How did it come to be there are different races of people

  • Thread starter Thread starter KevinK
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The words where Jesus said Catholics are required to believe in the word-for-word story of Noah?
 
Luke 17:26 'As it was in Noah’s day, so will it also be in the days of the Son of man.

27 People were eating and drinking, marrying wives and husbands, right up to the day Noah went into the ark, and the Flood came and destroyed them all.

28 It will be the same as it was in Lot’s day: people were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building,

29 but the day Lot left Sodom, it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and it destroyed them all.

30 It will be the same when the day comes for the Son of man to be revealed.

31 'When that Day comes, no one on the housetop, with his possessions in the house, must come down to collect them, nor must anyone in the fields turn back.

32 Remember Lot’s wife.
 
Last edited:
Considering that the upper echelons of the hierarchy have been in direct contact for several decads if not more, I suspect they know what they need to know.
 
ZMystiCat said:
40.png
FiveLinden:
‘Skin colour’ or ‘color’ as they spell it in the US is far more determinant of ‘race’ in the thinking of Americans than among many other peoples.
Click to expand...
Well, there are Americans on this forum. Shocking, I know.
FiveLinden said:
It is indeed a human construct,
Click to expand...
I’m not denying that the general way of discussing such things as race aren’t, in at least some way, a human construct. That, however, is at best tangential to the original question raised, which frankly has a one word answer:

FiveLinden said:
I have no doubt that in the US a Melanesian would be seen as ‘black’ but they are far more closely related to ‘white’ US citizens originating in Germany than to any African.
Click to expand...
When the question is asked anymore, it actually often comes down more to ancestry than skin color. There are still some holes in most questionnaires I’ve seen, but it is less “are you black?” and more African, Polynesian, Caucasian, etc. (And if I get a lecture on where humans originated from, I’m pulling the gif out again.)
FiveLinden said:
facts, I’m afraid, are facts however you feel
Click to expand...
And it is a simple fact that parlances exist. If you don’t want to accept that, then maybe you can explain to me how in the world this is called a biscuit by some people:


That’s a cookie! This is a biscuit:


And also, who uses “coke” or “pop” or “fizzy drink” to refer to refer to “soda”? Weirdos!
Click to expand...
Biscuit ,then scone…and soft drink 😋
 
Most of my comment to you was about whether or not we have to believe the Noah story as indicating the whole of living beings - people and animals - were destroyed throughout the entire world, pr Boniface’s encyclical.

We both agree that the Orthodox do not have jurisdiction, which I did not mention; but it was to Boniface’s comment as to the “Greeks” I was speaking.

My main point, in case I was to broad about the encyclical, is that Boniface did not bind us to believe that Noah and the flood story are to be taken literally.

Another way of saying it is that we are not required to believe that the entire world of humans was wiped out in the Flood, with the exception of those in the ark.
 
Last edited:
Quoting the Bible without explaining your point is of no value in advancing the discussion.
 
None of these says that all people on the face of the earth were killed except those in the ark.

Fire and brimstone destroyed them all—I don’t think anyone interprets that to mean that all people on earth were destroyed by fire and brimstone.
 
Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.
 
On what basis do you decide which parts of the Bible to interpret literally and which not? Do you believe Jesus literally did and said everything recorded in the Gospels?
 
If there’s overwhelming physical evidence contradicting a certain interpretation of the bible, I interpret it differently.
 
I am a Jew, so I don’t believe in Jesus as anything more than a good teacher. We have our own Midrash and hermeneutics (drash) when it comes to interpreting a text.
 
Yes. For example. As in every generation, atheists try to make people think that science contradicts the Bible and the existence of God. Atheism is not a rational conclusion, but rather, a psychological condition.
 
See Zevachim 113a. That specific Sugya is talking about whether Eretz Yisrael is pure of corpses for the Para Aduma. Resh Lakish says that it is imure from the corpses of those who died in the flood, but R. Yochanan says the land is pure since the flood did not affect as it says in Yechezkel: “your are a land… nor rained upon in the day of indignation”.

זבחים קי"ג, the opinion of R. Yochanan.

Remember, their word was “local,” that’s what eretz means.
 
Just curious, how could Jews believe Jesus was a good teacher if he claimed to be the messiah and said the only way to the father is thru Him?
 
Gab123 said:
Yes. For example. As in every generation, atheists try to make people think that science contradicts the Bible and the existence of God. Atheism is not a rational conclusion, but rather, a psychological condition.
Click to expand...
It strikes me that there are Christians who seem to take the same point of view, insisting that where science appears to contradict scripture, science is inevitably wrong. Is that also a psychological condition?
 
What’s the justification for believing that those words were just added
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top