What does the RCC say about the Great Flood described in the Bible?

[guillaumeb]

From the article:

The Catholic Church does not prohibit interpretations of Genesis 6-8 that include a worldwide flood, but neither does the Church require there to be a worldwide flood in all interpretations of these passages. Instead, Catholic theologians understand the first eleven chapters of Genesis contain, in the words of Pope Pius XII, “simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people” (Humani Generis, 38).


Modern readers may interpret passages in Genesis that describe water covering “the earth” as meaning that the entire planet was inundated. But a resident of ancient Mesopotamia may have understood the “the earth” to mean only “the land” or the region he knew. In fact, the Hebrew word for “earth” used in this passage, eretz, can also mean “land,” as in Genesis 41:57, where it says that “all the eretz came to Egypt to buy grain” when a famine struck the region. This doesn’t mean that everyone on the planet went to Egypt to buy grain, just those people who inhabited the region to which the author was referring.

To read more:

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/a-catholic-perspective-on-a-new-attraction

And there is also this, from the Catholic Bishops:

How should modern readers interpret the creation-flood story in Gn 2–11? The stories are neither history nor myth. “Myth” is an unsuitable term, for it has several different meanings and connotes untruth in popular English. “History” is equally misleading, for it suggests that the events actually took place. The best term is creation-flood story. Ancient Near Eastern thinkers did not have our methods of exploring serious questions. Instead, they used narratives for issues that we would call philosophical and theological. They added and subtracted narrative details and varied the plot as they sought meaning in the ancient stories. Their stories reveal a privileged time, when divine decisions were made that determined the future of the human race. The origin of something was thought to explain its present meaning, e.g., how God acts with justice and generosity, why human beings are rebellious, the nature of sexual attraction and marriage, why there are many peoples and languages. Though the stories may initially strike us as primitive and naive, they are in fact told with skill, compression, and subtlety. They provide profound answers to perennial questions about God and human beings.

To read more:

http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/0

Basically, a Catholic is free to read the story as literal or metaphoric, or a combination of both.

[Major Nikon]

1. 38% of Americans believe in young earth creationism

https://news.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-humans-new-low.aspx

[guillaumeb]

2. Whataboutism.

[Major Nikon]

4. ...

[guillaumeb]

6. Diversion from your clear use of the whataboutism fallacy.

[Major Nikon]

8. ...

[guillaumeb]

9. Interesting contribution on your part.

Indicating to me that you have no interest in dialogue on this topic.

[Major Nikon]

11. I have no interest in dialog with people who have no interest in dialog

Correct.

[tymorial]

52. Lol. Love you.

[PJMcK]

3. What about other stories in the Bible?

Can the other tales in both Testaments be interpreted as metaphors or literally, in whatever fashion the Catholic chooses?

This seems a little too loose especially concerning the story of Jesus. Or can Jesus be viewed metaphorically? That's a bit too far for the Catholics, I think.

So, where does a Bible-reader draw the line? Which parts can be metaphors and which parts must be literal?

This all stretches this issue beyond any rational understanding. My opinion, of course.

[guillaumeb]

7. Understood.

If something is generally used metaphorically, one might assume that it is intended as metaphor.


And we cannot know with certainty that the author intended it as metaphor.


Jesus often preached using parables, a clear use of metaphoric language.

My view is that, in the case of the flood story, the author was probably referring to a local flood.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

54. Jesus could be (and likely was) a metaphor.

The whole thing is likely fiction to teach a lesson.

[guillaumeb]

59. Your view.

We differ on this.

[Major Nikon]

64. The alleged real Jesus also differs with your alleged metaphorical real version of the flood myth

2 Peter 3:6 New International Version (NIV)
6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Peter+3%3A6&version=NIV

[muriel_volestrangler]

63. The line, according to the OP, seems to be the end of Genesis 11

Before that, a pope said,

If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents

But after, from the 2nd link:

Given the lack of decisive evidence, it is reasonable to accept the Bible’s own chronology that the patriarchs were the ancestors of Israel and that they lived well before the exodus that is generally dated in the thirteenth century.

