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.
Leela said:
It is interesting that the Noah story is one of those popular children’s Bible stories (likewise the Jericho story). Pro-life?Best,Leela
Click to expand...
Leela, it’s an interesting question why the Noah story would be so popular with kids. I suspect that if you focus only on the cutsie aspect of “animals two by two” and the adventure of riding out a storm in a big boat, the story is appealing. If the wider implications were pointed out – Noah’s childrens’ witnessing their grandparents and uncles and aunts and cousins and friends dying horribly through drowning – it might be less compelling to share this story to share with children.

StAnastasia
 
StAnastasia said:
Leela, while I do not agree that the Noah story is pro-abortion per se, it certainly is compatible with the “culture of death.” God did not abort all the babies because they were an inconvenience; God did it because they were in the way of God’s plan, as were their sisters and brothers, their mommies and daddies and grandparents. They had to go to make way for a better society, a society without drunkeness and nakedness.

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
since then man has been faced with a similar dilemma as God and has played God in the case of the mad cow and foot and mouth epidemic and even healthy cattle have been destroyed - we are still dealing with abortion and euthanasia and no not what the future has in store - twinc
 
StAnastasia said:
Leela, while I do not agree that the Noah story is pro-abortion per se, it certainly is compatible with the “culture of death.”
Click to expand...
I am not saying that it is pro-abortion, it just contradicts the view of God as portrayed in the Bibles as pro-life.
StAnastasia said:
God did not abort all the babies because they were an inconvenience; God did it because they were in the way of God’s plan, as were their sisters and brothers, their mommies and daddies and grandparents. They had to go to make way for a better society, a society without drunkeness and nakedness.
Click to expand...
Not because they were an inconvenience but because they were in the way??? Isn’t that to say that they were an inconvenience?

Also, is it true that the sins all humanity needed to be killed for were drunkeness and nakedness? There must be more to the story.
 
StAnastasia said:
Leela, it’s an interesting question why the Noah story would be so popular with kids. I suspect that if you focus only on the cutsie aspect of “animals two by two” and the adventure of riding out a storm in a big boat, the story is appealing. If the wider implications were pointed out – Noah’s childrens’ witnessing their grandparents and uncles and aunts and cousins and friends dying horribly through drowning – it might be less compelling to share this story to share with children.

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
Agreed. I guess it is tough to find Bible stories that are suitable for children.
 
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.(Edited)
 
Leela said:
I am not saying that it is pro-abortion, it just contradicts the view of God as portrayed in the Bibles as pro-life. Not because they were an inconvenience but because they were in the way??? Isn’t that to say that they were an inconvenience? Also, is it true that the sins all humanity needed to be killed for were drunkeness and nakedness? There must be more to the story.
Click to expand...
Leela,

(1) Right – I’m not saying God is theologically pro-abortion in this story; it’s just that the divine action of sending the flood caused a huge number of abortions.

(2) In a word, yes – they were in the way of God’s plan for a purified earth.

(3) There are no doubt sins greater than nakedness and drunkenness, but Noah committed both of thsse after God cleansed the earth. And then God punished Noah’s son Ham for his father’s sin, laying the foundation for the eventual theological justification of the enslavement of Africans, the “sons of Ham.”

StAnastasia
 
buffalo said:
If one only focuses on the human body it is easy to fall into this trap. Focus on the soul. What became of their souls?
Click to expand...
Buffalo, I remember reading during graduate school an account of medieval heresy proceedings. A pregant woman who was tied to the stake gave birth resultant upon the trauma of being burned. The onlookers rescued the baby, but the bishop judged that as the mother was a heretic, so was the baby, so they threw it back into the flames. This was judged the most compassionate action, since the baby’s heretical soul was saved from the everlasting fires of hell by the writhing of it’s tiny newborn body in terrestrial fire. Presumably the mother’s soul was ultimately saved as well by this compassionate incineration of its fleshly garment.

StAnastasia
 
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.(Edited)
Click to expand...
prettylarge, while I agree with your interpretation of Old Testament symbolic language, I do not believe it is constructive for dialogue to question what is wrong with biblical literalists. Rather, what is constructive is to explore the parameters of theologically symbolic language.

StAnastasia
 
buffalo said:
Was there a man named Noah at all? What about the genealogies and his offspring?
Click to expand...
yea…I also am still wondering about that. There is a genealogical line from Terah to Noah 3x in scripture, in:

1) Gen 11:10-26

2) 1 Chronicles 1:24-27
Shem, Arphaxad, Shelah,
Eber, Peleg, Reu,
Serug, Nahor, Terah,
Abram; the same is Abraham.

