Lesson of the Flood Story

[Gracchus]

Though this thread does not have any explicit evolutionary content, I believe it is important because it will show what spiritual truth people take from the Biblical stories. Anybody can answer.

What was the lesson/moral that the flood story taught?

Until, at least the early twentieth century, farmers in the Tigris-Euphrates delta had to spend part of the year on reed rafts during the annual flood. All their household goods and livestock would be put on the rafts.

They would fish during the day. At night they would tell stories. This was practice for thousands of years.

When the kids would grow restless and complain, as kids do, grandpa would trot out the story of a really big flood, that happened a long time ago.

The moral of the story was the threat that if the kids didn't stop whining they would be left behind to tread water next year.

 

[Hespera]

So why do some people eat the very same things and one gets sick and another doesn't? Or why is it that a healthy young man may die of some desease and yet another older person gets well and recovers? Science and medicine do not hold all the answers. They may provide a possibility, but not always a cut and dry rational reason.

Of COURSE science does not have all the answers. Im glad it doesnt! There would be no more research going on. Nothing new to learn.

Note too, that science really has not been around very long. Not in anything vaguely resembling its present form. In the long sweep of history, science has showed up just in the last couple of minutes, relatively speaking.

So like I said, of course science has not uncovered every last secret.
And some things are not the realm of science; philosophy and religion have their places.

As for why one person gets sick and dies tho, that would have to be looked at one case at a time. I would guess that in the vast majority of cases the specific cause for one person dying and not the other could be traced to something very specific. Other times, well, there are still medical mysteries. Medical science of a hundred years ago was pretty crude. Check back in 500 years. i think there will be far fewer mysteries and far fewer miracles.

Did you understand what I was saying about how evolution is just a description of what we observe, much as the study of germs is just a way to learn about things that make us sick? Neither of those things has anything at all to do with religion.

 

[Naraoia]

Nipper: There's no single answer to those questions, because each case may be different. Whether eating something makes you sick can depend on genetics, the current state of your immune system, previous exposure to the bugs present in the food, and probably many other things I can't think of off the top of my head.

The same is true for diseases. They act on complex beings in a complex environment, and whether someone lives or dies by them can depend on many factors other than age and general health. In fact, being young and healthy may even be a disadvantage: some suggest that the Spanish flu of 1918 killed by causing an excessive inflammatory response - and young and healthy people with the best immune systems would be worst affected.

That doesn't mean we don't have rational answers.

 

[Hespera]

Until, at least the early twentieth century, farmers in the Tigris-Euphrates delta had to spend part of the year on reed rafts during the annual flood. All their household goods and livestock would be put on the rafts.

They would fish during the day. At night they would tell stories. This was practice for thousands of years.

When the kids would grow restless and complain, as kids do, grandpa would trot out the story of a really big flood, that happened a long time ago.

The moral of the story was the threat that if the kids didn't stop whining they would be left behind to tread water next year.

I wonder how many "Daddy why?" stories turned into the legends, myths, religious teachings of later days.

I would guess that in general the better stories to retold, and after a generation or two nobody knew where the story came from. My gather told stories that I dont know if they were his, or if he got them form his grandfather.... who knows how far back some may go.

I think btw that the Indians along the Mississippi river in the old days were subject to the same sort of flooding problem. In some cases they built high mounds for a refuge. I bet it got boring up there waiting for the water to go down.

Daddy, why is there so much water? What if the water gets too high?
Daddy was there ever a REALLY BIG flood? Daddy why....

 

[LittleNipper]

Doesn't matter what I may believe; I do not consider a person a fool for not accepting something that has no evidence for its existence.

If there were evidence for Gods existence, then we wouldn't need faith. Why all this talk about having faith, if the evidence of God is all around us? One of the inconsistencies of mainstream Christianity I find strange.

If someone believes in something in which they gain no realization or comfort, that person must be deluded. However, if a belief comes with spiritual enlightenment, then that belief is worthy of accepting and spreading ---- don't you think? Those that would reject such realization as not true then would become the deluded ones....

 

[LittleNipper]

Of COURSE science does not have all the answers. Im glad it doesnt! There would be no more research going on. Nothing new to learn.

Note too, that science really has not been around very long. Not in anything vaguely resembling its present form. In the long sweep of history, science has showed up just in the last couple of minutes, relatively speaking.

So like I said, of course science has not uncovered every last secret.
And some things are not the realm of science; philosophy and religion have their places.

As for why one person gets sick and dies tho, that would have to be looked at one case at a time. I would guess that in the vast majority of cases the specific cause for one person dying and not the other could be traced to something very specific. Other times, well, there are still medical mysteries. Medical science of a hundred years ago was pretty crude. Check back in 500 years. i think there will be far fewer mysteries and far fewer miracles.