So Sarah really did give birth at 90, when Abraham was 100, and Abraham went on to live to 165 - since that is the biblical chronology. It sounds so reasonable, doesn't it? And Sodom and Gomorrah really were destroyed by divine fire, etc.

[msongs]

5. water is great for dunking and drowning accused witches nt

[guillaumeb]

10. And what did you think about the substance if the article? eom

[edhopper]

12. What about the New Testament?

Do they believe Jesus literaly did all the things it says. Cure the sick, raise the dead, walk on water, turn water into wine...?
Were any of those metaphore?
And what about all the miracles performed by Saints? Did all those things really happen?

What does the RCC say about the nativity story? Literaly true?

[guillaumeb]

13. The link is clear on this.

As to the rest, that depends on who is reading.

Was Jesus born? Available evidence suggests yes.

[edhopper]

14. That is some lame side stepping

even for you.
I listed many things from Jesus' life, including the nativity story, all of it, not whether he was born or not.

If you don't want to answer, just say it, instead of inefective snark.

[guillaumeb]

15. At this point, in this post,

I am concentrating on one incident.

[edhopper]

16. Better answer.

But do you think a Catholic cn read the story of Jesus as metaphore and not all literal?

"Basically, a Catholic is free to read the story as literal or metaphoric, or a combination of both. "

[guillaumeb]

17. Thank you.

And, per your line, yes she did.

[sprinkleeninow]

20. A combination of both suits me just fine! Literally and metaphorically.

[guillaumeb]

21. I agree.

One can read Genesis as metaphor, and it makes more sense to me to read it in that way.

[sprinkleeninow]

18. Thank you. Love you much!

[guillaumeb]

19. No problem.

Just trying to introduce some fact and nuance to the rhetoric.

[sprinkleeninow]

22. There's difficulty in being able to see scripture taken in a literal AND

metaphorical understanding all at the same time. Dual understanding.
💙

[guillaumeb]

23. Think of the sword as metaphor.

Jesus said that He came not to bring peace, but with a sword. My view is that His clear meaning was that His message would divide people. So the sword is meant as metaphor.

And when Peter literally drew his sword to protect Jesus in the Garden, Jesus told Peter to put up his sword.

The same with Genesis, and Adam and Eve. The meaning of the names Adam and Eve in Hebrew is a clear sign that metaphor was intended.


Speaking of duality, think of Jesus Himself.

[sprinkleeninow]

24. Precisely. Was there a single 'Adam' and a single 'Eve'? Metaphor.

One singular 'father' and one singular 'mother' of humanity?

Jesus, Son of Man and Son of God.
💙

[guillaumeb]

40. And the names make it clear to me clear that it is about life coming from the earth.

[gtar100]

25. I would go with "myth" even though it is often associated with "not true" in English.

Myth has a meaning that is much more than just the common usage of the word. Myth is a category of stories that generally mean they are stories that come from our prehistory and implies there is meaning beyond the surface story. There are many cultures of the past with flood myths. And they all reflect the characteristics of the culture from which they come. My impression of the bishops' statement, however, is that they are dancing around the subject. As if they don't want to offend anyone, neither literalist nor metaphoralist (I made that last word up... I think).

On top of that, I think their statement is a little more than condescending and dismissive of many good, intelligent people who have lived on this earth prior to European Christianity and its influence. For example,

“simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people”

"the mentality of a people but little cultured".... How many ways can one say "snob". And what does popularity have to do with it... oh, those simple-minded peasants.

The best term is creation-flood story. Ancient Near Eastern thinkers did not have our methods of exploring serious questions.

Someone's been spending too much time in their monastery. What "methods" are they referring to? Egyptian history fully confirms humans have explored "serious questions" long before the Catholic Church sprang into being. Summerians too would beg to differ. More examples abound but the point being that there is an air of superiority in the bishops' statement that borders on racism and detracts from the basic message that they gave which is stated at the end.

Though the stories may initially strike us as primitive and naive, they are in fact told with skill, compression, and subtlety. They provide profound answers to perennial questions about God and human beings.

I think that is a decent description of myth and its purpose from a Christian perspective.

