On Friday, my wife and I had a very rare date night.
Naturally, we decided to spend it being pummeled by the blaring condescension of the most insipid, absurd, unimaginative, clumsily contrived piece of anti-Christian filmmaking to come along since, well, probably just last week.
In fact, if I learned anything from Noah, it’s this: despite popular perception, you can often judge a book by its cover. Also, giant deformed rock monsters make for awkward supporting characters.
We’ll meditate on that second item in a moment, but it’s the first point that should be especially emphasized.
Christians: you’ll hear people insist that you can’t criticize the movie until you’ve seen it. Noticeably, the loudest voices in this camp are the ones who will (rather coincidentally, I’m sure) profit immensely if you meet their challenge.
Don’t.
Don’t bother.
You can hate this film without watching it, for the same reason that you can assume Citizen Kane is slightly superior to Need For Speed, without having seen either of them.
Just use context clues. Use your judgment. Use your money on something else.
Noah is a major Hollywood blockbuster, made by an atheist director best known for his previous flick where a mentally disturbed lesbian ballerina goes insane and bleeds to death on stage. Already, a critical person might be slightly concerned about his handling of the Bible, considering what he just did to the ballet.
These concerns grew from suspicion to reality before it was even released, when the man himself came out publicly and professed Noah to be both an environmentalist propaganda piece, and the “least Biblical” Bible film ever made.
He wasn’t lying.
But he forgot to mention that it’s also a terrible film.
The way I figure it, I must now convince at least two people to skip this movie in order to cancel out the twenty dollars I just contributed to Darren Aronofosky’s and Russel Crowe’s coffers.
What better way to do that than by spoiling the entire thing?
So here goes a thorough synopsis and spoiler, which will hopefully quell your curiosity and alleviate any urge you might feel to go and experience this ridiculous train wreck for yourself:
We are first introduced to the Noah of Noah on a hill in the barren wasteland of the Fallen. In a captivating and subtle initial sequence, our protagonist castigates his son for pulling a flower out of the ground, right before rushing to the aid of an injured dog.
A scraggly band of Bad Guys soon show up with the wicked intentions of devouring the animal’s flesh, because, in this story, the Height of Evil is to stave off your imminent starvation by hunting wild game. (If only they’d developed Noah’s ability to be a strict vegetarian in an environment almost entirely devoid of vegetation.)
The Bad Guys attack Noah, not realizing that he’s a vegan Martial Arts master. Noah proceeds to kick some serious butt, leaving all of the Bad Guys bleeding on the ground.
One of them looks up at him in awe and terror. “What do you want?”
“Justice,” Noah growls with a determined gaze.
I was expecting him to then whisper, “I’m Batman,” and disappear, but I realized that superhero movies wouldn’t have dialogue nearly so clichéd as this embarrassing farce.
At any rate, Noah wants justice. Of course, this is coming from the same dude who will spend the rest of the movie contemplating murder-suicide and threatening to stab babies in the face.
But, hey, nobody’s perfect.
After a troubling nightmare, Noah, for unclear reasons, sets off to find his grandfather Methuselah, who, for unclear reasons, hangs out in a cave and drinks hallucinogenic tea all day.
On the way, our heroes encounter a group of the aforementioned Rock Monsters.
The Rock Monsters — a cross between the Ents from The Lord of the Rings, Transformers, and Muppets — are fallen angels who came down to Earth to help the humans after mean ol’ God cast Adam and Eve out of Eden. The ‘Creator’ was ticked at the angels for being big softies, so he cursed them and turned them into Giant Stone Gumbies.
Christian apologists for this movie have claimed that the Rock Monsters are, in fact, “Biblical” because Genesis does make vague mention of “giants.”
That’s like turning Jesus into an Olympic figure skater and calling it “theologically accurate” because the New Testament says he walked on water.
Still, the Rock Monsters are great unintentional comic relief, so I certainly wasn’t upset to have them along for the ride.
Skimming over a few parts: Methuselah gives a roofie to Noah, prompting a hallucination about the ark. Noah and the gang and the Rock Monsters then start building the ark. More Bad Guys arrive, intending to takeover, but they’re scared off by the Rock Monsters.
In this “version” of the story, only one of Noah’s sons, Shem, boards the ark with a wife. Ham, completely wife-less, is a tad displeased at the notion of default celibacy for the rest of his life.
Understandable, I suppose.
Eventually, he runs pouting into the woods, falls into a hole filled with corpses, and finds a girl sitting among all the dead people. They fall instantly in love — the classic “how we met” story — and the two of them head back to the ark. Unfortunately, Ham’s girlfriend gets caught in a bear trap and trampled by a human stampede along the way. Classic breakup story. Noah forces Ham to abandon her and leave her to die.
Ham is mad. He pouts some more.
Here’s Ham, searching ditches and mass graves for a bride. The movie apparently takes place sometime before Match.com came into existence.
Noah also pouts. Everybody is pouting. And then it starts pouring.
As the rains begin, the Bad Guys make their climactic charge on the boat. We are then treated to an extended sequence of Rock Monsters swatting swarms of drowning people.
Interestingly, only the Main Bad Guy comes up with the clever idea to, you know, go around the Rock Monsters.
The Main Bad Guy’s genius maneuver pays off, and he successfully manages to sneak onto the ark.
Luckily, Noah and crew aren’t forced to make room on the ship for the Rock Monsters, because they’re all ascended into heaven as a reward for kicking a bunch of humans in the head for twenty minutes.
Sadly, all of the (unintended) levity and humor goes up right along with them.
The rest of the film will now be dedicated to a brooding Noah glumly obsessing over his belief that the Creator wants all human beings to perish — himself and his family included.
This forces him to have that difficult family meeting where he explains to his kids that humanity is wicked and they all must die.
But, as usual, it’s right when you plan the obliteration of mankind that your adopted daughter announces she’s pregnant. We’ve all been there. Am I right, parents?
Noah is less than happy about the news, and tells Shem and Ila that, if they have a girl, he will murder it the moment it is born.
Needless to say, Noah doesn’t attend the baby shower and things are generally pretty awkward for the next nine months.
Meanwhile, as Noah plots to murder his grandkids, and Shem plots to kill Noah if he tries, the Bad Guy stowaway is also plotting with Ham to kill Noah. Ham is willing to cooperate with the homicidal plan because he’s still upset that his girlfriend of four minutes was trampled to death. Essentially, this has become a floating soap opera. Think Days of Our Lives meets Waterworld.
Side note: If you doubt the Bad Guy Credentials of the Bad Guy, the writers made sure to include a scene where he bites the head off an endangered lizard while sermonizing about the glories of being a carnivore (this is how vegetarians see the rest of us). His Bad Guy Monologue consists entirely of simply and accurately quoting Scripture (this is how you identify the bad guy in a Hollywood movie).
The next several minutes of emotional-manipulation-disguised-as-plot-development center around the drama inevitably created when a dad wants to kill his grandchildren, and all of his children want to kill him in return.
Finally, in the predictable climax, the Bad Guy tries to stab Noah, but Ham — getting cold feet over the whole patricide thing, I guess — ultimately decides to kill the Bad Guy instead. In the midst of the chaos — wouldn’t ya know it? — Ila goes into labor.
Shem makes a halfhearted attempt to stop Noah from becoming humanity’s first abortionist, but is easily tossed to the side.
Ila gives birth to twins — both girls. GASP. Noah charges at the infants with knife in hand, but has a sudden change of heart. Even though the Creator wants him to wipe out all of humanity, he refuses.
That’s when they hit land.
Next thing you know, Noah is drunk in a cave, depressed that he didn’t have the guts to murder his twin granddaughters. Ah, regrets. We all have ’em.
Following a pep talk from Ila, Noah decides that maybe it’s OK if people repopulate the Earth. The Creator decides to go along with this new plan.
The end.
I’ve heard the movie compared to Titanic and Gladiator. Personally, I’d say it’s more of a cross between Mutiny on the Bounty and The Shining. Only far less coherent than any of them.
I’ve also heard some “Christian leaders” endorse this steaming pile of heretical horse manure. I’m tempted to accuse them of being cowardly, dumb, or dishonest, but I’ll just give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they slept through the most troubling parts — like the part at the beginning, and the end, and all of the parts in between.
