S
SeraficLeo
Guest
Except you can’t produce one single historical instance of any such thing literally ever happening.
- Status
W
whatistrue
Guest
I never claimed that I could, nor is such necessary to my point. I am done. you are and always were free to believe what you like, just don’t expect me to agree. As I said, I am not going to continue ad nauseum.
E
edwest211
Guest
The answer is worldwide.
G
goout
Guest
Using current scientific discovery (which any faithful Catholic and sane person should do) it is really an impossibility that a worldwide flood occurred.
And please don’t limit God to fundamentalist caricatures, because that is anti Catholic.
God can accomplish our salvation using any genre of literature God wants, including all the spiritual sense of scripture that are NOT JOURNALISM.
And please don’t limit God to fundamentalist caricatures, because that is anti Catholic.
God can accomplish our salvation using any genre of literature God wants, including all the spiritual sense of scripture that are NOT JOURNALISM.
G
goout
Guest
God help us.
Please take a basic earth science course.
D
Dan_Defender
Guest
Right. As opposed to the ark in the story of Gilgamesh which is not seaworthy. Not all flood stories are created equal.
T
thistle
Guest
The answer is that we can believe either because the Church has no teaching on this and neither side should be claiming their opinion is the correct one.
S
SetInMotion
Guest
Do you believe the global fire to come or merely a local fire, ethnocentric fire?
Jesus linked both together, as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be …
“Article 3. Whether the fire whereby the world will be cleansed will be of the same species with elemental fire? … it is declared that the fire of the judgment will rise as high as the waters of the deluge ; … following Augustine, say that "just as the deluge resulted from an outpouring of the waters of the world, so the fashion of this world will perish by a burning of worldly flames " (De Civ. Dei. xx, 16). … by the Divine power … the fire that will burn the surface of this world will result. …”
“…Further, a gloss on 2 Thessalonians 1:8, “In a flame of fire giving vengeance,” says: “There will be in the world a fire that shall precede Him, and shall rise in the air to the same height as did the waters of the deluge .” But the waters of the deluge did not rise to the height of the higher heavens but only 15 cubits higher than the mountain summits (Genesis 7:20) . Therefore the higher heavens will not be cleansed by that fire. …”
“…Reply to Objection 2. Peter explains himself to which heavens he refers. For before the words quoted, he had said (2 Peter 3:5-7): “The heavens . . . first, and the earth . . . through water . . . perished . . . which . . . now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire unto the day of judgment.” Therefore the heavens to be cleansed are those which before were cleansed by the waters of the deluge , namely the aerial heavens. …”
“…Further, this final cleansing that will be effected by fire will correspond to the first cleansing which was effected by water …”
“…the authority of Scripture, because it is written (2 Peter 3:7) that those heavens are “kept in store unto fire,” which were cleansed by water; and Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xx, 18) that "the same world which perished in the deluge is reserved unto fire .”…" [ The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas -** http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5074.htm
B
butterlover
Guest
Jesus may have linked Noah’s flood as he was a Jew himself and was teaching Jews, and knew they would know the story, its meaning, its history, and why he would say it.
However, the Summa Theologica’s words were not said by Jesus, nor the Thessalonians written by him, so I’m not sure how your statements follow each other.
You might be better off making a new thread, as this seems to get a bit off-topic from the OP’s original question about the flood being global or not.
I’m afraid i don’t know too much about the fire, but i would say, on first read, that
---- In the New Testament, differently from the Old, they talk a lot more about “baptizing with the spirit, and not water” and about the fire of the Holy Spirit, and not meaning a real, physically present fire. This I think, is an interesting topic, as a whole to look into; why do writers and saints sometimes use physical terms to talk about spiritual things?
On that same note, I think it might be prudent to not take St. Augustine’s writings at face value, thinking he is only talking literally when he talks about fire and water. It is a very long tradition to made the power of God more relatable (in our human minds) by showing/comparing it through nature and natural disasters/capabilities.
I can’t really say more since I have to admit I have never studied very hard into what the Church’s teaching is on different parts of the Summa Theologica.
Good luck!
However, the Summa Theologica’s words were not said by Jesus, nor the Thessalonians written by him, so I’m not sure how your statements follow each other.