[Voltaire2]

26. So "metaphorically" some god drowns

The world because this god doesn’t like the way it’s creation has turned out. In doing so this god “metaphorically” slaughters all land animals.

So what exactly is this story of an awful god committing an awful petulant act of slaughter a metaphor for?

[MineralMan]

27. It's a metaphor for a nice warm bath.

That's how I take it from Guy's "cleansing" statements.

[marylandblue]

29. Myth does not mean "nice story"

They lived in a harsh world. War, plague, flood or famine could come without warning and wipe out entire civilizations. They had no way of predicting, mitigating or controlling any of it. In such a world, a harsh God who at least offers a possibility of redemption might be the best they could imagine.

Now that we live in a better time, and can at least understand the forces of nature and control some of them, the harshness of their world is outside of our experience. We need a more loving God in accordance with our much easier lives. But we are stuck with the story so we just change the meaning.

[Major Nikon]

30. True, but still a myth

You're still left with people blaming natural disasters on "sin" and a vengeful creator applying a correction. It's no different than Pat Robertson blaming tornadoes, earthquakes, hurricanes, terrorist attacks, and meteors on teh gays. The only understanding it furthers is that people are often quite hateful and can't manage to keep their base emotions from trumping rationality.

[marylandblue]

31. Pat Robertson doesn't hide behind "metaphors"

Like the Catholic Church tries to do. It's actually more enlightened to try reinterpretation, but we still end up with a lot of homophobia and archaic ideas. I am not sure what the answer to that is. It's not like they are going to just change their minds or go away.

[Major Nikon]

32. Seems like a more honest approach at least

Robertson's approach is at least consistent. The bible says it, ergo it must be correct. The RCC allows for some rationality, but only for the parts that don't hurt anyone.

The answer is to introduce criticism to hateful belief. Eventually they will change their minds or just go away so long as enough decent people are willing to call bullshit.

[marylandblue]

33. Mere criticism doesn't change minds, it just causes further digging in

There needs to be a deeper change. People have psychological needs that drive them to certain solutions. Unless they are given a better a solution, they will keep what they have.

[Major Nikon]

34. For a small minority this is true

Some people are so invested in their hate it's unlikely they are ever going to let go of it no matter what you do.

However, when certain attitudes are deemed unacceptable people tend to either abandon them or retreat from openly expressing them. You may not be able to keep everyone from hating, but you can marginalize them to the point at which their hate ceases to have any significant impact.

[marylandblue]

36. Studies show this is not true because of confirmation bias

and motivated thinking. When people are challenged in their beliefs, they tend to dig in more rather than change their minds.

We are not the rational, self-interested creatures that the Enlightenment assumed we are. Rather, we are emotional wrecks, prone to follow our illusions and biases.

Making certain ideas socially unacceptable just drives then underground, where they wait patiently for an opportunity to reassert themselves, sometimes with a vengeance.

The only two things I am aware that can really change behavior are teaching people to be more empathetic and teaching them to recognize their own cognitive biases.

[Major Nikon]

37. And yet collective attitudes do change over time

What is unacceptable today may not have been so 20 years ago. And 20 years prior to that there's another set of previously acceptable attitudes and behaviors which are out the window. In 1984, spousal rape was legal in every state and widely accepted. Today the exact opposite is the case. Gay marriage followed an even more sharp legal trajectory and public opinion is following closely behind. Cannabis legalization is another example of rapidly changing societal attitudes.

People may be hard to change individually, but society can and does change. Confirmation bias and herd mentality go hand in hand.

[marylandblue]

43. Yes they do, but not by calling bullshit on everything.

Attitudes towards gays started to change after the Stonewall riots. People saw how ridiculous it was to go into bars and look for people who aren't hurting anyone. It started to be safe to come out of the closet. Then Harvey Milk got elected and he wasn't a psycho homo trying to convert children. Then he become a martyr at the hands of a psycho homophobe.

Even more movement came after Matthew Shephard got killed. Again psycho homophobes were the danger, not the homosexuals. More people came out of the closet. Turned out more people were gay than anyone realized. People found out their perfectly normal friends and relatives were gay. And frightened. And wanted to have families. So finally we were ready for gay marriage.