It’s true that it might be a bit difficult to discern the “message” in a film so filled with explosions (the Bad Guys have bazookas, naturally), monsters, and infanticide, but any supposed Christian “leader” ought to try a little harder. Pay a little closer attention. If you do, you’ll see a tale that entirely perverts the nature of God, while flipping sin and immorality on its head.
Aside from a brief glimpse of something that appeared to be either rape or cannibalism, wickedness is portrayed as mostly a matter of eating meat and mining the earth for resources. Noah — a righteous man in the Bible — is stripped of his righteousness in favor of obsessiveness. God is stripped of any characteristics at all, apart from vindictiveness.
It’s not that ‘Noah’ strays from the text — of course it does, the actual text is only a few pages long — it’s that the movie completely and utterly distorts the message and meaning of the original story.
This movie is not an adaptation of anything at all. As far as I can tell, both Noah the Movie and Noah the Bible story have in common: a guy named Noah, a boat, some animals.
That’s it.
If you’re looking for a movie more obviously inspired by Biblical precepts, go see anything else. Go see The Lego Movie. I’m sure even that will bear a closer resemblance to Scripture than emo Noah and his gang of Boulder Creatures.
But what if you don’t care about the Bible and you just want to see a good movie? The critics seem to love this film, don’t they?
Yes, they do. They love it because they’re a herd of politically correct cattle and this is a movie that they’re ‘supposed’ to like. It’s made by an ‘important’ director. It’s ‘controversial.’ It’s upsetting a bunch of Tea Party types.
Plot and script be damned; it’s already got all the necessary ingredients for critical acclaim.
Remember, these are many of the same critics who panned The Passion of the Christ — a beautiful, bold, and mesmerizing retelling of the greatest story ever told.
Politics and theology aside, The Passion is art. Noah is a marketing strategy.
And, in fairness, maybe it ought to be reviewed on those terms.
You can’t condemn it for being a poor Biblical adaptation, because it isn’t a Biblical adaptation.
You can’t condemn it for being a bad movie, because it isn’t a movie.
It must be considered as it is: a gimmick. A brilliant gimmick, for sure.
If the movie studio wanted to spin a yarn about mythical beasts, epic battles, homicidal sea captains, and a pagan Earth god, they could have done so. They could have called it anything. They could have told their own story. But they called it Noah because they knew that the supposed connection to the Bible would garner immediate fascination. They knew there would be controversy, and controversy sells.
They padded it with enough action movie clichés to draw interest from secular crowds, they hid the outright blasphemy well enough to please gullible Christian crowds, and they mocked Biblical theology blatantly enough to delight the critics.
They came up with a way to make millions while exploiting the various sensibilities of different audience demographics.
That was their first and primary intention, and in it they succeeded wildly.
As an adaptation or retelling of Judeo-Christian theology, it’s a blatant mockery.
As a film, it’s like the script for a Syfy Network miniseries got shoved into a blender with the treatment for a Lifetime channel made-for-TV movie and then mixed with enough moping nihilism and environmentalist sermonizing to fool pretentious elitists into using words like ‘daring’ and ‘relevant’ when describing it. In other words, it’s aggressively abysmal.
But, as a money-making ploy, it’s a downright masterpiece.
Final assessment:
Four Stars for marketing
No Stars for quality, substance, coherence, meaning, or theological accuracy.
*******
Find me on Facebook.
This is the best review I have ever read. Thank you. You have saved me a trip to the cinema to enjoy only the expensive popcorn. I had a feeling that this film would be a pile of rubbish. Please tell me what you thought of The Hobbit. I slept through most of it. I do not mean to offend anyone because everyone is entitled to their own views, which I respect entirely, but I found it to be a snooze fest. I will look forward to your reviews for other films. Well done!
NoAH The Movie You DON’T Want To See
There is a first for everything. Yesterday, on my 31st birthday something happened around me that I have never before experienced. I am not talking about the dinner with the love of my life eating the love of my life, Pizza, leading up to the movie. I am not talking about the romantic walk towards each other that ended up in hot steamy kiss up against the glass of shop on the street outside the theatre. I walked to the street corner after I purchased the tickets for the movie and as I turned my head to my left I saw her, it was like the first time I had seen this woman but I felt the energy from a block away, I knew she had me in her sites. I knew she was determined to run into me, I felt compelled to meet her half way and run into her just as determined. Our bodies collided like two galaxies in outer space. There is no collision more graceful than that of two galaxies. So large, so great, so passionate that when they collide the planets that make them up never hit. The two beautiful forces of our universe dance like they are in love until they settle into one new galaxy. That was us right there on the sidewalk under the streetlight at night just like in the movies. However this is not the first I am speaking of. The night was young and the movie had yet begun. After having a few laughs at the tavern next door, we walked through the crystal clear glass that lead to our horror. With a big bag of mouthwatering popcorn in one hand and a genetically engineered fructose corn syrup soup in the other. Sitting in the third row, we were traditionally set for our feature presentation starring, Rustle Crow. At first I am moved, pulled in by the selflessness of Noah and his sons. I thought I was proud to be in this crowd, so glad to see a movie that did not promote bad. However it was at this moment that I witnessed something I had never seen before! Something that totally made sense but yet none at all. I needed to take a picture so people would believe me when I share it on social media with the world to save them from making the same mistake we made that beautiful night. To save them from not only having to watch this movie but from possibly facing the same fate of those around me. To my right it was happening. Directly in front of me it was happening, I turned to look behind me and it was happening all around me. I thought at first, its ok, this is a dream, pinch yourself you fool this can’t happen in real life. It hurt, I was not sleeping, not yet, but if I subjected myself to this anymore I could end up doing just that. Doing what all the sinners around me were doing, engaging in what seemed to be either a mass suicide attempt or possibly a slumber party. People were sleeping not only around me but on each other. The young couple to my right fell asleep leaning against each other. The mother who sat in front of me separating her husband and son started snoring. People all around were speechless as we were subjected to the glorious acting out of a phycodic script obviously written or directed by a white male animal lover who probably has small ligaments. A white man that feels inferior to woman and children. Scared that one day people will wake up and realize that this is not a white man’s world. But a natural habitat for humanity. Scared that people will realize there is no one greater than our creator who is genderless and colorless. This movie features 100% people with a white ethnic background and a man who tells his sons that he does not believe there should be kings for there is no man greater than our creator. But after the king and his men are killed by the water from above Noah becomes a King, President, Dictator, Ruler, CEO whatever you want to call it, its all the same. He decided who lives and who dies. He decides who will go and who will stay regardless of the thoughts of the people who make up his pride. A man who believes that woman are to serve man and bear children. Only if he wants them to. He cares not what other humans say, he is only interested in carrying out the decisions that take place in his own mind and claims that they are orders from above, from the almighty who works threw no one other than himself. He believes that humans are not animals, that its only ok for lions to eat other animals, for if a human eats another animal he is eating the forbidden fruit. He supports the idea that killing mass quantities of humans is justified for the humans are all sinners. My take on this movie is that if you believe you are getting orders from god, you should act them out regardless of the thoughts of others around you even if it involves killing babies that are one day old or making mankind extinct. That murdering most the world population if not all is not only justified but glorious in the evolution of our Garden of Eden which we of the modern world refer to as planet earth, the third rock from the sun.
Thank you Michael, I started scrolling down and had to read all you had to share. Nice start!
Unfortunate for the world population that this idea of two animals, human or beast, gets to ((twice they tried this?)) be the only two in existence at that moment. Has anyone thought of the birth defects of 2 or more in-breedings? I had a cat once that was the product of three inbreeding. He was given to me by a neighbor, missing his left front foot. Annnd, was it once OK (not mentioned) for Eve to have children with her boys. Or (not mentioned) brothers and sisters to have children together. Go figure this out? My wild guess – this has problems.
:0) Thank you for the response. Interesting thought. This fil actually suggest ending all mankind not even Noah and his kids are allowed to breed. Its stupid as hell.
The Bible is not the only story of Noah-nowhere does it say it was a biblical account of Noah. The story is based on the Cabala version so why does the Christian community get so worked up by it?
Yeah, I’m pretty sure one of the trailers said it was based on the biblical story of Noah.