Did you understand what I was saying about how evolution is just a description of what we observe, much as the study of germs is just a way to learn about things that make us sick? Neither of those things has anything at all to do with religion.

I believe there are no mysteries for GOD.

 

[Hespera]

I believe there are no mysteries for GOD.

Well, if there is a god then there peobably wouldnt be any mysteries for Him. Her. It. I was talking about things that are mysteries-still-for people.

I wonder, did you understand what I was saying about evolution, or is
"no mysteries for god" all you got out of it? If so I wont say any more.

 

[LittleNipper]

Well, if there is a god then there probably wouldn't be any mysteries for Him. Her. It. I was talking about things that are mysteries-still-for people.

I wonder, did you understand what I was saying about evolution, or is
"no mysteries for god" all you got out of it? If so I wont say any more.

I do not believe that evolution is what caused the complexity of living things on this planet. I do believe in variety, individuality, and I accept the degeneration of all species brought about by the Fall of Adam.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I believe there are no mysteries for GOD.

And if either you, I, or anyone we knew were GOD, or at least had completely unrestricted access to His knowledge, that response wouldn't be nearly as meaningless as it actually is.

But, since things are as they are, I'm glad that we as mere mortals have organized a system to help us try and tackle the mysteries for us.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I do not believe that evolution is what caused the complexity of living things on this planet. I do believe in variety, individuality, and I accept the degeneration of all species brought about by the Fall of Adam.

Your beliefs have been noted.

 

[Hespera]

I do not believe that evolution is what caused the complexity of living things on this planet. I do believe in variety, individuality, and I accept the degeneration of all species brought about by the Fall of Adam.

i guess you dont know much about the ToE then. Its kind of like saying you dont believe that beaches are formed by wave action.

(not sure what you mean by "complexity")

There is no"degeneration of all species'. Where do you get such ideas?

 

[LittleNipper]

And if either you, I, or anyone we knew were GOD, or at least had completely unrestricted access to His knowledge, that response wouldn't be nearly as meaningless as it actually is.

But, since things are as they are, I'm glad that we as mere mortals have organized a system to help us try and tackle the mysteries for us.

Either making up answers or arriving at wrong ones for lack of all the data ----- doesn't advance man's knowledge. It only proves how insignificate his abilites really are.

 

[LittleNipper]

i guess you dont know much about the ToE then. Its kind of like saying you dont believe that beaches are formed by wave action.

(not sure what you mean by "complexity")

There is no"degeneration of all species'. Where do you get such ideas?

From all the kids with peanut allergies. And if you believe small birds are now the ancestors of large dinosaurs, then that would only be a "feather" in my cap (though I do not believe this). I believe dinosaurs died off as a result of the FLOOD and left their images in mud made up from debris of a complete ecological/geological system that was destroyed and reshaped by GOD over the course of a year and then progressed to this very day. The birds flew around and were among the very last to die. Their bodies/ bones are fragile were consumed and that is why no birds are found.

 

[Naraoia]

I do not believe that evolution is what caused the complexity of living things on this planet. I do believe in variety, individuality, and I accept the degeneration of all species brought about by the Fall of Adam.

What degeneration?

From all the kids with peanut allergies.

What about all the people with HIV resistance?

Also, humans are only one species. Far from "all". There are more than a million known species on earth, and for all we know there could be ten times as many still undiscovered.

And if you believe small birds are now the ancestors of large dinosaurs, then that would only be a "feather" in my cap (though I do not believe this).

It's believed the other way round. The "large dinosaurs" are the ancestors of the birds. Note that birds aren't thought to come from large dinosaurs. Their closest relatives are mostly small.

I believe dinosaurs died off as a result of the FLOOD and left their images in mud made up from debris of a complete ecological/geological system that was destroyed and reshaped by GOD over the course of a year and then progressed to this very day.

I'm resisting the temptation to get into that.

The birds flew around and were among the very last to die. Their bodies/ bones are fragile were consumed and that is why no birds are found.

No birds found where?

Also, pterosaurs flew around quite skilfully. Many non-neornithean birds flew around quite skilfully. None of them survived the dinosaur extinction, as far as I'm aware.

 

[Naraoia]

I do not believe that evolution is what caused the complexity of living things on this planet. I do believe in variety, individuality, and I accept the degeneration of all species brought about by the Fall of Adam.

What degeneration?

From all the kids with peanut allergies.

What about all the people with HIV resistance?

Also, humans are only one species. Far from "all". There are more than a million known species on earth, and for all we know there could be ten times as many still undiscovered.

And if you believe small birds are now the ancestors of large dinosaurs, then that would only be a "feather" in my cap (though I do not believe this).

