S
- Status
D
davidv
Guest
I am not. Why do you think I did?
It seems it is only those bent on proving that the Bible is not inerrent or it is in conflict with factual scientific results, who insist on a wooden literalistic interpretation of the Noah and the flood.
S
SGWessells
Guest
Wow…who knew the human imagination was so consistent
. All this shows is that the tendency of many cultures to universalize severe local floods into a worldwide flood, and the tendency to attribute catastrophes to divine wrath, are universal.One could make a similar chart showing that most cultures have a creation mythology in which a sky god had intercourse with an earth mother (or vice versa) and gave birth to the world or other gods who created the world. But I doubt you would conclude that it is true just because it is widespread.
It is also the case that many of the flood myths listed predate the biblical account, so nothing but prejudice can rank them by how much they agree with the Bible rather than, for example, how well they agree with the Babylonian version. Since the Jews were taken captive by Babylon, it is far more likely that the Genesis version copied the Babylonian than the reverse.
G
grannymh
Guest
Emphasis mine.
The *Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition’s *info about Jesus Christ starts with Chapter Two, I Believe in Jesus Christ, the Only Son of God. Sub titles are: The Good News: God has sent His Son; To preach…the unsearchable riches of Christ; At the heart of catechesis: Christ.
Next section: And in Jesus Christ, His Only Son, Our Lord. Sub titles are: Jesus; Christ; The Only Son of God; Lord.
Next section: He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, and was born of the Virgin Mary. Sub titles are: Why did the Word become flesh?; the Incarnation; True God and True Man; How is the Son of God Man? Christ’s soul and His human knowledge; Christ’s human will; Christ’s true body; the heart of the Incarnate Word;
More sections follow in the Catechism about the public life of Jesus; the trial of Jesus; His death, resurrection and ascension.
If you will kindly check the contents, information about Jesus Christ starts on page 106 and continues to page 276. Information about Jesus Christ continues with sub titles such as Christ’s work in the liturgy; the Sacraments of Christ; the Eucharist–source and summit of ecclesial life; the Eucharist in the Economy of Salvation; you shall worship the Lord your God and Him only shall you serve; the Lord’s Prayer.
Jesus is found in sections about the Blessed Trinity; God as revealed love; God’s love; Eucharist as thanksgiving and praise; death of Jesus; hour of Jesus. Use the Catechism’s Index to check what is included under the titles of Christ and Messiah.
The above does not include all referenced information.
T
tonyrey
Guest
It seems you don’t want to commit yourself to an explanation of the precise scope of science but your reference to magic and the possible elimination of free will leaves the impression that no other explanation of human activity should be considered. That is not surprising because many scientists are not prepared to limit the scope of their subject - even though science is clearly incapable of explaining itself! The religion plays for such scientists in interpreting reality seems neglible and hardly distinguishable from deism…
S
SGWessells
Guest
Yes, that should be definitive for Catholics. But to convince the rest of us, you need more than just “God said it, so that settles it.” Personally, all I conclude when someone invokes divine revelation is that there is less likelihood that that person is able to evaluate the evidence with reasonable objectivity. And that conclusion has been amply verified on this and other threads.
And yes, I know you have piled on lots of theology which you find convincing. Unfortunately, when theology and science conflict, science has hard empirical evidence which can be tested, while theology has only assertion based ultimately on a god whose purposes no one can know and whose methods are past finding out. For that reason, those of us who trust what can be verified generally put little credence in theology which must, in the long run, rest on faith. So quote your theology and revelation all you want, but it will not make an impression on those of us who have heard it and rejected it a thousand times.
G
grannymh
Guest
I wish I could change peoples’ worldviews to include both the spiritual world and the material world. But I don’t have that kind of “magic”.
S
SGWessells
Guest
At last I see the problem. You are saying the accumulation was gradual. But at one point in the story “the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep.” Gen. 7:19,20, ESV, emphasis mine. So even though the waters covered the earth gradually, at one point they covered the whole earth at the same time.