They lied
Yeah, I’m pretty sure one of the trailers said in plain English that it was based on the Biblical story of Noah.
biblical also can be used for that >.>
Dont waste your time, I saw it, the night was young and the movie had yet begun. After having a few laughs at the tavern next door, we walked through the crystal clear glass that lead to our horror. With a big bag of mouthwatering popcorn in one hand and a genetically engineered fructose corn syrup soup in the other. Sitting in the third row, we were traditionally set for our feature presentation starring, Rustle Crow. At first I am moved, pulled in by the selflessness of Noah and his sons. I thought I was proud to be in this crowd, so glad to see a movie that did not promote bad. However it was at this moment that I witnessed something I had never seen before! Something that totally made sense but yet none at all. I needed to take a picture so people would believe me when I share it on social media with the world to save them from making the same mistake we made that beautiful night. To save them from not only having to watch this movie but from possibly facing the same fate of those around me. To my right it was happening. Directly in front of me it was happening, I turned to look behind me and it was happening all around me. I thought at first, its ok, this is a dream, pinch yourself you fool this can’t happen in real life. It hurt, I was not sleeping, not yet, but if I subjected myself to this anymore I could end up doing just that. Doing what all the sinners around me were doing, engaging in what seemed to be either a mass suicide attempt or possibly a slumber party. People were sleeping not only around me but on each other. The young couple to my right fell asleep leaning against each other. The mother who sat in front of me separating her husband and son started snoring. People all around were speechless as we were subjected to the glorious acting out of a psychotic script obviously written or directed by a white male animal lover who probably has small ligaments. A white man that feels inferior to woman and children. Scared that one day people will wake up and realize that this is not a white man’s world. But a natural habitat for humanity. Scared that people will realize there is no one greater than our creator who is genderless and colorless. This movie features 100% people with a white ethnic background and a man who tells his sons that he does not believe there should be kings for there is no man greater than our creator. But after the king and his men are killed by the water from above Noah becomes a King, President, Dictator, Ruler, CEO whatever you want to call it, its all the same. He decided who lives and who dies. He decides who will go and who will stay regardless of the thoughts of the people who make up his pride. A man who believes that woman are to serve man and bear children. Only if he wants them to. He cares not what other humans say, he is only interested in carrying out the decisions that take place in his own mind and claims that they are orders from above, from the almighty who works threw no one other than himself. He believes that humans are not animals, that its only ok for lions to eat other animals, for if a human eats another animal he is eating the forbidden fruit. He supports the idea that killing mass quantities of humans is justified for the humans are all sinners. My take on this movie is that if you believe you are getting orders from god, you should act them out regardless of the thoughts of others around you even if it involves killing babies that are one day old or making mankind extinct. That murdering most the world population if not all is not only justified but glorious in the evolution of our Garden of Eden which we of the modern world refer to as planet earth, the third rock from the sun.
I wonder the exact same thing
http://bensmart92.wordpress.com/2014/04/05/why-christians-should-watch-noah/
Pingback: Fashion Friday- Because Sometimes Wearing Pajamas Makes Sense | My Daughter and I
Brilliant! I think I am on my way to convincing more than 2 people not to see this “movie”.
Thank you for you review. I still wanted to see the movie for myself…..I totally agree with all of your comments and SO enjoyed your humor! Hollywood should not have called this movie “Noah” but “Flood Waters” or just make up a name and tell the public that it’s a “story” from the Bible! Because that’s all it was….a Hollywood film, interpreted by people who’s World View was interpreted by unbelievers.
Well done. Thank you. At a theatre tonight to see Captain America, checked the theatre showing ‘Noah’, second weekend, 3 people. That didn’t take long.
Pingback: Why Christians Should Watch Noah | Ben Smart
The best thing about this movie is seeing all of the attacks by the athiests who attack and mock the Christians, just like in the story of Noah itself where the world attacked him for protecting his faith – and look what happened to them THEN. As it was in the days of Noah, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. The righteous will be taken to safety while the wicked are destroyed.
Christians, revel in John 15:18-25
But what is Faith? “Faith is needed in something that can’t be proven or its process cannot be seen”
Faith and God: It’s an ingenious hypothesis–yet to be proved.
David:
You “worship” words.
A word such as “fact”, in your mind, is infallible.
Do you understand?
Your “facts”, as according to your system, cannot be infallibly “proven”.
All you have is (ultimately) your own assertions, using words.
You worship yourself. Are you satisfied with this? Have you fully thought out your own position? Are you preparing yourself for your bodily death?
Spirituality and Faith in God:
God, I have tried to be a spiritual man and to have faith,
You have forsaken me. Man has created you in His image, which gives him dominance over everything else- birds, plants, fishes and beasts.
God- you are nothing but a myth. The Greeks, Romans, Norseman, Egyptians, Babylonians, Mayans, Aztecs, Incas, and many other ancient civilizations created many gods for everything, because they could not figure out or understand why the sun rose and set, why the sea, why the sky, why the earth, why love, why life, why death? We have created you to appease and feed our fears and ignorance. We have so many questions and so few answers. I have used you in my prayers to forgive myself for my sins. I now know the sins are mine. I earned them; they belong to me and at my life’s end… I will take them with me.
What I have witnessed, experienced and learned in the course of my life has made me question the existence of…God.
Because of the “Truth”, in Spirituality, Faith and God,
I now refuse to believe in or to be a victim of the theology, legends, stories, tales, fantasies, superstitions, philosophy, psychology, worship, books, tablets, inscriptions, etchings, papers, parchments, scrolls, charms, amulets, trinkets, symbols, talisman, idols, icons, relics, customs, ceremonies, traditions, rituals, spells, incantations, curses, miracles, magic, mysticism, spiritualism, folklore, mythology, supernatural, extraterrestrial, or paranormal phenomena.
Because of the immorality, deception, corruptions, coercions, conflicts, scandals, feuds, fiefdoms, fallacies, contradictions, extortions, idiocy, indecency, hypocrisy, lies, inconsistencies, controversies, the pompous self-righteous, fanatical, perverted, deviate behaviors, pious, prejudice, closed minded, bigotry, arrogance and interpretations from any religion, denomination, organization, sect, cult or deity.
In “Truth,”
When I die, I shall rot and nothing will be left of me.
“Earth to earth, ashes to ashes and dust to dust”.
I want to be proven wrong, because if I am wrong, I will still win:
“Faith is needed in something that can’t be proven or its process cannot be seen”
Faith and God: It’s an ingenious hypothesis–yet to be proved.
If What Thy Say or Do…
If what thy sayeth or do should offend God or thou, then let God or thou forgive thee.
If God or thou shalt not, nor there be God,
Then God and thou matters not
So, your official response to my logical criticism of your position, is to respond with your own personal “The Bible”.
You have wasted my time, because you are more interested in “speeding through” to get to all of responses to your trolling nonsense, as opposed to addressing points that are made against your nonsense.
Feel free to respond to my initial criticisms, in the spirit of proper debate.
You wanted a debate, well what proof do you have to discredit my FACTS as they are indisputable! Prove to me That I am wrong in my research! and I will humbly concede!
You say that I worship myself, Well if a man doesn’t believe in God, what does he believe in? Himself— i believe in reason and logic! And I NEVER turn my back on them!
David, your responses to my criticisms of your position cannot be quantified, and amounts to poetry.
This is precisely what you accuse theists of doing.
You are a complete hypocrite and you are not fit to be attacking the position of theism, nor Christianity, because you cannot offer a suitable counter-position.
You repeatedly bring up “logic”, but your system cannot verify anything, including its own existence; your “facts” cannot be “proven”.
You are simply trolling. Do that sort of thing on a Miley Cyrus video clip.
So are you making the claim that this is only a theist blog and that anyone else who who opposes those views are not invited to post? You state that My responses are illogical. Logic arose from a concern with correctness of argumentation. I believe I have provided that.
By contrast, Immanuel Kant argued that logic should be conceived as the science of judgement, an idea taken up in Gottlob Frege’s logical and philosophical work. But Frege’s work is ambiguous in the sense that it is both concerned with the “laws of thought” as well as with the “laws of truth”, i.e. it both treats logic in the context of a theory of the mind, and treats logic as the study of abstract formal. So in these regards, I am Logical!
You state that my facts are un proven yet you provide no facts to your claim that they are un-true. I have supplied you with my sources for information and to my research, yet you dodge, weave and cower behind your Bible as the source for all your answers. I WANT To be proven Wrong for if I am wrong, I will still win!.
Let me try to explain my meaning: You live and believe in God ( that is your choice) and you believe in life after death and that you will join him after death, BUT, just for the sake of argument and thought, in the end you find that there is no god, I,m not saying that you did not live a good life, just a wasted one in the belief in something that was not real. So you lost.
