The Flood: Did it happen?

[VicApple]

All that being said,

I really do appreciate the openness of the people on this page to discuss such issues with people that disagree. After reading one too many Dawkins or Hitchens books, the line between the issues I have with organized religion and the people who belong to those religions can get a bit blurry. What I mean is that, in my view, the people are generally all good, even if I don’t always like what they add up to.

I got a bit caught up the the new atheist’s general hatred towards the catholic church for all the child-abuse scandals, but I’ve been trying to be more open lately. No institution or person is perfect. I don’t think the catholic church is a whole lot worse, as a whole, than I am. I think a couple positions might be misguided but I also respect peoples right to opinions. I recently decided that the catholic church looks like a friendly puppy compared to much of the evangelical protestant movement, and religious fundamentalism in general.(zionists, “god hates fags” types and muslim extremists)

My presence here is an attempt to become less jaded about the majority of Christianity. My major concern is with the “god hates fags” variety of christianity. I know this isn’t the thread to debate gay marriage, Israel or abortion. However I want to make it known that I think having a huge number of catholics in the country who have the same opinions but are less violent/aggressive about these topics than the ‘god hates fags’ groups can encourage these groups. I think that reasonable people (catholics, moderate/liveral protestants, atheists,deists and agnostics) need to stand up to these people. (who i consider borderline sociopaths)

 

[Barbkw]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_theory

See also:

nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ax/frame.html

About 7,000 years ago the Mediterranean Sea swelled. Seawater pushed northward, slicing through what is now Turkey.

• Funneled through the narrow Bosporus, the water hit the Black Sea with 200 times the force of Niagara Falls. Each day the Black Sea rose about six inches (15 centimeters), and coastal farms were flooded.

• Seared into the memories of terrified survivors, the tale of the flood was passed down through the generations and eventually became the Noah story.

Interesting program if you can catch a rerun. Talks around the science behind the particulate soil sampling done in the Black Sea region.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

159 Faith and science:

"Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason.

Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth."37

"Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God.

The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are."38

 

[nordskoven]

The air-brushed pictures of ape-to-man have appeared in National Geographic for decades with evidence, as that found by Leakey daughter-in-law of a big kinda guy near the Lucy remains, and other evidence that does violence to this pat view of evolution, has been suppressed. Tinkering and altering Neandertal skulls is another in the long line of atheistic evolution frauds. I suggest National Geographic in general, and Robert Ballard, the Titanic ingenue in particular, has an agenda that is in conflict with other less pop-science-oriented researchers.

“Man is as old as coal” is the thesis of Ed Conrad, an amateur fossil collector who found human remains in coal beds. And Conrad, after having a skull cap examined and verified as a human calvarium by the Smithsonian; and testing done by laboratories; and thin sections of bone verified by universities; and scans of anomalously-preserved soft tissue showing such things as a gall bladder with gall stones inside; found that when he revealed where these human remains were found, the cowards turned tail and ran. Science has been politicized by atheists, and there’s no grant money for anything suggesting evolution is a fraud. That’s not to mention the notorious evolution frauds already debunked, like Piltdown Man. edconrad.com/

Science hacks versus Ed Conrad is only the latest in the century-old thuggery that atheistic evolutionists have wreaked on evidence, starting with the professional mugging of the Father of Paleontology, Georges Cuvier of France, for suggesting “catastrophism,” violent changes that would eliminate the Petri-dish stable, lab setting-type constancy of “gradualism” needed for evolutionistas to work their magic. Still no “missing link” found, so even Darwin’s standard of proof isn’t met.

Sir Julian Huxley, over a century ago, said scientists such as himself embraced evolution to erase God so they could engage in the nascent “Free Love” movement with no conscience-tweaking remorse. Darwin (ex-theology student) and (lawyer) Lyell corresponded, discussing how to debunk the Genesis account, an atheist agenda at odds with science seeking the truth. This is the era that gave rise to racism and genocidal elitism based on Darwin and implemented by people like Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger, who wanted to destroy all brown-eyed people. The eugenics was imported into Germany and implemented at the urging of the Muslim Grand Mufti of Jerusalem as the Final Solution. Their Theosophist occultist fellow travellers have suggested via the Lucifer Publishing renamed “Lucis Trust”, a U.N. NGO, suggested that the Vatican be bombed for meddling in world affairs. Yeah, the Vatican that organized hiding thousands of Jews. By your fruits you will know them.