However, this does not equate to the waters covering part of the earth at one time and another part another time, but never all at once. Modern geology has disproved any claim that water covered the earth at the same time during human history, even if it happened gradually. So can we drop this now?
S
samiam1611
Guest
Please accept my apologies for not posting my source. The information is widely available but here is the specific article I read (to doublecheck that my memory was serving me right.)
Late Pleistocene human population bottlenecks, volcanic winter, and differentiation of modern humans.
by Professor Stanley H. Ambrose,
Department of Anthropology, University Of Illinois, Urbana, USA
Extract from “Journal of Human Evolution” [1998] 34, 623-651
bradshawfoundation.com/stanley_ambrose.php
Edit: just realized it’s from 1998. I will look for a more recent thing if you want. BTW you’ll notice it does reference those lower estimates of 1,000. My point though wasn’t about the exact number, just that “the Fall” must have happened well before that bottleneck event.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
You said “What about spiritual, or supernatural, explanations?”
No - usually it’s the Fundies who so insist.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
You don’t need magic for that; we Catholics accept both!
B
buffalo
Guest
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Can you show me where I proposed the elimination of free will?
The scientists I know are quite prepared to limit the scope of their subject. Which scientists do you know?
This sentence is not really coherent, but I can guess what you mean. Why would you expect religion to play a role in interpreting reality for scientists? Would you expect religion to play a role in interpreting reality for plumbers or electricians?
G
grannymh
Guest
I do not intend to be rude, because I do respect the worldviews of other people. However, I know my limitations, i.e., my lack of magic. I am perfectly aware that there are lots of wonderful, good people who do reject Catholic Faith. But these people, including friends and family, are not the audience I am addressing.
It is fine with me if you skip my posts. That doesn’t hurt my feelings. I know who my audience is and I directly write to them. Even when I reply to a poster, I think in terms of my own audience. Free speech on CAF allows me this prerogative.
B
buffalo
Guest
Jumping in here:
Religion does inform scientists. The fact the universe is intelligible allows science to study it. In other words, science is illuminated by God.
Human reasoning is the issue for it often refuses the illumination.
G
grannymh
Guest
Thank you. From a brief scanning, this information looks more precise than some I’ve seen and then forgotten. This article should give me the answers to my questions.
Honestly, the Toba theory has been on the back burner. Though I did see a news brief that the extent of the Toba damage may not have been as far reaching as previously thought. However, it seems to me that anthropologists are noted for disagreeing among themselves.
Your comment that the “Fall” must have happened well before that bottleneck event opens up other possibilities regarding human origin. From what I have been reading, the assumption is that human origin would have to take place at the bottleneck. But if human origin took place before the bottleneck, I think that would eliminate some of the genetic questions.
Before I get too involved in possibilities, I better consider the ban in this forum. If you are interested, you could start a thread in the Back Fences devoted to the possibilities needed for human origin per se. The paragraph right before the graphic in your link speaks of a near extinction of humankind. If other hominids are extinct why is humankind extant?
P.S. I just saw Buffalo’s link which led to this link. johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/archaeology/middle/petraglia_toba_india_continuity_2007.html
I have deep respect for John Hawks. I had the privilege of attending his Summer Forum which was a community outreach type of event.
A separate thread on anthropology in Back Fence would be great fun!
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Sure, we recognize that, but non-theist scientists won’ recognize it. The most they will acknowledge is that for unknown reasons the universe is intelligible. It may be an oddity, but it won’t prod them further.
Often it doesn’t.
Y
You
Guest
Start from the other end. Was every bit of the earth during its history submerged under water? Yes. Did the animals with breath in their nostrils trapped in that flooding die? Yes. Did many kinds, types, or species of animals perish? Yes. Did some species survive? Yes. Did the water eventually recede? Yes.
Y
You
Guest
That is one interpretation. I am merely stating the fact that taking earths history as a whole we find that yes indeed every bit of the earth was once covered in water.
If Noahs flood was local then as you say God must have broken His promise, which I do not agree with. Since He left the rainbow with us to remind us of that promise.
- Status