However, I on the other hand do not believe in god, I live a good life and in the end when I die and I find that there is no god I then have lost nothing. BUT in the event that there is a god, than in the end I got what I wanted, so you see I gain and I win!
You accept that all things are as the are or is as it is because God said so. It is like the scenario of when a child asks his parent “mom can I stay home from school today?” Mom replies, “no” “But how come?” “Because I said so!” Didn’t you ever want to know why mom said no? To dwell into the why things are as they are, is searching for the true meaning of philosophy (knowledge and the meaning of life). That is what I do! and that is Why I do it!
David:
Your premise is asinine, and your childish repetition of it is growing irritating.
There can be no “proof” of anything. I cannot provide it, nor can you, nor can your leaders, nor can mine.
If you want to worship science, and the works of man, as infallible, leave me out of it.
Furthermore, you’re in over your head here. As an example, I, myself, have not used any part of The Bible whatsoever in my argument against your position, yet you accuse me of “cowering behind it”.
As such, it appears that you are not even listening to anything I say at all, so why should I waste my time with you?
Besides, prariepolyguy is addressing your fallacious argument, point by point, and exposing the weaknesses of your position. Go ahead and deal with him.
You’re the close-minded one here, preaching on and on and on about your beliefs, throwing insults, which are based on nothing substantial at all, and your teachings leads to ruin. And your analogy was absurd…if there is no God (afterlife), then all of your time here is pointless, and if you lived your life denouncing God, but find that your true existence is actually that of a spiritual body, and that you desperately need His intervention in order to protect you from harm, do you think He would be pleased that you tried to convince people to turn away from Him? I don’t see how that would be you “winning”.
You state that i am close minded, how far from the truth you really are. I asked to be proven Wrong! I want to be proven wrong! You sir,( and I use the term loosely), are the one who is closed-minded for you do not wish to look at others, evidence, facts, opinions, theories that contradict your own point of view, and you provide nothing to discredit ot disprove any of them!
So, who really is being closed-minded?
P.S. You have accused me of trolling, Like the apostles, I too am a “Fisher of Men”, but unfortunately for me, I caught a “sucker!
Now you’re out of line.
You present your personal interpretation of words as infallible, set forth an absurdly impossible premise, talk trash, lump nonsense onto my position, worship your own tunnel-vision view of flimsy atheist philosophy as God, and tell theists to jump in front of trunks on the highway.
Furthermore, despite my obvious skill and professional manner of communicating my thoughts, you speak to me as if I am stupid, which reveals more precisely your level of skill – that is, you employ elementary level trash talk, blind insistence that I am weak for the sole reason that I assert that you are wrong, and mass projection of sheer nonsense onto my position and intellectual ability that has no basis in anything that I have said to you.
You’re making this up as you go along.
As prariepolyguy has methodically and comprehensively deconstructed the flaws in your position, I will leave him to that, and i will now proceed to address you on your own terms, as a piece of performance art.
Do you understand? You’re an amateur, and you’re embarrassing yourself.
You talk about your so called “superior intellect, yet you keep dodging the issue, you rely on another individual blogger to defend you. and he has not provided anything to discredit my claims neither! so you too are a self serving illiterate who has no concept of what rational or independent thought is but relies on the input of others to defend his position. You are a coward and a fool!
I talked about superior skill, not intellect. You talked about intellect, basing nothing on our actual correspondence, but rather pulling your “canned” lines, on autopilot.
You should refer to his examination of your position. There is no need for me to repeat it.
You label me “coward”, but I addressed your fallacies directly, accusing you (rightfully) of worshiping words, the scientific method, and yourself (which you do). You insist on the infallibility of your words and “proofs”.
You badger, harass, insult, and PREACH to people on this blog, and offer nothing in way of moral guidance, philosophy, ultimate meaning for human existence, or anything, really, other than what is deemed to be the “official findings of the scientific community”.
But, you have conducted yourself quite poorly with me, so why should I bother addressing your points at all?
No, you are an amateur performance artist, hijacking the debate on theism to further your own vain agenda to push people around.
You have little skill, zero compassion or charisma, no desire to learn these traits, and no one would follow you, even if you had the funding to promote your message in popular media.
You are so truly wrong! and you are unable to prove it!
You still have not addressed my original complaint as to why I am wrong about my evidence relating to the flood story as being plagiarized and borrowed from other religions and that the bible is a consolidation of myths , legends and fable from other ancient accounts and cultures. My questions had nothing to do with philosophy or its meaning. So again, I ask, Can you disprove my evidence to the fore mentioned questions to disprove them!
I’m not interested in the flood story. I’m not interested in your quoting books (as a theist does The Bible) as your “evidence” that The Bible is a fallacy. I’m not interested in entertaining your amateurishness. Besides, I addressed your major points immediately (as have others), but you are not even paying the slightest attention to what anyone has said to you; you just keep rambling on and on and on, repeating the same slogans.
You claim to have seen warfare and extreme horror up close, personally. Will you insist that that scene is morally neutral? That is to say, why are you carrying on, preaching as if there is no good or evil, if you are one of the few people who has seen evil in the flesh?
Why do you think that there is such an emphasis in popular “artists” of today, that are financed by the most wealthy and powerful people in the world, and promoted incessantly to the youth everywhere, of “devilish” symbolism? Why is SO MUCH MONEY being spent to highlight such SPECIFIC IMAGERY? Don’t you ever think about things such as this?
Besides, if you are not interested in THE MEANING of a work, what the hell are you interested in? What nonsense this is.
i have not the slightest intention to undervalue the acknowledgement of the teachings of Plato, Aristotle,Socrates, or any other of the well known philosophers considering the science and knowledge of the time,for they are highly credible in the insight and ingenuity by which these philosophers have ascended.However, it is perfectly well known that that modern discoveries have extremely reduced the value of all ancient speculations in natural philosophy, and have indeed placed them much upon the footing of exploded errors
You are more single-minded in that you concentrate on “finite” problems in such single-mindedness, you have a slightly arrogant conviction that God had vouchsafed to you and select few an ability to penetrate the secrets of the universe which you assume “lesser mortals” lack. You are so very mistaken! I on the other hand wish to penetrate the full profundity of the whole design of the universe a vision not of endless curiosity about how the world and how it might be improved, but of the relentless pursuit of truth!
I’m growing tired of baby-sitting you, man.
All of that nonsense you just spewed does not apply to me. You’ve projected it onto my position. Get out of here with that crap.
This is a waste of my time. Your truth is words, and your own thoughts. You imagine your own mind is God. Nobody will convince you otherwise, no matter what is presented to you. You’re shut down; a brick wall. So go beat your head against it some more.
You state that my position is asinine but you give me nothing to disprove them. You also are guilty of spewing out words so you too are a hypocrite and your points are asinine also. I just wish you could show me evidence that I am wrong. You cannot! Maybe I am pounding my head against a brick wall, but you obviously have your head in an orifice i shall not mention.–Yet
Your anus is inhaling the proverbial zephyr. translated (your a–hole is sucking wind)
You’re an idiot and you’re speaking inappropriately to me.
You’re a damn idiot.
Your premise is that your WORDS are INFALLIBLE.
Also, that the SCIENTIFIC METHOD is INFALLIBLE.
IDIOCY.
Furthermore, you PROJECT NONSENSE INCESSANTLY
AND TALK TRASH
YOU’RE A LOSER AND YOU’RE NOTHING BUT A TROLL.
THIS IS HOW I WILL BE RESPONDING TO YOU – IN KIND.
NO ONE WOULD FOLLOW YOU.
You call me a troll assuming that I can’t be reasoned with.,, i can be reasoned with providing that the argument is reasonable!
Application of the term troll is subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. Like any pejorative term, it can be used as an ad hominem attack, suggesting a negative motivation.
As to your comment to the infallibility of Science Science, refers to observing and deducing conclusions, based on those observations. So you gather accurate info, and make a hypothesis, then you attempt to prove it by finding evidence in a controlled experiment, or by simple observation of a natural occurring. So essentially, you’re always doubting the conclusions until you find evidence to the contrary. this insures the highest probability of finding the truth in any context.
Is it the body of data, theories and mathematical models that have been developed by means of the scientific method that is being questioned? Again, in a purely practical sense, it seems to work. People seem to trust science and scientists in general but reject particular results just because they don’t like them.