So figure out if you want the truth. If you need a no-God scenario to feel good about yourself like Sir Julian Huxley, stop the conversation. The whole world has an extremely consonant account of the Flood, so this isn’t the Bible that is at risk. The whole world has marriage, and a cultural standard of modesty right out of Genesis 2. Gene permutation studies show we came from one woman, dubbed “Eve” by scientists; and another study tracing the male lineage concluded we came from one man, called “Scientific Adam” to distance the findings from the Bible, with which they concur. So now what? That not good enough? What standard of proof is sufficient? Maybe we’d better start with you declaring what it would take for you to affirm there is a Creator? You still don’t have to “hear and obey.” The demons, it is said, believe in God…

Catholicism may be to you a “big friendly puppy” but to me state-sponsored atheistic genocide has brought the single greatest slaughter of humans seen in all of history, an all-consuming monster, nicely paralleling the depiction of demoniac systems as monsters in the Bible. I pray we may remain faithful and true in spite of the prophesied persecution only hinted at by modern atheism’s depradation so far.

 

[nordskoven]

I saw the program and you must have missed the tiny sotto voce mini-disclaimer that this is a possible mechanism, not a likely site, responsible for the universal accounts of a universal Flood.

 

[buffalo]

I want you to be aware of how your statements appear to me. I just see you making claims without backing them up or providing a reason. I very much agree with what Paul said about questioning everything. However, I don’t think it’s fair to imply him the credit for pioneering this position.

Aside from that, my biggest contention is with the statements “the fruits of private interpretation are spoiled and rotten.” and “Paul tells us to test everything”

This is my big issue. How do these two claims not contradict each other. One one hand you are supporting the idea that if a person thinks of something on their own it is automatically spoiled. On the other hand you are saying that we should think about everything. Should we do it knowing that the results are null and void? If that’s the case why do we think at all? Are the fruits of private interpretation only spoiled if they don’t agree with the currently held church positions?

Am I to assume that we just need to question everything except what the church teaches? I think it would be indefensible to say that everything the church has ever said is true, so why not question what they say? Do you think everything the church says is correct? I think that the case of Galileo (sadly overused as it might be, but still a valid point I think) definitely points to the fallibility of church teaching.

Also on the Galileo note, I think you might be overstepping the boundaries of intellectual honesty when you try to claim that Christianity is somehow the source or basis of modern science.

Ok - this is my post:

"The Church is like a three legged stool - Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium. Take any one away and it topples.

The bible did not just fall from the sky yesterday and we are trying to figure it out using modern methods. We have a long tradition that goes right to the beginning. Catholics do not believe in private interpretation. The fruits of private interpretation are spoiled and rotten.

The Church systems protects the deposit of faith. No other system works better.

Now the Catholic Church does encourage intelligent thought. That is where modern science has come from. St Paul tells us to test everything."

The Church is a three legged stool - fact
The bible did not fall from the sky yesterday - fact
We have a long tradition - fact
Catholics do not believe… - fact
The fruits of private interpretation - fact - proof is the immense number of Protestants interpreting a verse diametrically opposed. Where do they look for authority to guide them?

Without the guidance of the Magisterium any position could be “tested” and be held to be true. Which one is correct? The Magisterium protects the truth.

Dogma is like a bush, no branches are lopped off only a fuller bush (understanding) as time goes on.

 

[buffalo]

All that being said,

I really do appreciate the openness of the people on this page to discuss such issues with people that disagree. After reading one too many Dawkins or Hitchens books, the line between the issues I have with organized religion and the people who belong to those religions can get a bit blurry. What I mean is that, in my view, the people are generally all good, even if I don’t always like what they add up to.

I got a bit caught up the the new atheist’s general hatred towards the catholic church for all the child-abuse scandals, but I’ve been trying to be more open lately. No institution or person is perfect. I don’t think the catholic church is a whole lot worse, as a whole, than I am. I think a couple positions might be misguided but I also respect peoples right to opinions. I recently decided that the catholic church looks like a friendly puppy compared to much of the evangelical protestant movement, and religious fundamentalism in general.(zionists, “god hates fags” types and muslim extremists)

My presence here is an attempt to become less jaded about the majority of Christianity. My major concern is with the “god hates fags” variety of christianity. I know this isn’t the thread to debate gay marriage, Israel or abortion. However I want to make it known that I think having a huge number of catholics in the country who have the same opinions but are less violent/aggressive about these topics than the ‘god hates fags’ groups can encourage these groups. I think that reasonable people (catholics, moderate/liveral protestants, atheists,deists and agnostics) need to stand up to these people. (who i consider borderline sociopaths)

The Catholic proposition is indeed difficult to live. The failure of men to live up to it does not invalidate its truth.