It's believed the other way round. The "large dinosaurs" are the ancestors of the birds. Note that birds aren't thought to come from large dinosaurs. Their closest relatives are mostly small.

I believe dinosaurs died off as a result of the FLOOD and left their images in mud made up from debris of a complete ecological/geological system that was destroyed and reshaped by GOD over the course of a year and then progressed to this very day.

I'm resisting the temptation to get into that.

The birds flew around and were among the very last to die. Their bodies/ bones are fragile were consumed and that is why no birds are found.

No birds found where?

Also, pterosaurs flew around quite skilfully. Many non-neornithean birds flew around quite skilfully. None of them survived the dinosaur extinction, as far as I'm aware.

 

[Hespera]

From all the kids with peanut allergies. And if you believe small birds are now the ancestors of large dinosaurs, then that would only be a "feather" in my cap (though I do not believe this). I believe dinosaurs died off as a result of the FLOOD and left their images in mud made up from debris of a complete ecological/geological system that was destroyed and reshaped by GOD over the course of a year and then progressed to this very day. The birds flew around and were among the very last to die. Their bodies/ bones are fragile were consumed and that is why no birds are found.

Whatever your point about peanut allergies is...?

Birds would not be "ancestors" of dinosaurs. The relationship between birds and reptiles is so obvious that a person has to be deliberately blind not to see it. Transitional forms with long tails, teeth, feathers, and a weakly constructed skeleton compared to modern burds...? Flightless dinos with feathers? You are welcome not to believe it but then maybe you wont believe it if you see a five dollar bill on the gorund.



Of course isnt really a topic, large / small, some modern birds are bigger than some dinosaurs were.

In any case, success in a biological sense is based on reproductive success, how many of a critter there are. Simple. Size has nothing to do with "degeneration"....did you think it does?

As for dinos etc dying off in a flood...really....that is a made up answer based on a lack of data.

There is absolutely no physical evidence for a world wide flood. Period! There just isnt. It would have left evidence but there is none. How would you account for that?

Another thing that canntt be accounted for in anything even vaguely resembling a reasonable way is that there never is found anywhere an assemblage of fossils fsrom different geological eras. If they all lived at the same time, this would happen at least once, somewhere. There is that taht church group has been digging for so long down in Texas trying to find human footprints with dino tracks. Sometimes there will be a fake carved, but nobody ever finds anything real. There is a reason for that.

No really, a world wide flood is a good story, but it makes no sense, ahd there is nothing but the pages of an old book to back it. Some of the ancient cities described can be found; but not evidence of a world wide flood.

Oh... what do you mean, "no birds found"? Paleo labs have lots of bird fossils.

 

[BananaSlug]

What's going on with all the double and triple postings?

 

[LittleNipper]

Whatever your point about peanut allergies is...?

Birds would not be "ancestors" of dinosaurs. The relationship between birds and reptiles is so obvious that a person has to be deliberately blind not to see it. Transitional forms with long tails, teeth, feathers, and a weakly constructed skeleton compared to modern burds...? Flightless dinos with feathers? You are welcome not to believe it but then maybe you wont believe it if you see a five dollar bill on the gorund.



Of course isnt really a topic, large / small, some modern birds are bigger than some dinosaurs were.

In any case, success in a biological sense is based on reproductive success, how many of a critter there are. Simple. Size has nothing to do with "degeneration"....did you think it does?

As for dinos etc dying off in a flood...really....that is a made up answer based on a lack of data.

There is absolutely no physical evidence for a world wide flood. Period! There just isnt. It would have left evidence but there is none. How would you account for that?

Another thing that canntt be accounted for in anything even vaguely resembling a reasonable way is that there never is found anywhere an assemblage of fossils fsrom different geological eras. If they all lived at the same time, this would happen at least once, somewhere. There is that taht church group has been digging for so long down in Texas trying to find human footprints with dino tracks. Sometimes there will be a fake carved, but nobody ever finds anything real. There is a reason for that.

No really, a world wide flood is a good story, but it makes no sense, ahd there is nothing but the pages of an old book to back it. Some of the ancient cities described can be found; but not evidence of a world wide flood.

Oh... what do you mean, "no birds found"? Paleo labs have lots of bird fossils.

If 99% of all fossils found resulted from the FLOOD, then there is plenty of evidence it happened. Those who do not accept the FLOOD, simply have readapted the data found everywhere and anywhere to their own logic...

They've found Blue Birds and Sparrows fossilized?

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

"degeneration of species" = natural selection
"inbred variation" = descent with modification

Your lack/refusal to use accepted definitions make you look foolish.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Either making up answers or arriving at wrong ones for lack of all the data ----- doesn't advance man's knowledge. It only proves how insignificate his abilites really are.

Clinging to mythology instead of at least putting in the effort to advance knowledge only sets your insignificance on a pedestal.