Jump to content

The significance of the literal global flood in the days of Noah


Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

You are free to reject whatever you want to.

What ideas should the church explore? Should they explore if God even exists? If Christ died for our sins? If there's life after death?

I wasn't thinking that the Church should explore things that far to the atheist side of the continuum, but, now that you mention it, some (like Elder Callister) claim that LDS are more likely to become atheist/agnostic if/when they leave the Church. Perhaps it would be wise to be prepared to minister to those of our flock drifting towards outright atheism.

Link to post
13 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

Our bodies are part of the natural world. 

All bodies are, including the body of God, our Father in heaven.  There is no such thing as supernatural, even though some people think there is.

Edited by Ahab
Link to post
1 hour ago, pogi said:

or that they avoid mating with members of the other group.

This is generally the rule. There are numerous definitions of the word species. The one you quoted is the biological species. The part of your definition that I included above is generally either behavioral or a difference in habitat. So in other words they may be able to produce viable offspring but they aren’t attracted to each other or they just live in different space or time. So different species “may” not be able to produce viable offspring with closely related others or they may and just don’t choose to because they don’t recognize each other as potential mates. I hope that makes sense. 

Link to post
1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

Wait, when I see green how do I know that is the same thing you see when you say you see green?

(inhales) Woaaaahhhhhh!

When she tells you that what you see is, indeed, green.

Link to post
3 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

This is generally the rule. There are numerous definitions of the word species. The one you quoted is the biological species. The part of your definition that I included above is generally either behavioral or a difference in habitat. So in other words they may be able to produce viable offspring but they aren’t attracted to each other or they just live in different space or time. So different species “may” not be able to produce viable offspring with closely related others or they may and just don’t choose to because they don’t recognize each other as potential mates. I hope that makes sense. 

Are you a taxonomist?

If so, Catholicism should be very appealing to you. We classify and categorize everything :)

 

Link to post
2 minutes ago, Ahab said:

When she tells you that what you see is, indeed, green.

(inhales) You know what I was thinking? The only reason we die is that we convince ourselves that death is inevitable. If we let go of that belief we could all live forever.

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

(inhales) You know what I was thinking? The only reason we die is that we convince ourselves that death is inevitable. If we let go of that belief we could all live forever.

We will all live forever.  Death is only a temporal separation of our spirit from our other (less attractive) body and even then when we die and are dead we are still living.

Link to post
1 minute ago, Ahab said:

We will all live forever.  Death is only a temporal separation of our spirit from our other (less attractive) body and even then when we die and are dead we are still living.

(inhales) But what if we are all like dancing in the court of the blind idiot daemon sultan Azathoth in the great beyond while our minds dream that we are human?

Edited by The Nehor
Link to post
6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

(inhales) But what if we are all like dancing in the court of the blind idiot daemon sultan Azathoth in the great beyond while our minds dream that we are human?

Uh.  I don't know.  I would need to receive some counseling from God to figure out what to do if that were the case.

Link to post
4 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

I completely disagree. In my opinion rejecting the flood is akin to rejecting the truth.

What's next? Did the people of the Book of Mormon never exist? Did Jesus Christ ever exist? 

You are a black or white all or nothing kinda guy, eh?

I don't believe in a global flood. I also don't believe in the Book of Mormon. Hmmm, maybe you are on to something ;) 

Seriously, though. Rejecting a global flood does not in anyway affect my belief in, devotion to, and worship of Our Lord.

Also, the Catholic Church does not require belief in a global flood (nor does she prohibit it). In fact, Pope Pius XII said that the first eleven chapters of Genesis can be viewed as containing metaphorical language that convey truths necessary for our salvation. St. Augustine in 389 argued that Genesis can be interpreted as an allegory.

So, if rejecting a global flood leads to the rejection of Jesus Christ, then how is it that Catholic Church still preaches Christ crucified? Perhaps you should rethink your all-or-nothing slippery-slope stance.

Edited by MiserereNobis
Link to post
15 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Are you a taxonomist?

If so, Catholicism should be very appealing to you. We classify and categorize everything :)

 

We classify and categorize everything a heck of a lot better than any of you guys do.  For example, how many orders or degrees of glory do you believe there are?  Whatever you think there are a heck of a lot more than just those.