The Church upholds the dignity of all persons, even though she has to deal with human fallen nature and its manifestations. You will find Catholicism very reasonable.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

They omission of the dinosaur`s, could parallel any discourse of negative or literal meaning from the bible text.

“** “Behold, Behemoth,
which I made as I made you;
he eats grass like an ox.
Behold, his strength in his loins,
and his power in the muscles of his belly.
He makes his tail stiff like a cedar;
the sinews of his thighs are knit together.
His bones are tubes of bronze,
his limbs like bars of iron**.” (Job 40:15-18)

Some say that “behemoth” described a dinosaur…

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

 

[buffalo]

“** “Behold, Behemoth,
which I made as I made you;
he eats grass like an ox.
Behold, his strength in his loins,
and his power in the muscles of his belly.
He makes his tail stiff like a cedar;
the sinews of his thighs are knit together.
His bones are tubes of bronze,
his limbs like bars of iron**.” (Job 40:15-18)

Some say that “behemoth” described a dinosaur…

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

It describes what man called dragons, as dinosaur is a recent term.

 

[Doxiemom]

@doxiemom

You don’t seem to have really answered my question. Do you think the bible is all literally true? I will answer your question… Yes I plan on asking god a lot of questions if the opportunity ever arrises. However, I don’t have any reason to believe that he would be any more obliged to answer these questions than he is to answer prayers. That is to say it’s a veritable crapshoot.

I take the bible to be literlly true…but…the context of each verse is important…God’s reasons I cannot grasp from a human point.

God it seems is perfectly willing to have people die so that certain traits in certain tribes, be wiped away . Or gain access to land for the Israelites. Or to rid demons from indwellled humans.

The stoning would have been a historically correct way of life if directed by God for a specific thing at a specific time so that all the events and the proper people be in place so that the plan of salvation was to be a sucess.

 

[mark_avery]

I can’t answer for sure. What I can say is that the same word in Hebrew that is used in the Bible using “world” can also mean land,country,earth,or ground. Replace any of these words it could change the whole meaning of flood story,meaning it could have been a regional area flood. Also take in consideration, that the writer considers the whole known world/countries maybe not the unknown world/countries? The Bible story does speak of the flood story in relation to what Noah’s world was,maybe not the world of the unknown world,land,country, or ground.

As you can see…are language is,“from the mouth of God”,babel!

 

[VicApple]

@buffaloe

you said, "Without the guidance of the Magisterium any position could be “tested” and be held to be true. Which one is correct? The Magisterium protects the truth.

Dogma is like a bush, no branches are lopped off only a fuller bush (understanding) as time goes on. "

What makes you so sure the magisterium got it right? If a regular person has a relationship with god why would he not be able to guide them towards the understanding of the world and scripture that works best for them? Isn’t it possible that god intended the interpretation to be broad so he could reach the maximum number of people?

Also you did not address the problem I stated about the contradiction between “Paul told us to test everything” and “the fruits of personal interpretation are spoiled” Are we not supposed to test anything the church says? Please give me an honest answer to this question. I am interested in what the church says about this question but i am even more interested in what you say about this question.

Thanks for playing along with a hell-bound free-thinker

 

[VicApple]

I take the bible to be literlly true…but…the context of each verse is important…God’s reasons I cannot grasp from a human point.

God it seems is perfectly willing to have people die so that certain traits in certain tribes, be wiped away . Or gain access to land for the Israelites. Or to rid demons from indwellled humans.

The stoning would have been a historically correct way of life if directed by God for a specific thing at a specific time so that all the events and the proper people be in place so that the plan of salvation was to be a sucess.

OK so when you say the bible is literal do you mean that every word of it is true? How does killing a group of non-believers help with salvation? They are just going to go to hell.