It took a long time. Not all of us are there yet. They need more time. But at least even they agree that murdering a homosexual is still murder. Which is itself an important change.

[Major Nikon]

45. You describe several instances of calling bullshit

It's bullshit to kill gay people for the sake of being homosexual. It's bullshit that homosexuality is a mental illness. It's bullshit that homosexuality and pedophilia are related.

Is that the only way to change attitudes? No, but it shouldn't be excluded because it is effective. Most people don't hold on to a belief if they know it's wrong.

[marylandblue]

46. Maybe you called the Matthew Shepard case bullshit, but I called it murder.

I don't think calling something bullshit changes attitudes. I've never seen a case of it being effective. Demonstrations, matyrdom, arguments, personal contacts, education, even violence is sometimes effective. But I've never seen anyone change their mind just because someone else thought their position was bullshit. Or even if a lot of people thought it was bullshit.

[Voltaire2]

39. Where did I say either myth or nice story.

The claim was that the story of psycho-Yahweh going on a rampage because he didn’t like his little world is a metaphor - so it has to be a metaphor for something else.

So what exactly is that something else for which the Flood is a metaphor?

Here is a metaphor:

“All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players. They have their exits and their entrances.”

Shakespeare is not claiming that the world is literally a stage, he is instead referring metaphorically to the continual real life drama of human existence.

So Psycho Flood God is a metaphor for...

[marylandblue]

41. The incredibly harsh world they actually lived in and a little bit of hope

If we take it as a metaphor, then the point is not the disaster that God visited on the world. That's the reality they feared or experienced every day. The point is that even in the worst possible disaster, there is a chance for survival. If you obey God's rules.

Psycho-Yahweh. Sure. But the story came from Mesopotamia. A flat land between two rivers with mud brick buildings. Devastating floods swept away entire towns and their crops, leaving the survivors homeless and starving. That's psycho alright. So follow the rules and maybe God will save you. Because the Cajun Navy is 4,000 years away. That's the message.

[Voltaire2]

42. Well that's convenient.

If we just leave out the appalling part “then the point is not the disaster that God visited on the world“ - then what we are left with is not a metaphor at all, it is exaggerated recounting of a big flood.

Seems to me the fact that Yahweh is acting to correct his world is sort of central to why this story is in the Bible.

[marylandblue]

44. Who said anything about leaving out the appalling part?

They lived in an appalling world. The Bible records what the world was like. The book of Joshua PROUDLY recalls a genocide. Archeology doesn't support support the story. But history does record genocide as a normal occurrence. Nobody knew how to stop floods. Nobody thought God wouldn't approve of genocide. It was clear God DID approve of genocide. Because it happened so much. The goal was not to stop genocide, the goal was not to be a victim.

It's only today we don't approve. So some religionists need to change the metaphor. Except for the literalists who, ironically, actually understand the original metaphor better than the people who say it's a metaphor.

[Voltaire2]

47. Uh, you did?

“If we take it as a metaphor, then the point is not the disaster that God visited on the world.”

[marylandblue]

49. I didn't say take it out, I said it wasn't the point.

They lived in a dangerous and mysterious world, an angry God was not the point and not a metaphor, it was a reality.

Put yourself in the mind of a Bronze Age peasant. Your daily life is of backbreaking labor.You didn't retire, you worked until you dropped. The king or lord has the power of life and death over you.

If you got seriously ill, you probably died, except in a few mysterious cases, people suddenly got better. You could expect most of your children to die before adulthood.

Sometimes there was drought and famine. Other times there were floods. You never knew when the rains would fail, when they would return, or when there would be too much rain.

Foreign armies could show up at any time and gleefully slaughter your village. If you were lucky, they let you live in slavery. If you were really lucky, they only raped your wife and stole all your possessions.

And you think the point of the story is that God gets angry? That's like saying the point of Mutiny on the Bounty is that people sailed in wooden ships. Of course they did, there wasn't any other kind of ship. And in the Bronze Age, there was no time or place safe from an angry god.

