least. You sound frustrated that your original statement on the matter was not merely accepted as gospel without needing to argue your case (do you have some authority that we all should recognize?), but you’ll need to explain how certain toddlers and unborn babies could be corrupted by sins that they did not commit and how animals and plants could possibly become corrupt. And if the animals and plants were in fact corrupt, how did the animals and plants that Noah took aboard the boat avoid being corrupted? And if a cleansing was necessary, why drown babies and animals to do it? Why not just instantly and painlessly end their lives and remove their beings from the earth rather than flood the earth leaving their rotting carcasses behind?

 

[Leela]

The Bible is not open to individual interpretation. The Church is our interpreter.

Is Granny not part of the Church?

 

[Thecapz]

You may have said this, but you haven’t argued this point in a way that is convincing to me in the least. You sound frustrated that your original statement on the matter was not merely accepted as gospel without needing to argue your case (do you have some authority that we all should recognize?), but you’ll need to explain how certain toddlers and unborn babies could be corrupted by sins that they did not commit and how animals and plants could possibly become corrupt. And if the animals and plants were in fact corrupt, how did the animals and plants that Noah took aboard the boat avoid being corrupted? And if a cleansing was necessary, why drown babies and animals to do it? Why not just instantly and painlessly end their lives and remove their beings from the earth rather than flood the earth leaving their rotting carcasses behind?

A flood makes a far more interesting tale. Also it counters the free-will argument. If God can see the future, and saw that he needed to “flood the world”. Why not just start again after Eve and Adam ate the apple. Why let them procreate after that. God works in mysterious ways huh.

 

[grannymh]

The Bible is not open to individual interpretation.

Ed, I understand why you think I may be referring to individual interpretation. However, I was referring to individuals. Sometimes we have to recognize the reality that people do have different views about anything and everything.

The Church is our interpreter. A reading of the encyclical Humani Generis shows the grave and serious matter of interpreting what was written.

I have agreed that the Church is our interpreter in above posts by referencing the Catechism of the Catholic Church. However, in real life, at least some of us read Scripture and apply its lessons to our own lives. Psalm 139 is a favorite. However, I interpret it in reference to a wonderful experience which occurred years ago. Each time I meditate on it, my faith and trust in God grows.

To deny that the Holy Spirit inspired the Bible is to bring it into the realm of secular books. And while secular books may sometimes inspire or offer a word of advice, they are the works of men.

What you are saying is true. Nonetheless, men are often doing the will of God through their writing. Just because the writers of the various books in Scripture used their human language which does come from human actions and feelings, does not lessen Divine Revelation in any way.

II Timothy 3:16 “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”

Please note, it says 'by inspiration of God," not men. That is why there is a heading here titled “Sacred Scripture.” It is not made sacred by men but by God.

Peace,
Ed

I also see Scripture as God’s way to inspire me. For example, each time I read a post on Noah, I saw Noah in a different light. The thoughts which came needed to be fine tuned in accord with Catholic teaching. This is an active process of learning by listening to what God is saying throughout Scripture.

And please note the signature which I use quite often. The word sacred does signify the relationship with God.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred.

 

[buffalo]

Hi All,

Whether we take the story to be literally true or not, the big picture that you all apparently accept as Catholics is that God once got so angry about the wickedness of some people that he regretted creating man all together (does God really have regrets?) decided to kill everyone including children, babies, and the unborn by drowning them. He also decided to drown every animal on earth (does this sound like divine justice to you?). He later changed his mind about one righteous man in particular and his family (does it make any sense at all for an omniscient God to change his mind?) and decided to save him and a few animals from the flood. Afterward, God promised to never again kill everyone and all the living things on earth in a flood. (Sweet!)

Do I have that right? Is this story consistent with your idea of what God’s justice is like? Not only do I not take this story as literally true, I don’t even want to think of it as saying anything true about the character of God. Any God worth believing in wouldn’t drown innocent babies and animals because he got angry at wicked people, would he???

Best,
Leela

What constitutes innocent?

 

[buffalo]

You may have said this, but you haven’t argued this point in a way that is convincing to me in the least. You sound frustrated that your original statement on the matter was not merely accepted as gospel without needing to argue your case (do you have some authority that we all should recognize?), but you’ll need to explain how certain toddlers and unborn babies could be corrupted by sins that they did not commit and how animals and plants could possibly become corrupt. And if the animals and plants were in fact corrupt, how did the animals and plants that Noah took aboard the boat avoid being corrupted? And if a cleansing was necessary, why drown babies and animals to do it? Why not just instantly and painlessly end their lives and remove their beings from the earth rather than flood the earth leaving their rotting carcasses behind?

When you go to the surgeon to remove a cancerous tumor do you ask him to remove just a part of it?