Why would god, at any time, say that stoning is somehow more effective at accomplishing his goals than a humane death sentence. I don’t know if you ever saw the video of the girl in Iraq being stoned for adultery (which the bible supports) but I did, and I wish I hadn’t. She was buried chest deep in the ground. It took 30 minutes of rocks being hurled at her head while she tried to cry out for help through a gagged mouth and flailed her arms about trying to protect herself from the rocks she couldn’t see through her blindfold. It is absolutely disgusting and it’s memory has kept me awake more than one night. I don’t think it takes very much compassion or goodness to see that this is an absolutely detestable act. If god made us in his image I would think that we share at least a small part of his goodness, which would allow us to know that this is wrong. But why then was it part of his system of laws? I believe that anyone that partakes in this is not fit to live because they are dangerous to innocent people, and i would not feel one bit of guilt putting the people who did this to that poor girl in a gas chamber and pushing the button myself.

 

[buffalo]

@buffaloe

you said, "Without the guidance of the Magisterium any position could be “tested” and be held to be true. Which one is correct? The Magisterium protects the truth.

Dogma is like a bush, no branches are lopped off only a fuller bush (understanding) as time goes on. "

What makes you so sure the magisterium got it right? If a regular person has a relationship with god why would he not be able to guide them towards the understanding of the world and scripture that works best for them? Isn’t it possible that god intended the interpretation to be broad so he could reach the maximum number of people?

Also you did not address the problem I stated about the contradiction between “Paul told us to test everything” and “the fruits of personal interpretation are spoiled” Are we not supposed to test anything the church says? Please give me an honest answer to this question. I am interested in what the church says about this question but i am even more interested in what you say about this question.

Thanks for playing along with a hell-bound free-thinker

Say you lived 2000 years ago. You had a wife named Jane and three children name Tom, Dick and Harry. Your had several neighbors that lived around you several years.

Your wife kept a record of your family and their names. You die, she dies and the book is now entrusted to one of your children who records his family, etc.

Some years later one of these old neighbor’s child comes into town and starts telling people that your wife’s name was Rhonda. Your children say no, it was Jane. They insist. You go to your own magisterium and pull out the book that shows the recordings. You and yours have faithfully preserved records. Those records would be valid today as they were 2000 years ago.

So the Catholic Church’s Magisterium has preserved both the written and the oral. It can be referenced and weighed against different writings to prove their veracity. In fact that is how we knew the so called “Gnostic” gospels were wrong and thus rejected. They were not canonical, that is they did not meet up to the measure.

So the Church in her unbroken history preserves all that has been Revealed.

I thought I did address it.

OK, to continue on. Private interpretation of the neighbors children will not faithfully pass on your family names. For anyone to know the truth of your family they need to consult the preserved records. Now we may even draw from other sources to add to this by asking other neighbors what your family names were.

St Paul - yes. test everything to see if it is reasonable. A Catholic can and is encouraged to ask questions. But, for the teachings of Jesus to persevere and not be corrupted one must be able to consult the existing body of knowledge. If they are on the wrong path then they should be willing to accept the authority of that body (the Church) whose function is to preserve it.

So private interpretation removed from the context of the constant teaching and understanding of the Church will produce rotten fruit.

Catholics entrust this to the Magisterium and we depend on it.

 

[buffalo]

OK so when you say the bible is literal do you mean that every word of it is true? How does killing a group of non-believers help with salvation? They are just going to go to hell.

Why would god, at any time, say that stoning is somehow more effective at accomplishing his goals than a humane death sentence. I don’t know if you ever saw the video of the girl in Iraq being stoned for adultery (which the bible supports) but I did, and I wish I hadn’t. She was buried chest deep in the ground. It took 30 minutes of rocks being hurled at her head while she tried to cry out for help through a gagged mouth and flailed her arms about trying to protect herself from the rocks she couldn’t see through her blindfold. It is absolutely disgusting and it’s memory has kept me awake more than one night. I don’t think it takes very much compassion or goodness to see that this is an absolutely detestable act. If god made us in his image I would think that we share at least a small part of his goodness, which would allow us to know that this is wrong. But why then was it part of his system of laws? I believe that anyone that partakes in this is not fit to live because they are dangerous to innocent people, and i would not feel one bit of guilt putting the people who did this to that poor girl in a gas chamber and pushing the button myself.

Catholic understanding. “It is raining cats and dogs outside.” Literal meaning: It is raining hard, that is what the author intended to convey.

Literalistic rendering. Cats and dogs are falling from the sky.

 

[VicApple]

Catholic understanding. “It is raining cats and dogs outside.” Literal meaning: It is raining hard, that is what the author intended to convey.

Literalistic rendering. Cats and dogs are falling from the sky.