[gtar100]

35. Don't blame me, myths are filled with really bizarre and crazy stories

filled with violence and really strange behavior. The flood myth is one such that is about destruction and renewal. There is strong evidence that the world has suffered major cataclysmic floods in the past with the melting of glaciers from ice ages in the not-so-distant past and some suggest that the multitude of flood stories from around the world - as told in their cultural myths - is a remnant in our collective memory of the occurance. It makes sense to me but I'm not the expert on that. As for metaphorical meaning, I'd recommend reading Joseph Campbell if you want a more thoroughly researched explanation that isn't bound to a specific dogma. I can tell you what it means to me but I don't claim any authority.

Death and renewal, following "the voice of God" (one's inner connection to the power and wisdom in life) as a means of getting through troubled times. The death and destruction of everything and everyone else is symbolic of the loss of the many things we hold dear as we pass through troubled times. But we come through it to a life that is renewed. The ark and the animals are symbolic of protecting that which sustains us in life as we go through the journey. Being a global flood means that the process is a power greater than what we as individuals can influence or stop. We have no choice but to go through it. That God does this because of the wickedness in the world implies that this may be a process of recovery from our own "wicked" ways and what we can expect to encounter on the path to getting back in tune with nature.

To take it absolutely literally puts one in a position of having to explain the absurd with the absurd. I'll leave that to those who insist it be that way. But why this ties into a possibly real event of a great flood, I surmise it has to do with the way we humans make stories which comes from our own experiences. Hunter cultures have hunting stories, agricultural people would speak in metaphors related to their own practices. And our collective memory (the knowledge that is passed from generation to generation) is what is preserved through these stories. In past cultures, many had a tradition of preparing certain people to tell the stories of their ancestors. Those who took it seriously were very precise in teaching how they should be told. This may be the roots of religious practices. With the advent of writing, much of that tradition has been lost. And it seems to have had some strange results, such as the burgeoning of religions centered on "holy scriptures" that then somehow end up being dogmatically interpreted as "this really happened in this way" no matter how wild or outlandish the story. I think that's a mistake.

[Lordquinton]

28. Mythology is absolutely the correct term

That quote reads like "mythology isn't the right word instead *defines mythology*"

The RCC also believes that the wine and bread literally become the flesh and blood of Jesus, so I would suggest to take everything they cliam with some heavy skepticism.

[Major Nikon]

38. With metaphor all things are possible

I'm pretty sure Jesus said that.

[MineralMan]

48. "I'll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours."

"I said that." - Bob Dylan

[Lordquinton]

50. I never metaphor I didn't like

Wasn't Jesus but I'm sure someone said it.

[tymorial]

51. Are you still on the flood?

Why?

[NeoGreen]

53. Are you asking...

...

1) What do I believe the RCC says about the great flood, or

2) What does the RCC say about the great flood?

If the latter, you might be better served posting your inquiry here:
https://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1221

If the former:

[trotsky]

55. Meh, someone got their ass handed to them in another thread...

so naturally they need to start a couple new ones to "prove" that they're right somehow, by arguing against a straw man.

Same old same old.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

56. Other than Catholics, who cares?

Seriously. We have a pope that is a raging homophobe. Let's focus on that, shall we?

[Act_of_Reparation]

57. Bingo.

The Catholic Church has managed to rationalize the Great Flood post hoc? WOW. AMAZING.

[MineralMan]

58. Even Catholics don't care. They can believe whatever they wish

about it according to the Vatican. It simply doesn't matter. Now, Ken Ham...everyone cares what he thinks and he's a Bible literalist. Right?

[guillaumeb]

60. This applies to all of the Abrahamic religions. eom

[Cuthbert Allgood]

61. Sure. I understand how Genesis fits religions. But in the OP you ask about the RCC.

So. Again. Who cares?

And even if your response means something, why is the flood important?

And nothing about the raging homophobia of the pope?

[guillaumeb]

62. Well, in this post I decided to focus on this issue.

And how it can be interpreted.

And the RCC approach to the matter.

[uriel1972]

65. Funny thing is...

If you read the Bible Abraham is portrayed as an incestuous, lying, cowardly psychopath. Not exactly the best choice in my regard to be the father of a religion of love and peace...