[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
And in Catholic news: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/20/priest-pens-excoriating-open-letter-lambasting-pelosis-abortion-stance-giving-ultimatum-renounce-the-faith-or-comply/
Finally. [/quote]
The Roman Catholics are finally going after the Pro-Choice Roman Catholics. Good for them.
I would love to see an Excommunication.
[quote]Karado wrote:
I’m still looking into the book of the upright and will give it the slight benefit of the doubt only
to a certain degree, because one would have to be one dense individual to look at the obvious
genetic sin mentioned in it and not connect it to present day…when technology has seemingly
‘caught up’ and ‘Man’ doing the exact same thing in 21st Century.
[/quote]
I don’t think I was sufficiently clear in my previous post. Remember our initial conversation about 1 Enoch’s references to the giants? The problem with using 1 Enoch in order to interpret Genesis 6 is that 1 Enoch was written centuries after Genesis and reflects the interpretation of Genesis 6 by individuals far removed contextually from the milieu in which Genesis was composed and to which it was addressed. In other words, 1 Enoch is not an independent witness to the meaning of Genesis 6; rather, 1 Enoch represents one competing interpretation of Genesis 6 floating around in the 3rd century B.C. - 1st century A.D.
Consider this illustration - one man witnesses an event (let’s say, a flood) and composes an account in Old English (c. 9th century A.D.). In the 18th century A.D., another man whose primary language is French but who knows some modern German composes his interpretation of the Old English account of the flood. So the first question is, do we have one witness to the flood or two? The answer, obviously, is one - only one of these texts constitutes an actual witness to the event, because the second account is based on and is much later than the first (it does not represent an independent witness to the same event).
Here we have the same scenario with the supposed Book of the Upright. The original Book of the Upright mentioned in Joshua was most likely a collection of hymns and poetry, NOT a narrative. The Book of the Upright you are referring to was clearly composed by Jews in the medieval period. In fact, there is absolutely no evidence for its existence - no quotations of or allusions to it, nor even a single manuscript of it - before the 16th-17th century A.D. The text represents the widespread Jewish midrashic practices, in which the ancient biblical narratives were interpreted and expanded upon by later Jewish thinkers. The case is the same as with 1 Enoch - the supposed “Book of the Upright” represents late medieval Jewish interpretations of Genesis, not an independent account paralleling Genesis’. Consequently, this book is useless for any reconstruction of the actual meaning of Genesis 6.
I too believe that you are honestly concerned with the truth, Karado, and that’s why I will continue to write these posts.
Here is another case where the text itself explains the reasoning; this is why it is imperative to read narratives as wholes, not selectively…
Genesis 8:20-21 - "Then Noah built an altar to Yahweh, and taking of every clean animal and of every clean bird, he offered burnt offerings on the altar. Yahweh smelled the pleasing odor, and Yahweh said to himself, “Never again will I doom the earth because of man, because the devisings of man’s mind are evil from his youth; nor will I ever again destroy every living being, as I have done.” In other words, God specifically promises NOT to repeat the worldwide destruction represented in Genesis 6-8.
We live in an age of grace, in which God expects the church to work toward the conversion of humankind. The existence of the church represents a light in this dark world, so as bad as it is, it is NOT as bad as the time of Noah in which only ONE man was found righteous on the earth.
[quote]
Believers
marrying unbelievers theory…IDK…something else was going on, because we have ALWAYS been sinful KK,
something else was going on…Why not a deadly 24 hour ‘‘virus’’ sent down instead to kill mankind,
with Noah and his family supernaturally protected?
Why the massive, epic ‘‘reboot’’ of life on Earth if it wasn’t contaminated with Nephilim/continually evil Neandrathal
bloodline? What does it really mean when it says Noah was “perfect” in his ‘‘generations’’?..is that an allusion to an uncontaminated
bloodline and why he and his family were spared? [/quote]
Again, the text itself addresses these issues.
The word that the King James Version translated “perfect” is an ethical term more appropriately translated “blameless,” as most modern translations do. It’s NOT a term denoting “purity of bloodline” or anything like that.