Obviously, at any point in time, it is hard to see what could possibly replace our current best theories. After all, if we knew enough to know what could replace them, we would replace them! But we all know that general relativity, the big bang theory and quantum mechanics are incomplete and, to some extent, inconsistent.
Creationists attacking the fact that any scientific theory must adapt and grow completely miss the point, whether deliberately or inadvertently, and attack science for being infallible, when it has never claimed to find irrefutable proof of anything. Sadly, this strawman argument is what captures the imagination of the public. Personally, I believe that the basic definition of the scientific method should be taught in science lessons; too many pupils learn the skills for designing and performing experiments but never learn the reasoning behind it.
I ‘d like to see god just fix the problem. This also begs the question, If god loves all so much, how come the all the world problems and chaos is allowed to happen in the first place?
And I just hope you’re reasonable enough not so say, because everyone has sinned or something along those lines, that’s when religion stops being merely amusing and gets dangerous.
Religion needs certainty. The craving for security and the comfort of emotional assurances based on the Bible or another holy book are powerful and I don’t deny them, but in reality what we have is faith and faith means—precisely—belief without knowledge or proof.
Proof and knowledge destroy faith. If any religion could be proved, wouldn’t we all be members of it? The fact that this diversity of spiritual beliefs exists has shown us that, so far, the only certainty we have is that our beliefs are not facts. Isn’t fact the opposite of belief?
It is completely unacceptable, and it will continue to be unacceptable, for anyone to say that their religion is infallible and that not only must they believe it, but everyone else must believe it and follow its teachings. We simply cannot force belief on others. We can force people to act in certain ways, but if they keep silent and comply, we don’t know what they are thinking (but I would guess that it involves a lot of anger and resentment).
I enjoy writing about my ideas but I don’t waste time worrying whether everyone believes as I do.
And I can tell you that if you read the replies from my posts they try to blow my opinions evidence and research out of the water, or they can call me a liar or say that I am misinformed. What they don’t realize is that I research before I write, not after.
Many of the people who write and reply to my posts have not even read or researched what I write about.
Just because I do not believe in the Bible or any other religion, does not mean that I have not read about them or have not researched them!
If it is your choice to believe in religion or god, so be it, as it is my choice not to believe, so be it!
Conversing with you is boring.
My position in regards to what you write has not changed since my initial post towards you – that is, you worship yourself as your “religion”, and place infallibility on words and the scientific method.
When confronted by these truths, you backpedal and use poetic discourse for some vague purpose, but simultaneously, proceed to badger other people using the same fallacious reasoning as I point out.
Furthermore, your writing is uninspiring, attempting to be pedantic (but failing to do so), and you occasionally toss out a random crude insult.
Ultimately, you repeat the same lines over and over and over and over and over.
Lastly, you will not properly address any of these points and barge blindly ahead as always.
I tried to be nice so now you can kiss my Lilly white ass!
You didn’t try to be nice. You’re a jerk and you have no position. You’re a boorish windbag.
You go
on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on
saying nothing at all. Proof, evidence, prove my proof that proves my evidence, man is god
So get off my nuts now. I don’t care what you have to say, because you don’t care what anybody else has to say.
This is my last look at this stupidity.I cannot believe the life of this post.I may have to unsubscribe from Matt because this has gone beyond ridiculous.
I,m sorry you had to be a witness to this squabbling between myself and edenrocks, I have tried to be reasonable with him and provide information that’s factual, researched evidence to my claims but he refuses to research the material for himself but just refutes them without any proof or evidence to the contrary! If I came on rash, harsh and insulting to him, well he gets back what he deserves!. So again I want to apologize to those who were offended. But he threw the first punch, not me by referring to me as an idiot! The attacks came after his insult never before!
“This is my last look at this stupidity.I cannot believe the life of this post.I may have to unsubscribe from Matt because this has gone beyond ridiculous.”
As I mentioned in a previous post to you; all you have to do is change your ‘options’ regarding this blog article (and others in the future)!! You don’t have to be drastic and unsubscribe from Matt just simply click on the “Subscription Options” link below on the right of the email comment update you receive!! What’s beyond ridiculous is it’s a lot less difficult to do than complain about the email comment updates 😉
deelilynn,
Because it’s more fun to piss you off! Only morons refuse to read, watch or research for themselves. Matt Walsh (a random, poorly groomed blogger with ‘The Idiots Guide to McCarthyism’ and a paypal button) says don’t see this movie, I was offended. You tell him he’s awesome and Godly. When he spouts shit about Planned Parenthood, Wendy Davis and anything involving tolerance and decency, you all start reblogging and praising Jesus for this ‘prophet’. The correct word would be profit… Those of us who don’t think he’s ‘awesome’ are speaking out for decency and freedom. Cram 12 pounds of crazy into your 5 pound bag just keep it at home, at church or in that bunker behind your barn. Thanks, Jackson
Thanks for the giggles, Jackson! Not sure why you directed your rant of incorrect assumptions about me at me though. I was telling him/her, for a second time after his/her second complaint here, how to change his/her email notification options if he/she no longer wants to follow this article; if he/she still wants to follow Matts articles. Either you can’t read in context or you were high while ranting 😉 Have a Blessed Easter!!
Deelilynn,
Inflection is difficult here. I also get a little wound up, the blind devotion to Matt gets to me… Please excuse my rant! Thanks, Jackson
Alright Jackson! Finally there is someone out there who has a reasonable, logical and who has seen the hypocrisy and arrogant, pious,pompous attitudes for which the “Christians” display” They can continue to worship there false god (Matt) and stay in his circle jerk behind the barn!
David,
Your posts are islands of sanity in Matt’s crazy ocean! I appreciate your patience and logic. They really can’t handle any different ideas. Thanks, Jackson
Thanks Jackson,
If I come across as harsh, rash, or cynical to those who refuse to look at my evidence without the common decency to show me evidence to refute my claims but just saying that they are lies. I have studied both the theological and the “scientific methods” to my research, so if I sound a little emotional, it is because i have spent many years studying and gathering sources from various libraries around the world, various religious, and scientific texts from world renowned scholars and theologians, The opposition has done none of this! They either deny,or refuse to review “evidence’ proof or facts as it is presented but continue to state that it is “infallible’ without presenting anything to support their claims or their side of the evidence to be reviewed! So, I challenge, but they present me with nothing to research or its sources! Some call me a troll or idiot and other foul things, but i have been called worse by much more knowledgeable and better people than edenrocks and others who have opposed my views! But it does not bother me nor will it ever!
David,
You are more restrained than I am…. I have been told about the fundamental Christianity of the founding fathers, the holocaust was made up and that the Adolf Hitler and his Nazis didn’t start with claims of being Christian. None of which has any references offered. I’m told that Google is a ‘liberal’ tool and can’t be used for facts, but the Bible is factual. Facts don’t change because they don’t fit the argument. Keep fighting the good fight, I love your work. Thanks, Jackson
Thanks, Jackson, I will tell you a little as to why I have difficulty with the “Truth” as it relates to the “historicity or stories of the Bible: In College I have learned the basics of the field known as “textual criticism” a technical term for the science of restoring the “original” word of a text from manuscripts that have altered them. So my research brought me to the the question, How does it help us to say that the Bible is the inherent word of God, if in fact we don’t have the words that God inherently inspired, but only words copied by scribes- sometimes correctly, but (many times) incorrectly? What good is it to say that the autographs(originals) were inspired? We don’t HAVE the originals! We have only error-ridden copies, and the vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals and different from them, evidently in thousands of ways! If one wants to insist that God inspired the very words of scripture, what would be the point if we don’t have the very words of scripture? in some places we simply cannot be sure that we have constructed the original texts accurately. It’s a bit hard to know what the words of the Bible mean if we don’t even know what the words are! the fact that we don’t have the words surely must show I reasoned, that he did not preserve the for us. And if he didn’t perform the miracle, there seemed no reason to think that he performed the earlier miracle of inspiring those words! The Bible began to appear to me as a human book. Just as human scribes had copied, and changed, the texts of scripture. This was a human book from beginning to end. It was written by different human authors at different times, places, to address different needs. many of these authors no doubt felt they were inspired by God to say what they did, but they had their own perspective, beliefs, biases,theologies, understandings, views, needs,perspectives and desires and in all these ways, they differed from each other. The bible at the end of the day, is a very human book!