Would you mind answering the question that makes up 95% of my statement instead of just answering the easy question (although i appreciate you clearly stating that you are not a biblical literalist) By that i mean the thing related to stoning.

Thanks

 

[buffalo]

Would you mind answering the question that makes up 95% of my statement instead of just answering the easy question (although i appreciate you clearly stating that you are not a biblical literalist) By that i mean the thing related to stoning.

Thanks

What Bible verse are you referring to?

 

[Third_Day]

=VicApple;7714866]OK so when you say the bible is literal do you mean that every word of it is true?

Take the literal first unless there is reason to do othewise.

How does killing a group of non-believers help with salvation? They are just going to go to hell.

Only God knows if they are in hell.

Why would god, at any time, say that stoning is somehow more effective at accomplishing his goals than a humane death sentence.

Is hanging, the electric chair, burning at the stake any more humane than stoning? That 's how punishment was handed out in biblical times.

If god made us in his image I would think that we share at least a small part of his goodness, which would allow us to know that this is wrong.

We are made in God’s image but we have free will to do terrible things. God was showing the Israelites that sin will be punished. His purpose was to lead them to a life of holiness so that they would be with Him for eternity.

 

[Third_Day]

=stephe1987;7708955]Yes, a flood did happen.Exactly how big it was has yet to be determined, and we probably won’t know in this lifetime.

I simply go with scripture and Catholic Apostolic Tradition. The flood happened and it was world-wide.

Remember, the book is intended to tell a story about God interacting with people. It’s not necessarily always to be taken literally

.
Scripture has many layers but the literal should always be taken first

Worldwide flood? Not likely, although we must remember that with God all things are possible.

If scripture is truly the word of God, then the flood was world-wide.
Genesis 7:19 says “And the waters prevailed so mightily upon the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered.”

As Peter tells us “by the word of God heavens existed long ago and an earth formed out of water and by means of water through which the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished.” 2 Peter 3:5-6
Psalm 148:4 says: ‘Praise Him, highest heavens, and the waters that are above the heavens!

Science says there are massive amounts of water in space and therefore more than enough to flood the entire earth.

astrobio.net/pressrelease/142/cold-clouds-and-water-in-space

Jesus says that the end of the world would be like in the days of Noah “The flood came and destroyed them all.” Luke 17:26-27

 

[Oldtimer_7]

VicApple, Sorry I have not been able to reply to your gracious answer sooner. I have a good friend who is an engineer and with whom I have been on church council. He always brings a different view to the table.

I will call your attention to two theoretical approaches in science to look at literal interpretation. The first is chaos theory. The classic presentation is that of the butterfly fluttering its wings in either Africa or Brazil and causing a hurricane or tornado in Texas. Which is it, Africa or Brazil? Hurricane or tornado? Who observed the butterfly? Who followed the wind from its wings? Do we have verification of this model? Has it been independently replicated? Can we get a grant from NIS to study this further?

The second one is string theory. A guitar string plucked at different places or in different ways will give different sounds. Steel or nylon strings? Acoustic or electric guitar? Fender, Martin, or Gibson? Flamenco or East Virginia Blues? Can I get the album online? All right, I have gone beyond punchy on this one.

The point is that these constructs of the theories help us to understand them though they may not be literally true. Actually, trying to nail the literal truth of them is an impediment to getting the message. Could they be literally true? Of course, but that is not the utility of the ideas.

 

[VicApple]

@All

I don’t think I have bitten off any chunks I can’t chew, but I’ve bitten off too many chunks and it is becoming cumbersome to keep track of who I’m discussing what with. Let’s save discussions of biblical literalism for other threads because nobody here seems to take the flood passage literally.

We have all gotten quite off topic. Entirely off topic I would say. Did the flood happen? I can, for the sake of argument, at least say that some huge regional flood happened and that’s what is written about in the bible. That makes sense, in terms of the understanding of the world that the authors had. But here is where my major contention lies. I see most of the old testament as stuff written by jews that just reaffirmed their own delusion that there was a god who favored them. They used this belief to justify wholesale slaughter and generally immoral acts (by our standards I admit) This isn’t to say they didn’t work actual history into their writings, only that they had a fundamental misunderstanding of what really exists, as did every other culture in that time.

So basically, maybe we overestimate the importance of whether or not a flood happened and took for granted that if a flood did happen it was caused by god to get rid of people he didn’t like and that it killed everything except what was on his favored boat. Why does the fact that a flood happened mean that god did it to smite sinners?