On a related note, you’re missing the clearly ethical tone of Genesis 6:5-13. As I stated before, shahat (corruption) denotes widespread immorality, NOT genetic experimentation, and this is why it is paired with the terms like “wickedness” and “lawlessness,” and stands in opposition to the characterization of Noah as “righteous” and “blameless.” The text reads, "Yahweh saw how great was man’s wickedness on earth, and how even plan devised by his ind was nothing but evil all the time. And Yahweh regretted that he had made man on earth, and his heart was saddened. And Yahweh said, “I will blot out from the earth the men whom I have created - men together with beasts, creeping things, and birds of the sky, for I regret that I have made them.” But Noah found favor with Yahweh. This is the account of Noah - Noah was a righteous man; he was blameless in his age; Noah walked with God. Noah begot three sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth. The earth became corrupt before God; the earth was filled with lawlessness. When God saw how corrupt the earth was, for all flesh had corrupted its ways on earth, God said to Noah, "I have decided to put an end to all flesh, because the earth is filled with lawlessness because of them." So here, the text clearly states that it was because of the exceeding wickedness of humanity at the time, such wickedness that only a SINGLE righteous person was found, that God destroyed the earth. Once again, you cannot ignore the text’s clear statement of God’s motivation (human wickedness) in order to posit a separate background that cannot be supported by the text itself.
Well, I still think that something WAY out of the ordinary happened that dwarfed whatever evils mankind
has done post-flood/post ascension…Hundreds of Millions, and likely Billions dead when one includes
EVERY single post ascension war, and murders of every single kind in the last 2000-4000+ years…and yet no second judgment yet…
…crickets…that tells me something…it practically screams to me that something was very different in the antediluvian world,
if one THINKS about it…because the NUMBER of people that died from the wickedness and violence PRE-flood was NOT as high
as the number of people that died in all POST Flood violence and wickedness up to present day…yet we’re still HERE…why???
Because in the long run we’re WORSE than the Pre-Flood era then, especially taking your great interpretation to heart KK.
Does the ‘‘patience’’ of our creator in our wickedness VARY then? I thought he changed not?!?
You do ‘‘see’’ the math here, yes?
I get that man’s wickedness was part of it PRE-flood and maybe was the ‘tipping point’…but IDK, something was off because God
seemed like he was ‘selective’ in what Animals he was going to wipe out too…He instructs to put Animals ON the Ark, yet he SAVES
some Animals as well…did these animals then that died NEED to suffer and drown? I guess they did.
These animals and birds did nothing wrong, yet he strongly emphasizes ‘I’m gonna wipe out all Animals on land, sea,
and air too’…he emphasized in surprising detail COLLATERAL damage/death with the apparent sinless innocent animals…interesting.
And as far as Noah being ‘‘perfect’’, or walked with God, that’s very interesting and counterintuitive because the man was a drunk, and when he got hammered and naked after the deluge, I don’t believe for a minute it was his very ‘first time’ partaking, and he lived
for at least another 3 Centuries after that so I’m fairly certain he got hammered again at least a few other times afterwards.
I guess there’s hope for occasional drunks…lol…Notice carefully how I gave him the benefit of the doubt and said ‘‘occasional’’,
not ‘‘regular’’.
King Kai quoted Genesis:“…Never again will I doom the earth because of man, because the devisings of man’s mind are evil from his youth; nor will I ever again destroy every living being, as I have done.”
I guess this is THEE most ‘comforting’ part of this whole thing…And MUST mean
there will also never ever be major worldwide earthquake, or a major Meteor of ANY
kind that will wipe out all living things on Earth…NEVER, EVER, again.
A little hard to believe with all those Asteroids out there lol, but we must believe it.
[quote]Karado wrote:
Well, I still think that something WAY out of the ordinary happened that dwarfed whatever evils mankind
has done post-flood/post ascension…Hundreds of Millions, and likely Billions dead when one includes
EVERY single post ascension war, and murders of every single kind in the last 2000-4000+ years…and yet no second judgment yet…
…crickets…that tells me something…it practically screams to me that something was very different in the antediluvian world,
if one THINKS about it…because the NUMBER of people that died from the wickedness and violence PRE-flood was NOT as high
as the number of people that died in all POST Flood violence and wickedness up to present day…yet we’re still HERE…why???
Because in the long run we’re WORSE than the Pre-Flood era then, especially taking your great interpretation to heart KK.
Does the ‘‘patience’’ of our creator in our wickedness VARY then? I thought he changed not?!?
You do ‘‘see’’ the math here, yes?
[/quote]
As I’ve already pointed out, the text and the larger biblical narrative addresses these questions - God PROMISED not to destroy the earth again, and his faithfulness to his promises trumps his desire to stamp out evil, but he is actively working to change the world in this age through the church. Contrary to your claims, the presence of the church, the body of Christ, in this world means that “we” are NOT worse than the Pre-flood era. Instead of one righteous person, there are millions. Biblically speaking, your account of the situation is inaccurate.
Here we are entering into the realm of conjecture. The text gives no indication of other reasons beyond pervasive wickedness for the destruction; it explicitly states, "God said to Noah, "I have decided to put an end to all flesh, because the earth is filled with lawlessness because of them." " There is no indication whatsoever from the text that there were any other reasons for the destruction, least of all the manipulation of DNA. If you are going to buy into the text’s account at all and actually believe that there was a flood, you cannot logically ignore the reasons stated in the text for that flood. Defilement of the earth through human wickedness was not the “tipping point;” it was the single motivation.