3 Luke 3 (which doesn’t by the way conflict with the genealogy in Matt 1 because only Luke 3 goes back from Abraham to Adam)

My problem is where do I draw the line and say, eg, Noah, Shem, and Arphaxad are a parable but Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, and Terah are real. Certainly all Christians believe that Abraham was a real person, but then what about his father Terah, certainly Abraham had a real father who had a real father etc. I wouldn’t know where to draw that line between ‘just a parable’ and ‘real’, can anybody? 🤷
 
StAnastasia said:
Leela, it’s an interesting question why the Noah story would be so popular with kids. I suspect that if you focus only on the cutsie aspect of “animals two by two” and the adventure of riding out a storm in a big boat, the story is appealing. If the wider implications were pointed out – Noah’s childrens’ witnessing their grandparents and uncles and aunts and cousins and friends dying horribly through drowning – it might be less compelling to share this story to share with children.

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
Even children have a sense of justice.
 
Leela said:
Even if we don’t take this story to be literally true, this is still a story that says that God once got so angry that he decided to kill every human being on the planet. Is this even a story that Catholics want to think of as true in some non-literal way? Do you think of God as the sort that could get mad and kill all of humanity for sinful behavior? Do you think of God as one who could change his mind and decide to save one righteous family? Does God sometimes change his mind? That would be impossible for an omniscient being wouldn’t it?

By the way, what were the people doing that was so wicked that everyone including children and babies and even the unborn children in the wicked women’s wombs needed to be not just instantly and painlessly killed but actually drowned to death?

Only Noah was innocent? Not even the unborn babies? It is interesting that the Noah story is one of those popular children’s Bible stories (likewise the Jericho story). Pro-life?

The Noah story seems to me to have bigger problems for Catholics than just the logistics of accumulating enough water and packing all those animals in a boat. Those are the least of the issues here.

Best,
Leela
Click to expand...
When you go to the surgeon and want him to remove a cancerous tumor are you ok with it if he just removes part of it?
 
Leela said:
I am not saying that it is pro-abortion, it just contradicts the view of God as portrayed in the Bibles as pro-life.

Not because they were an inconvenience but because they were in the way??? Isn’t that to say that they were an inconvenience?

Also, is it true that the sins all humanity needed to be killed for were drunkeness and nakedness? There must be more to the story.
Click to expand...
God is eternal pro-life.
 
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.(Edited)
Click to expand...
We do not want to become irrational atheists.
 
StAnastasia said:
Buffalo, I remember reading during graduate school an account of medieval heresy proceedings. A pregant woman who was tied to the stake gave birth resultant upon the trauma of being burned. The onlookers rescued the baby, but the bishop judged that as the mother was a heretic, so was the baby, so they threw it back into the flames. This was judged the most compassionate action, since the baby’s heretical soul was saved from the everlasting fires of hell by the writhing of it’s tiny newborn body in terrestrial fire. Presumably the mother’s soul was ultimately saved as well by this compassionate incineration of its fleshly garment.

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
Perhaps - I leave that for God to judge and as you well know isolated stories of actions do not make Catholic theology. Yes, there are bad Catholics then and now. The Church is a hospital for sinners and everyone in it is a sinner and fails to live up to the proposition.
 
John7 said:
yea…I also am still wondering about that. There is a genealogical line from Terah to Noah 3x in scripture, in:

1) Gen 11:10-26

2) 1 Chronicles 1:24-27
Shem, Arphaxad, Shelah,
Eber, Peleg, Reu,
Serug, Nahor, Terah,
Abram; the same is Abraham.

3 Luke 3 (which doesn’t by the way conflict with the genealogy in Matt 1 because only Luke 3 goes back from Abraham to Adam)

My problem is where do I draw the line and say, eg, Noah, Shem, and Arphaxad are a parable but Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, and Terah are real. Certainly all Christians believe that Abraham was a real person, but then what about his father Terah, certainly Abraham had a real father who had a real father etc. I wouldn’t know where to draw that line between ‘just a parable’ and ‘real’, can anybody? 🤷
Click to expand...
If Noah did not exist neither did his offspring. Brings up a huge problem now doesn’t. The Bible is a pretty well woven to preserve the truth don’t you think?
 
buffalo said:
If Noah did not exist neither did his offspring. Brings up a huge problem now doesn’t. The Bible is a pretty well woven to preserve the truth don’t you think?
Click to expand...
Once you start denying parts of revealed Truth, the rest of it begins to crumble
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top