Historicity of Flood and Babel?
I do see two principles in operation in fallen man:
Anti-Baptismal Disposition: man has little regard for Divine Truth, nor for Divine Law
Anti-Marital Disposition toward God: man turns from seeking union and embrace of God as Spouse in Covenant to a mocking counterfeit: the Whore, united, but in perverse ambition for purely brute materialistic pursuits.
I am arguing man embraces these two principles in punctuated succession, each requiring Divine chastisement to frustrate, hence, something Flood, and Confounding at Babel, something like it, not necessarily literal.
The Catechism does not seem to demand this is so, but seems to suggest some Divine Involvement, and not merely a natural explanation for man's ultimate division into nations
Christ seems to call forth these two principles in the mini parable:
if you build a tower, make you sure have what it takes
If you have 10,000, can you defeat 20,000
man, in one fallen sense, does not love his neighbor and harms him, the violation of the decalogue, ultimately war
man, in another fallen sense, throws down the weapons, fuses nations and builds a tower, but it is a fragile peace, purely selfishly motivated.
can these differing aspects of the fallen nature be fused and gelled and explained in antiquity so that there are not positively miraculous, but punctuated, successive corrective responses from God to these principles?
as far as I can see, this is like asking, derivatively, can a child survive growing up without any discipline, whether to wrong doing, or to restrain recreation?
I do see two principles in operation in fallen man:
Anti-Baptismal Disposition: man has little regard for Divine Truth, nor for Divine Law
Anti-Marital Disposition toward God: man turns from seeking union and embrace of God as Spouse in Covenant to a mocking counterfeit: the Whore, united, but in perverse ambition for purely brute materialistic pursuits.
I am arguing man embraces these two principles in punctuated succession, each requiring Divine chastisement to frustrate, hence, something Flood, and Confounding at Babel, something like it, not necessarily literal.
The Catechism does not seem to demand this is so, but seems to suggest some Divine Involvement, and not merely a natural explanation for man's ultimate division into nations
Christ seems to call forth these two principles in the mini parable:
if you build a tower, make you sure have what it takes
If you have 10,000, can you defeat 20,000
man, in one fallen sense, does not love his neighbor and harms him, the violation of the decalogue, ultimately war
man, in another fallen sense, throws down the weapons, fuses nations and builds a tower, but it is a fragile peace, purely selfishly motivated.
can these differing aspects of the fallen nature be fused and gelled and explained in antiquity so that there are not positively miraculous, but punctuated, successive corrective responses from God to these principles?
as far as I can see, this is like asking, derivatively, can a child survive growing up without any discipline, whether to wrong doing, or to restrain recreation?