Also, I don’t know where you are getting the idea that God saved animals (other than aquatic creatures) that were not on the ark. There is no indication from the text that he did so. Gen. 7:23 - "All existence on earth was blotted out - man, cattle, creeping things, and birds of the sky; they were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark." As for the death of “sinless, innocent” animals, your reading is too modern. The fact is that such moral categories would never have been applied to animals when the bible was written. Rather, animals are either “clean” or “unclean,” fit for consumption or not fit for consumption. Since Genesis was composed long before the existence of PETA, the author didn’t share our modern sensibilities about “animal rights.”
One further point. The damage isn’t truly collateral; the text says God intended to wipe out all flesh, only preserving some representative species in the ark. To bypass a very technical discussion, I’ll summarize - the author of Genesis conceives of the cosmos as a divine temple for Yahweh; human wickedness was believed to defile the temple-land, including the animal life upon it; ritual purification of that land entailed the destruction of the offending parties (including the now-defiled animals) and cleansing of the land; the forty day period of the flood cleanses the land and prepares it for humankind and the animals to dwell on it again. The point is that there is nothing really mysterious about God’s choice to destroy most of the animals; the reasons are relatively clear once you understand an ancient Near Eastern worldview. It does not, however, jibe with our modern sensibilities.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
[quote]Karado wrote:
Well, I still think that something WAY out of the ordinary happened that dwarfed whatever evils mankind
has done post-flood/post ascension…Hundreds of Millions, and likely Billions dead when one includes
EVERY single post ascension war, and murders of every single kind in the last 2000-4000+ years…and yet no second judgment yet…
…crickets…that tells me something…it practically screams to me that something was very different in the antediluvian world,
if one THINKS about it…because the NUMBER of people that died from the wickedness and violence PRE-flood was NOT as high
as the number of people that died in all POST Flood violence and wickedness up to present day…yet we’re still HERE…why???
Because in the long run we’re WORSE than the Pre-Flood era then, especially taking your great interpretation to heart KK.
Does the ‘‘patience’’ of our creator in our wickedness VARY then? I thought he changed not?!?
You do ‘‘see’’ the math here, yes?
[/quote]
As I’ve already pointed out, the text and the larger biblical narrative addresses these questions - God PROMISED not to destroy the earth again, and his faithfulness to his promises trumps his desire to stamp out evil, but he is actively working to change the world in this age through the church. Contrary to your claims, the presence of the church, the body of Christ, in this world means that “we” are NOT worse than the Pre-flood era. Instead of one righteous person, there are millions. Biblically speaking, your account of the situation is inaccurate.
Here we are entering into the realm of conjecture. The text gives no indication of other reasons beyond pervasive wickedness for the destruction; it explicitly states, "God said to Noah, "I have decided to put an end to all flesh, because the earth is filled with lawlessness because of them." " There is no indication whatsoever from the text that there were any other reasons for the destruction, least of all the manipulation of DNA. If you are going to buy into the text’s account at all and actually believe that there was a flood, you cannot logically ignore the reasons stated in the text for that flood. Defilement of the earth through human wickedness was not the “tipping point;” it was the single motivation.
Also, I don’t know where you are getting the idea that God saved animals (other than aquatic creatures) that were not on the ark. There is no indication from the text that he did so. Gen. 7:23 - "All existence on earth was blotted out - man, cattle, creeping things, and birds of the sky; they were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark." As for the death of “sinless, innocent” animals, your reading is too modern. The fact is that such moral categories would never have been applied to animals when the bible was written. Rather, animals are either “clean” or “unclean,” fit for consumption or not fit for consumption. Since Genesis was composed long before the existence of PETA, the author didn’t share our modern sensibilities about “animal rights.”
One further point. The damage isn’t truly collateral; the text says God intended to wipe out all flesh, only preserving some representative species in the ark. To bypass a very technical discussion, I’ll summarize - the author of Genesis conceives of the cosmos as a divine temple for Yahweh; human wickedness was believed to defile the temple-land, including the animal life upon it; ritual purification of that land entailed the destruction of the offending parties (including the now-defiled animals) and cleansing of the land; the forty day period of the flood cleanses the land and prepares it for humankind and the animals to dwell on it again. The point is that there is nothing really mysterious about God’s choice to destroy most of the animals; the reasons are relatively clear once you understand an ancient Near Eastern worldview. It does not, however, jibe with our modern sensibilities.