Link to post
2 minutes ago, Ahab said:

We classify and categorize everything a heck of a lot better than any of you guys do.  For example, how many orders or degrees of glory do you believe there are?  Whatever you think there are a heck of a lot more than just those.

🙄

Link to post
3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That is a slippery slope argument. Saying that we cannot do one thing without doing another is silly

I never said or even implied that people "cannot" do one thing without doing another.

I said that I believe there is zero benefit to doubting in the literal flood and that I believe doing so is a taken a step towards losing one's faith.

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

 

I also believe the census in the Book of Numbers is vastly inflated. Over half a million? When the total population of Egypt would probably have been less than two million?

Does this mean I am about to reject the reality of Jesus Christ?

The flood story is a bit more significant than some random census number, so this is not an apples to apples comparison. 

Rejecting either as true does not mean you are about to reject the reality of Jesus Christ, but you are one step closer to this in my opinion.

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Or am I allowed to believe Joseph Smith when he said there are errors in the Bible?

No one is suggesting that the bible is error free.

However, Joseph Smith believed in the literal flood. When he revised the bible he left the story in tact as historical fact. The Book of Mormon he brought forth also presents the flood story as literal. 

Link to post
21 minutes ago, Teancum said:

how so?

In addition to rejecting the flood story as real, you also expressed doubts about the Book of Mormon having actually happened as well as the reality of a literal Jesus who lived 2000 years ago.

This proves that rejecting the flood story as a myth at least has the potential to lead to rejecting other teachings of the scriptures and the church as myths. 

Link to post
Just now, LDS Watchman said:

In addition to rejecting the flood story as real, you also expressed doubts about the Book of Mormon having actually happened as well as the reality of a literal Jesus who lived 2000 years ago.

This proves that rejecting the flood story as a myth at least has the potential to lead to rejecting other teachings of the scriptures and the church as myths. 

Good point, but expecting people to accept the truth when they show a propensity to reject it is a little silly of you, don't you think?

Link to post
24 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

I said that I believe there is zero benefit to doubting in the literal flood and that I believe doing so is a taken a step towards losing one's faith.

There are a lot of things that could be construed as "taking a step towards losing one's faith". What counts as "taking a step towards losing one's faith" depends on where you stand at the start and what you consider to be the ultimate definition of faithlessness. Is it not taking every last word of the scriptures to be literal that constitutes faithlessness? Does faithfulness depend on maintaining the iron separation between faith and science? I don't believe so and I do believe Joseph Smith when he says that our faith encompasses and adopts all truth. My belief in ongoing revelation demands that. 

Quote

The flood story is a bit more significant than some random census number, so this is not an apples to apples comparison. 

Rejecting either as true does not mean you are about to reject the reality of Jesus Christ, but you are one step closer to this in my opinion.

I agree, it is more significant, but I don't know why that significance demands that the flood was global. The only reasons I could see for that would be an insistence on literalistic biblical inerrancy (which we are doctrinally obligated to disavow) or adherence to the literal idea of  immersion-baptism for an animistic earth-consciousness. 

Quote

However, Joseph Smith believed in the literal flood. When he revised the bible he left the story in tact as historical fact. The Book of Mormon he brought forth also presents the flood story as literal. 

Joseph Smith did believe in the literal flood from what we can tell. He left the story in the Bible, but that doesn't say anything more about it being historical fact than the story's original inclusion in Genesis does. If it is viewed as a sacred drama or even a subjective report aside from literalistic and anachronistic Western models of history (which did not prevail at the time that Genesis was composed), then its virtues would demand that Joseph Smith retain it regardless of its historical status. The Book of Mormon never implicates a global flood. It references the flood as an element of moral history in Alma 10:22 without referring to the flood as a global event - at most it demands a local flood, and frankly since it's just Alma commenting on the Flood as opposed to an actual direct exposition of the doctrine it could just represent Alma's understanding which is not binding. Ether 13:2 is ambiguous as the "waters receding off the land" could also very credibly refer to the waters of Creation, not the waters of the Flood. 

Edited by OGHoosier
  • Like 1
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...