You might be better off making a new thread, as this seems to get a bit off-topic from the OP’s original question about the flood being global or not.
I’m afraid i don’t know too much about the fire, but i would say, on first read, that
---- In the New Testament, differently from the Old, they talk a lot more about “baptizing with the spirit, and not water” and about the fire of the Holy Spirit, and not meaning a real, physically present fire. This I think, is an interesting topic, as a whole to look into; why do writers and saints sometimes use physical terms to talk about spiritual things?
On that same note, I think it might be prudent to not take St. Augustine’s writings at face value, thinking he is only talking literally when he talks about fire and water. It is a very long tradition to made the power of God more relatable (in our human minds) by showing/comparing it through nature and natural disasters/capabilities.
I can’t really say more since I have to admit I have never studied very hard into what the Church’s teaching is on different parts of the Summa Theologica.
Good luck!
S
SeraficLeo
Guest
He means fossilization is extremely rare and no doubt also assuming a young earth (certainly at least relatively). You (and earth sciences) operate on the assumption that the earth is extremely old and hence sufficient time lapsed to build up the enormous catalogue of the fossil record, which is of course ever expanding (we have hardly excavated the whole earth).
Naturalism operates on the assumption that things in nature are constant and have been operating more or less just as we see them operating today. In that lense, empirical data is interpreted and explained. So e.g. that we observe fossilization to be a very rare phenomenon yet we find countless and various fossils implies that life on earth must have existed for an extremely long time for there to be so many and such a wonderful spectrum and variety of fossils.
Or again. Because we observe today things decay at a certain rate, we extrapolate from that plus naturalism that things evincing a certain amount of decay must have reached that level of decay along the rates we observe them decaying at today and, therefore, such-and-such must then be of a certain age/antiquity.
Without first hand witnesses, however, reconstructing history - even using modern scientific-naturalistic techniques - is quite difficult to pronounce upon authoritatively (or dogmatically). That doesn’t stop either the Naturalist scientists or Creationists from engaging in it anyway, if only because of our common, deep-seated human need and yearning for answers.
Naturalism operates on the assumption that things in nature are constant and have been operating more or less just as we see them operating today. In that lense, empirical data is interpreted and explained. So e.g. that we observe fossilization to be a very rare phenomenon yet we find countless and various fossils implies that life on earth must have existed for an extremely long time for there to be so many and such a wonderful spectrum and variety of fossils.
Or again. Because we observe today things decay at a certain rate, we extrapolate from that plus naturalism that things evincing a certain amount of decay must have reached that level of decay along the rates we observe them decaying at today and, therefore, such-and-such must then be of a certain age/antiquity.
Without first hand witnesses, however, reconstructing history - even using modern scientific-naturalistic techniques - is quite difficult to pronounce upon authoritatively (or dogmatically). That doesn’t stop either the Naturalist scientists or Creationists from engaging in it anyway, if only because of our common, deep-seated human need and yearning for answers.
Last edited:
M
Mishakel
Guest
Do you believe in the Big Bang theory? If so please explain with basic science how the matter created itself while simultaneously creating the time and space to put it as well as where it got the energy to go boom. After you demonstrate this please explain in detail how a single cell became life other than saying “it rained on the rocks for millions of years”. Please provide proof using scientific methods how all these things happened.
Last edited:
N
Neithan
Guest
Either/or. A global flood narrative would require constant miraculous intervention, though, so consider that. I think it was a regional flood; I don’t think the planet temporarily turned into an ocean world. It was probably like this:
Once upon a time, say, a few hundred millennia ago, human beings all lived on the eastern edge of Africa. There was much trouble and strife already in those days. The flood happened there, almost killed us all, and then we carried the story to the far corners of the earth over the aeons of migrations that followed it.
Once upon a time, say, a few hundred millennia ago, human beings all lived on the eastern edge of Africa. There was much trouble and strife already in those days. The flood happened there, almost killed us all, and then we carried the story to the far corners of the earth over the aeons of migrations that followed it.
W
whatistrue
Guest
What does that have to do with the Flood narrative? And by the way, the Big Bang is not incompatible with faith. Just ask the person who first proposed it. You know, the Jesuit priest Georges Lemaitre.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
The Big Bang Theory ? I love that show, especially the episode when Sheldon questions his mother about the flood.