You are so full of sh-t that I can smell you from here! and god is man! mythology is god! . So if god and mythology are not real, than god is not real! Every time you open your mouth, you look like a snake trying to swallow an egg!
What do YOU put your faith and believe in?
What is the opposite of faith? Facts, Proof, and Evidence because with all the facts, proof and evidence, faith would be shattered.
Proof and knowledge destroy faith. If any religion could be proved, wouldn’t we all be members of it? The fact that this diversity of spiritual beliefs exists has shown us that, so far, the only certainty we have is that our beliefs are not facts
Isn’t fact the opposite of belief?
On the evidence available today, the balance of probability favors the view that my research is correct.
The data used in my research and thinking is “true” insofar as it is possible to determine “truth.”
I have neither used bias or prejudice in my efforts for my research or attempt to ignore or fail to ignore conflicting evidence in search for the “ truth”
So you are correct in stating that they are not infallible, as your statement would also be considered “i not infallible “at least thus far .
You have no facts, evidence, or proof of anything. I’ll say that again, for the thirteenth time.
You have no facts, evidence, or proof of anything. Also…
In my writings directed at you, **not once** have I even mentioned my religion being infallible. Not a single time. Yet, there you are, accusing me of doing so.
Do you understand? You just pull things right out of your ass. It is like I am dealing with an infant. Also…
I NEVER EVER EVER EVER instigate by calling someone an “idiot” out of the gate. You did something to provoke that harsh language, either by insulting me, or someone else here.
And I see you have CREATED TWO MORE FAKE ACCOUNTS TO TROLL THIS PAGE. You understand? Those people are you, trolling some more. It’s obvious. So, who does that? Somebody with a legitimate position?
Of course not. You’re a filthy, dirty, despicable troll. That’s what you are. I’m less dignified for corresponding with you at all.
I apparently struck a nerve! And I did not nor have a desire to post fake accounts on this blog or any other It is just good to know that others have been able to smell the sh-t that is coming out of your mouth! If I have anything to say, I say it straight, I don’t hide behind some book! If I insulted you, tough sh-t to you!
There are no others; that is you, having a conversation with yourself. You’re a despicable, disgusting troll.
Carry on with your conversations with yourself; leave me out of it
If you want to stay out of it, than don’t respond stupid! It seems that in order for me to be able to have an intelligent conversation IS to talk to myself! Because in the battle of wits, you fundamental Christians and Bible thumpers come into the battle unarmed! Because you still refuse to give me references and sources to your refutations to my claims. You continue to dodge, weave avoid and cower! You putts!
“You putts!”
Yep, I’ll bet EdenRocks just might putt on the green. So, Mr. More Intelligent Than Thou, who is the putz now 😉
You still came into the battle un-armed! Yeah, like you, he’s surely putting (playing with) on something (behind the barn) and it certainly is not golf! Go worship your false idol- your Bible!
Just like edenrocks, you call me a troll claim that my research is asinine, BUT STILL you have not provided any evidence or sources that refute them!! How many times do I have to state this in order for you fools to understand my position? Just as edenrocks accuses me of adding false accounts, there is no evidence of any kind to refute it just accusations with no proof, facts or evidence. Just wind blowing out of your asses! I am and will continue to be, the thorn in your crown!.
Actually, David, I stopped responding to you some time ago; I left your last message unattended for over a week at one point. So, you’re wrong about that. But, here you are, still harassing people and inventing fake accounts to converse with yourself.
You call me a “Bible-thumper”, when I personally have not referenced The Bible in this correspondence at all; this is a point I have already made towards you, but here you are, still repeatedly vomiting it up, where it does not apply at all…here, you are dead wrong also.
Of course, you’re still spouting the same psuedo-nihilistic, ultimately useless garbage line as ever…you are on record as saying “man is God”…so, there you go.
Seriously man, when you invent fake accounts to troll this page, the line is crossed…you’re nothing but a troll…I feel bad for you…there are other ways to enjoy communication with people without forcing yourself onto them as you have done here. You’re a sick person; you should seek help.
You still have no evidence or proof that I have established false accounts! You will never find it because it doesn’t nor has it ever existed! You spew off and deny without providing refutable evidence. You accuse me of trolling. I accuse you of hypocrisy, and being a fools fool! So if you stopped responding, why are you now responding to me? Is that not being a hypocrite? You are a masochist and a glutton for punishment! You hide behind your philosophical views by your fundamentalist Christian ethics, and morals but deny the hypocrisy of it when evidence is presented to you of it! So you continue to show no evidence to the contrary but just continue to deny hide and cower! You worship words just as you accuse me of! Just what is it that you do believe in if it is not words? What do you have faith in? You are a self-serving, pious pompous arrogant illiterate who has neither the intellectual capacity or know-how to research for themselves the evidence presented. You deny the “scientific theory” without giving anything to the contrary! So stand up and fight, coward, and show me what you got!
“I apparently struck a nerve! And I did not nor have a desire to post fake accounts on this blog or any other It is just good to know that others have been able to smell the sh-t that is coming out of your mouth! If I have anything to say, I say it straight, I don’t hide behind some book! If I insulted you, tough sh-t to you!”
Am taking a giant leap by saying I hope I am the last person to respond to your sick game playing trolling and that not even one more person replies/gets sucked whatsoever into your bizarre comments again!! How about you simply consider your game as being the ‘winner’ as you have mentioned before is your ultimate goal and live happily ever after under the rock of your choice??
I already provided you with the proof. You are choosing not to “research” it. Stated again (but please look at my other post again): Believe in God and have faith. It is the ONLY way you will prove it to yourself. I have disproved you by showing you these things, as you have requested so many times, but you have yet to do your “research” (by believing in Him).
Here’s something interesting:
The Jews and Samaritans were enemies and avoided each other greatly, but when Jesus met the Samaritan woman by the well (John 4:1-42, if you wish to read it), she spoke with Him. And when she realized that He was the Messiah, she went and told her people and they believed on Him. Jesus stayed there for two days because they urged Him to stay.
In contrast, the Pharisees despised Jesus. They demanded proof that He was the Son of God, yet they ignored His miracles. The Samaritans did not ask for a sign because they believed. And get this: Jesus did not perform any miracles for them.
So you see, “proof” comes from believing, as I’ve stated before. It takes a leap of faith, yes, but if you can do that, you will find what you seek. Jesus knows your heart. You do not have to be validated by this world in order to ask for His Spirit to fill you. But once you do, the Lord will reveal Himself to you. 100% guaranteed! Everyone, no matter their sins, is acceptable to Him.
you state that proof comes from believing. That it is a leap of faith however, as i have stated many times in my lasts posts,
“Faith is needed in something that can’t be proven or its process cannot be seen”
Faith and God: It’s an ingenious hypothesis–yet to be proved.
So to me, it is a waste of time!
BB, unfortunately, you have not provided any proof of any kind. You have provided a supposition! I have provided evidence to the contrary of the “Great Flood” and provided the sources for my research with the accounts of others knowledgeable about the subject. But there are others on this blog who want me to provide a “epistimological”(philosophical) account and accuse me of “not being able to think for myself and that I lack the intellectual capacity to do so. They are so wrong! They provide nothing to be able to refute my claims or research. They preach as if they are some Great Oracle, but sound off as some Great Orifice!
Religion needs certainty. The craving for security and the comfort of emotional assurances based on the Bible or another holy book are powerful and I don’t deny them, but in reality what we have is faith and faith means—precisely—belief without knowledge or proof.
Proof and knowledge destroy faith. If any religion could be proved, wouldn’t we all be members of it? The fact that this diversity of spiritual beliefs exists has shown us that, so far, the only certainty we have is that our beliefs are not facts. Isn’t fact the opposite of belief?
It is completely unacceptable, and it will continue to be unacceptable, for anyone to say that their religion is infallible and that not only must they believe it, but everyone else must believe it and follow its teachings. We simply cannot force belief on others. We can force people to act in certain ways, but if they keep silent and comply, we don’t know what they are thinking (but I would guess that it involves a lot of anger and resentment).
I enjoy writing about my ideas but I don’t waste time worrying whether everyone believes as I do.
And I can tell you that if you read the replies from my posts they try to blow my opinions evidence and research out of the water, or they can call me a liar or say that I am misinformed. What they don’t realize is that I research before I write, not after.