[/quote]
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
And in Catholic news: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/20/priest-pens-excoriating-open-letter-lambasting-pelosis-abortion-stance-giving-ultimatum-renounce-the-faith-or-comply/
Finally. [/quote]
Awesome! Thanks for posting that. Pelosi is a vile animal and unchristian and anti-Catholic at the most fundamental levels. While I doubt she will draw an excommunication counsel, she is de facto excommunicated for openly going against the most fundamental principles of faith.
I prefer atheists to those who make a mockery of the faith by claiming it and openly going against it. She can take Biden out the door with her. Addition by subtraction.
Looks like I missed a pretty good thread, but perhaps sometimes people deserve my silence anyway.
Thx KK…I STILL think something else was going on Pre-Flood World, especially with the existence of
the Nephilim, whom must have been irredeemable monsters because there isn’t a clue or hint for Noah
to waste his time WARNING these ‘fallen ones’ other humans of the Flood if they don’t change their ways…Good
luck with that one…not happening…think about how utterly IRREVERSABLE that situation was, that everything
was so ‘locked and loaded’ evil, that there was no instruction for Noah to warn anybody…Which tells me many of them
weren’t even fully human…
Even former evil incarnate Jeffery Dahmer changed his ways…lol… but for the Nephilim
and their kind all through the OT there is pattern of NO MERCY toward them…God instructs in one instance to 'wipe them out, eradicate, even the very young ones, the animals they own, kill ‘em ALL’…The Anakim’s, Rephaim, etc., whichever, and the other so-called ‘tribes’ allegedly related to the Nephilim, which to my knowlege not a single one of them were proven to be righteous anywhere in scripture.
On a lighter note, with Jesus apparently not talking about OUR future in Matthew 24, but referring to the Temple
Destruction in 70 A.D…Hal Lindsey, Jack Van Impe, and ‘‘Left Behind’’ authors Tim La Haye and Jerry Jenkins have just accused you of being a preterist leaning heretic…j/k.
I really appreciate all this stuff KK, it’s NOT going to waste I assure you, and I sense an obligation to
‘‘pass it on’’ to a few select others in due time.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
And in Catholic news: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/20/priest-pens-excoriating-open-letter-lambasting-pelosis-abortion-stance-giving-ultimatum-renounce-the-faith-or-comply/
Finally. [/quote]
The Roman Catholics are finally going after the Pro-Choice Roman Catholics. Good for them.
I would love to see an Excommunication.[/quote]
You aren’t going to see the process for major excommunication most likely. It’s a de facto excommunication. If you seek to undermine the church publically on core issues, you are by default excommunicated until you have reconciled with the church and changed your stances… Such reconciliation would be done simply through the sacrament of reconciliation.
The major excommunications are saved for those who are most dangerous to the church, where the church needs to publically excommunicate such a person. And in this case a reconciliation with the church would need to be approved by the Bishop in a formal process.
Now one could argue that Nasty Pelosi is such a person. Perhaps if she were even to publically lash out at church teaching or lash out at the admonishment she received via this letter, such a thing may be considered.
Either way, she needs to not bother calling herself a Catholic, she ain’t and neither is Biden. It’s not a race or culture you are born into. If you don’t accept the church or her teachings you can get the hell out.
That doesn’t mean you have no means of disagreement. You do but that is handled in house, in the family. You cannot disregard or go against core teachings or dogma.
For instance, you can disagree with the church’s stance on birth control still be Catholic and still practice the faith. You cannot disagree with dogma such as the Eucharist or core issues such as abortion. The former lends itself to discussion and debate, which is healthy, the latter lands you in excommunication.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
And in Catholic news: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/20/priest-pens-excoriating-open-letter-lambasting-pelosis-abortion-stance-giving-ultimatum-renounce-the-faith-or-comply/
Finally. [/quote]
Awesome! Thanks for posting that. Pelosi is a vile animal and unchristian and anti-Catholic at the most fundamental levels. While I doubt she will draw an excommunication counsel, she is de facto excommunicated for openly going against the most fundamental principles of faith.
I prefer atheists to those who make a mockery of the faith by claiming it and openly going against it. She can take Biden out the door with her. Addition by subtraction.
Looks like I missed a pretty good thread, but perhaps sometimes people deserve my silence anyway.[/quote]
LOL, always the shy one. Let’s juts say the yourself and dearest Christopher do not use the same phraseology to describe the representative from the 12th district of California. Not that he supports her in any way. She IS unChristian AND unCatholic. Excommunications should be as public as the sin in my view, but this is a start. I respect this though I will not be doing the RCIA thing this week. She has 6 children and look at her before the butchers got a hold of her.
And after the butchers got a hold of her…