Sheldon: what did they feed the lions mother ?
Mrs Cooper: that’s easy, they fed them the floating bodies of the dead sinners.
Jim
Sheldon: what did they feed the lions mother ?
Mrs Cooper: that’s easy, they fed them the floating bodies of the dead sinners.
Jim
M
Mishakel
Guest
The big bang theory is in direct contradiction of scripture and the truth. All scripture in divine and comes directly from God. Adam was the first man and from Adam to Jesus was 42 generations according to Matthew.
According to God, mankind brought sin and death into the world. According to the big bang, death is the hero and was here long before mankind. According to evolution the only way anything gets better is something else has to die. According to God, mankind was created with purpose in God’s own image. According to the big bang mankind is the product of chance and evolution.
Your reasoning for subscribing to the Big Bang is because a Jesuit proposed it? Was that Jesuit a man? Does he usurp God’s authority?
I asked you very simple questions concerning science and to please explain your beliefs using science. So far you have offered nothing scientific.
Perhaps you would benefit from the true facts concerning the origin of life and the complexity of every single cell in our universe. I can assure you 100% Georges Lemaitre was completely ignorant concerning the inner workings and complexity of a single cell.
Take Dr. James Tour, one of the brightest scientists in the world, who uses science and science alone to show how utterly ridiculous the theory of evolution creating itself is. There is simply not one person or group who will refute what he says as they know he’s correct.
Paul wrote in Corinthians
18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
Jesus said, he that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
According to God, mankind brought sin and death into the world. According to the big bang, death is the hero and was here long before mankind. According to evolution the only way anything gets better is something else has to die. According to God, mankind was created with purpose in God’s own image. According to the big bang mankind is the product of chance and evolution.
Your reasoning for subscribing to the Big Bang is because a Jesuit proposed it? Was that Jesuit a man? Does he usurp God’s authority?
I asked you very simple questions concerning science and to please explain your beliefs using science. So far you have offered nothing scientific.
Perhaps you would benefit from the true facts concerning the origin of life and the complexity of every single cell in our universe. I can assure you 100% Georges Lemaitre was completely ignorant concerning the inner workings and complexity of a single cell.
Take Dr. James Tour, one of the brightest scientists in the world, who uses science and science alone to show how utterly ridiculous the theory of evolution creating itself is. There is simply not one person or group who will refute what he says as they know he’s correct.
Paul wrote in Corinthians
18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
Jesus said, he that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
S
SeraficLeo
Guest
Not too far from the truth according to faith, actually. I mean that ancient religious truth that blood must be shed for there to be a remission of sins; and not just that, but for atonement the sacrificial victim must be spotless/pure and innocent. I wonder if this just haunts the human psyche.
M
Mishakel
Guest
The issue though is it’s mankind’s fault for that system being in place not some random chance accident.
S
SeraficLeo
Guest
At the instigation of the devil, who also received a just punishment for the Fall, which would have been unjust if he too had not transgressed.
M
Mishakel
Guest
Agreed yet evolutionists would consider this to be a fairy tale.
The entire indoctrination of evolution and the big bang theory is directly related to money, accolades, and acceptance of peers in the scientific community. The big bang theory is the largest fairy tale I’ve ever heard. It breaks every known scientifically observable law of physics only to then create a universe where said laws can’t be broke.
Paul said in Romans 1
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Isn’t it ironic the world’s scientists have renamed mankind to homo sapiens? In Latin it literally means “wise man”. Scripture defines for us what a fool is. Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Isn’t this precisely what scientific evolutionists propose? They scoff at the idea of God and become the fool but profess themselves to be wise.
The entire indoctrination of evolution and the big bang theory is directly related to money, accolades, and acceptance of peers in the scientific community. The big bang theory is the largest fairy tale I’ve ever heard. It breaks every known scientifically observable law of physics only to then create a universe where said laws can’t be broke.
Paul said in Romans 1
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Isn’t it ironic the world’s scientists have renamed mankind to homo sapiens? In Latin it literally means “wise man”. Scripture defines for us what a fool is. Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Isn’t this precisely what scientific evolutionists propose? They scoff at the idea of God and become the fool but profess themselves to be wise.
- Status