Many of the people who write and reply to my posts have not even read or researched what I write about.
Just because I do not believe in the Bible or any other religion, does not mean that I have not read about them or have not researched them!
If it is your choice to believe in religion or god, so be it, as it is my choice not to believe, so be it!
The Logos, Reason, Logic, Purpose, is the Divine Force. It is what Christ is and was, and Jesus was the very essence of that incarnate.
You have never known Reason, or Logic, David… Nor have you ever learned to do proper research or form a well developed coherent opinion.
When you ask me for proofs it’s like an angry, spoiled, child who hasn’t learned to count getting angry because he wants to know how algebra works but doesn’t want to go through the effort of learning basic math and numbers.
Even the pagan had more elaborate and deeper systems of theology than you seem to understand. How should you talk about how ignorant they where when you are far less than they?
A man will not understand Reason until they accept The Reason, nor be logical without The Logos. Up until you accept logic is something beyond you that you must bend too and serve and not something you can make up to suit your fancy a talk with you is merely a dialogue with a madman.
Entertaining in some ways, but not that beneficial.
Were in the Hell did you come up with that definition of logic? Show me your source so I can research this myself. Again you hide and cower behind your book without anything to support it!
Heraclitus. Additionally John 1.
Are you and idiot? or just fucked up in the head, both probably with that stupid attitude towards progression, Atheism has provided humanity with knowledge of our selves, our surroundings and our creation. It has revealed untold wanders of the universe and of life, it has brought wander and happiness, for people to know their place in the universe.
And what has religion provided? death, pain, sorrow, endless war, murder, rape and more war. Instead of blindly believing everything a fairytale says, pick up a fucking history book,or better yet watch a documentary: it will tell you that 95% of wars have been started by religion, 100% of terrorist attacks have been caused by religion, and did I mention Christianity alone has set back the progression of the human race hundreds of years? I’m sorry for my seeming attack on your life and belief but it infinitely saddens me when people are still being manipulated by medieval men thousands of years after there deaths, and blindly believing in something that has no proof at all. I not even going to end this nicely as I did my first comment, You are an idiot, you believe in something that is not real and your “Faith” is the cause for almost all suffering throughout history.
-Bryn
Bryn:
Ok, so firstly you launch expletives at me, and call me an idiot, and then immediately proceed to offer up a post filled with grammatical errors, and confuse the word “wonder” with “wander” on multiple occasions.
So, here’s a tip, kid – if you’re going to insult somebody’s intelligence in a text-exclusive context, you should make sure that your writing does not contain frequent elementary mistakes.
Because you look foolish. Now, let’s see what you actually have to say:
1. You assert that “atheism has provided humanity with knowledge of our creation” etc. I thought that what you are referring to in this statement, most people would call “science”? Perhaps you do not know what words actually mean. So, your point here is a failure.
2. “Atheism brings happiness to people because they know their place in the universe”. And what place would that be? An insignificant speck, whose works are ultimately rendered eternally meaningless (by the doctrines of your proposed position)? And how, exactly, does that (erroneous) belief translate into “happiness”? And what is the use of “happiness”, when you are leading out a useless, meaningless existence, and the military can crush you and everyone that you love, for no reason whatsoever, and you would have to accept that as a perfectly suitable outcome for your existence, because who cares? You’re just a speck in the scheme of things. And, what is time and space anyway? What is the smallest particle? Is the universe truly “huge”, in comparison to us, if we are “infinitely large” also, as space cannot actually be measured by any system which man possesses? Therefore, your entire presentation, is a cluster of crap, which means nothing.
3. “Religion is responsible for all of the evils of the world”. Ok kid, here we go. Let’s look at “The Crusades”, which I’m sure you would point to as one of your prime examples to justify your point here. But was it lower-class, common “Christians” that massacred those people? Or rather, was it **the upper class backed by the might of the military**, and simply spouting of “Christian” values, as an attempt to both discredit Christianity, and justify their atrocities?
Do you understand?
It’s not “religion”, that is oppressing you, you foolish boy. Indeed, if you reject Christianity, you must replace it with some belief that you declare to be INFALLIBLE, even though you could never “prove” such a thing. So, you merely place your **FAITH** in secular humanism**, and worship yourself.
Ok? So, I rushed my response here, because you’re weak, and you will likely ignore these points anyway. But, you are dead wrong, and you’re out of line to speak to me that way, especially when you, yourself, are such an unskilled amateur.
Religion needs certainty. The craving for security and the comfort of emotional assurances based on the Bible or another holy book are powerful and I don’t deny them, but in reality what we have is faith and faith means—precisely—belief without knowledge or proof.
Proof and knowledge destroy faith. If any religion could be proved, wouldn’t we all be members of it? The fact that this diversity of spiritual beliefs exists has shown us that, so far, the only certainty we have is that our beliefs are not facts. Isn’t fact the opposite of belief?
It is completely unacceptable, and it will continue to be unacceptable, for anyone to say that their religion is infallible and that not only must they believe it, but everyone else must believe it and follow its teachings. We simply cannot force belief on others. We can force people to act in certain ways, but if they keep silent and comply, we don’t know what they are thinking (but I would guess that it involves a lot of anger and resentment).
I enjoy writing about my ideas but I don’t waste time worrying whether everyone believes as I do.
And I can tell you that if you read the replies from my posts they try to blow my opinions evidence and research out of the water, or they can call me a liar or say that I am misinformed. What they don’t realize is that I research before I write, not after.
Many of the people who write and reply to my posts have not even read or researched what I write about.
Just because I do not believe in the Bible or any other religion, does not mean that I have not read about them or have not researched them!
If it is your choice to believe in religion or god, so be it, as it is my choice not to believe, so be it!
Such a meaningless reply to my comment, but I will help you with scripture: “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Hebrews 11:1
You will never know the truth because you try to prove it. The ONLY way to have it proven is to believe in God and Christ:
“He who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself; he who does not believe God has made Him [God] a liar, because he has not believed the testimony that God has given of His Son.” 1 John 5:10
So you see, you will never be able to prove it because you don’t believe and have not sought Him who reveals it. Those who DO believe in God already know He is real and God has proven to them in their lives that He is real and true.
Once you get to that place in your life, you will cease trying to prove what cannot be seen.
You say that I will never know the truth because I try to prove it. If your book of lies is to be the truth, should I try to prove it? All truth should be able to be proven!
I have seen peoples faith die in the course of battle:
in the chaos of battle, when the ground beneath your feet is slurry of blood, puke and piss and the entrails of your friends and enemies alike. It’s easy to turn to god for salvation. But it is the soldiers who do the dying and God never gets his feet or hands dirty! I have heard the cries of my fellow soldiers and my enemies cry out to God for mercy, but none is shown. My soul is now empty, and it is my discontent for your Bible and Your God that fills it!
“My soul is now empty, and it is my discontent for your Bible and Your God that fills it!”
Thank you for sharing this in order to understand the rants and will pray for your soul to be refilled with tolerance instead of hatred.
One may think that given a foundational precept of Christianity is Jesus death no one would be ignorant enough to tell a Christian that ‘God never gets his hands dirty with suffering’
But this is the interwebz. New levels of ignorance being pioneered daily.
It’s called blind faith.
The fable of Noah purports to be the true story of the progenitor of the human race; however, like so many other biblical characters, Noah is a myth, found earlier in India, Egypt, Babylon, Sumer, and other places. The fact is there have been floods and deluge stories in many different parts of the world, including but not limited to the Middle East.
The biblical flood the “deluge” story was a late offshoot of a cycle of flood myths known everywhere in the ancient world. Thousands of years before the Bible was written, an ark was built by the Sumarian Ziusudra. In Akkad, the flood hero’s name was Atrakhasis. In Babylon, he was Uta-Napishtim, the only mortal to become immortal. In Greece he was Deucalion, who repopulated the earth after waters subsided {and after the ark landed on Mt. Parnassos}… In Armenia, the hero was Xisuthros- a corruption of Sumerian Ziusudra-whose ark landed on Mt Ararat. According to the original Chaldean account, the flood hero was told by god, “Build a vessel and finish it By a deluge I will destroy substance and life. cause thou to go up into the vessel the substance of all that has life.”
Obviously, then Noah’s ark is a motif found in other myths around the ancient world before the Bible was ever written!
Another story created from the many mythologies that created YOUR Bible and Religion!
To believe such a story is not only delusional but outright idiotic. Stop reading and believing in fairy tales!
Actually the biblical account of the flood has little in relation to the enuma elish, epic of gilgamesh or other flood stories other than there being a deluge. There are far too many differences and characters in these accounts from the biblical story of the flood to conclude the account in Genesis is copying or borrowing from them.
Yes but Deluge or Flood , they have the same literary meaning. And the accounts that you mention as to the stories of the Flood, were told BEFORE your bible was ever written so the biblical account is a plagiarized story taken from these sources. Again i ask to be proven wrong!
This is the case, yes.
What this really tells us is that there was, probably, a flood, and that as such, every society that experienced it, experienced it differently. It does not disprove the Noah account, but neither does it prove it.
It also, David, does not prove “plagiarism” (but, having said that, neither does it disprove it, although there is a fair amount of evidence in myth to suggest links between some of the stories–but not all).
Faith in nothing is exactly the same as faith in something–both are based in belief and a tautological one at that (for faith: the bible is true because the bible says it is; for atheism, my logic says it’s not true because my logic says it is). Neither are, truly, provable. Each to their own, I say.
I’m happy to just admit “I don’t know” and leave it at that.
Agnosticism is the most ridiculous at all.
It can be rephrased as this:
“**I know for certain** that The Truth cannot be known for certain.”
Or:
“**The One Truth** is that there is no One Truth.”
It defeats itself by its own premise…it is an untenable position. It’s “Atheism Lite”.
I mean, come on, man, you gotta pick a side on this one. Get out of here with that
David, the Aztecs had a deluge too.
It isn’t rationally plausible to think the Jews copied the Aztecs, or that the Aztecs copied the Jews.
It is also not particularly plausible to say the Aztecs where referring to a major Mesopotamian flood that was not global.
It is plausible to say that given there actually was a flood of global magnitude, almost all cultures in the world would reference it.
They do.
I will try to explain this to you without being cynical, nasty or sarcastic but in a civil manner. If my previous posts came across that way, I have my reasons!
All the flood stories that originated in the Eastern part of the ancient world derive from the Mesopotamian original, used in travelers’ tales for over two thousand years, along the great caravan routes of Western Asia: translated,embroidered, and adapted according to local tastes to give a myriad of divergent versions, a few of which have come down to us. However, the possibility of several independent origins cannot be dismissed, for the idea of a universal flood may well have risen to explain observations in different places of marine fossils in rocks above sea level. At a time when there was no conception of how geological changes took place, nor of how vast was the time-scale of evolution, moreover when the creation of man was generally supposed to have accompanied creation of the earth in its present form, an enormous flood which man by chance survived would only way to account for the presence of such marine fossils, and may have been thought up by more than one inquiring mind.
However, where flood stories are found in other parts of the world, missionaries and early Christian travelers may have disseminated ( to circulate or spread) them; there is no reason to not suppose that they are indigenous.
The flood myth is also common to the country of India where the hero of the story is refered to as Manu and the Fish
In the Gilgamesh epic of Babylonia, he is referred to as Utnapishtim
In Aztec of Mexico it is referred to as Tata and Nena ( the Aztecs did have a flood story that was clearly indigenous and preceded the arrival of the Spanish conquistadors. The american Indians give a similar account.
it would also appear that Hawaii had its own indigenous flood myth also before the arrival of missionaries. But there are two versions one clearly influenced by the bible story and one that preceded it. known as Kai-a-ka-hina-li’i translated as “Sea caused by Hahinali’i’ or as “Sea that made the chiefs fall down”
The Incas of Peru called it “the period of “Pachachama
The Egyptians also had a flood myth.
So you are correct when you say the Aztecs and other cultures from around the world had similar stories of the flood,but for obviously different reason! .
“However, where flood stories are found in other parts of the world, missionaries and early Christian travelers may have disseminated ( to circulate or spread) them; there is no reason to not suppose that they are indigenous.”
“the Aztecs did have a flood story that was clearly indigenous and preceded the arrival of the Spanish conquistadors. ”
Ok, so you do at least grant that the Aztec story was indigenous. I would also assert that Indias story is also by and large independent of Mesopotamian stories. I suppose you’d grant that as well.
Other than Europe (Ill readily grant you Nordic traditions where heavily missionary skewed by the time we got them in written form, Missionaries taught them to write so their influence predates any written record) which stories do you think are you saying where disseminated by missionaries? You’ve already conceded that the far reaches of Hawaii and North America where indigenous. Even if I grant you Asia (in a modern sense, China ect) the far reaches of the world still have organically produced deluge stories. I’ll only grant you Asia because I’ve found its history more guarded than most (until recently it was heavily guarded) and I’m not as familiar with its fine details.
On the whole it seems you’ve undermined your consistency. Many cultures independently came up with a story of the deluge, in general that indicates something of that magnitude actually happened. It’s a cop out to write it off. Now, I said before this post ice age melt theory has been used to explain it in secular terms, but that theory throws the idea of a Mesopotamian-only flood event being the basis for all Mesopotamian flood stories out the window.
But here’s the thing, if an event like the deluge actually happened we would naturally expect cultures worldwide to have some record of it. You should be able to concede that that is the reality of the situation. Secondly if it is fact you’d expect similar stories to exist in similar areas, the similarities in the Epic of Gilgamesh don’t do anything to tarnish the case for scripture. If anything they affirm it. All the data you have can and is used for the purpose of supporting scripture in the hands of a person with different suppositions. This is why the epistemology topic is so important…
Logical, Philosophical, and Theological Points
Are flood models consistent with the Bible? Creationists who write about the Flood often contradict the very story they’re trying to support. For example, Whitcomb & Morris [1961, p. 69n] suggest that large numbers of kinds of land animals became extinct because of the Flood, while Genesis repeatedly says that Noah was ordered to take a representative sample of all kinds of land animals on the Ark to save them from extinction, and that Noah did as ordered. Woodmorappe [1996, p. 3] wants to leave invertebrates (i.e., just about “every creeping thing on the ground”) off the ark. Why should we give credence to a story whose most ardent supporters abandon when it’s inconvenient?
Genesis 6-8 speaks only of rain, fountains, and a flood; it makes no mention of other catastrophes which many Creationists associate with the Flood. Their proposed Flood models not only contradict geology, they have no Biblical support, either.
How can a literal interpretation be appropriate if the text is self-contradictory? Genesis 6:20 and 7:14-15 say there were two of each kind of fowl and clean beasts, yet Genesis 7:2-3,5 says they came in sevens.
How can a literal interpretation be consistent with reality? How could Noah have gathered male and female of each kind [Gen. 7:15-16] when some species are asexual, others are parthenogenesis and have only females, and others (such as earthworms) are hermaphrodites? And what about social animals like ants and termites which need the whole nest to survive?
Why stop with the Flood story? If your style of Biblical interpretation makes you take the Flood literally, then shouldn’t you also believe in a flat and stationary earth? [Dan. 4:10-11, Matt. 4:8, 1 Chron. 16:30, Psalms 93:1, …]
In fact, is there any reason at all why the Flood story should be taken literally? Jesus used parables; why wouldn’t God do so, too?
Does a global flood make the whole Bible less credible? Davis Young, an Evangelical and geologist, wrote [p. 163]:
“The maintenance of modern creationism and Flood geology not only is useless apologetically with unbelieving scientists, it is harmful. Although many who have no scientific training have been swayed by creationist arguments, the unbelieving scientist will reason that a Christianity that believes in such nonsense must be a religion not worthy of his interest. . . . Modern creationism in this sense is apologetically and evangelistic ally ineffective. It could even be a hindrance to the gospel.
“Another possible danger is that in presenting the gospel to the lost and in defending God’s truth we ourselves will seem to be false. It is time for Christian people to recognize that the defense of this modern, young-Earth, Flood-geology creationism is simply not truthful. It is simply not in accord with the facts that God has given. Creationism must be abandoned by Christians before harm is done. . . .”
Another Christian scientist said, “Creationism is an incredible pain in the neck, neither honest nor useful, and the people who advocate it have no idea how much damage they are doing to the credibility of belief.” [quoted in Easterbrook, 1997, p. 891]
Does the Flood story indicate an omnipotent God?
• If God is omnipotent, why not kill what He wanted killed directly? Why resort to a roundabout method that requires innumerable additional miracles?
• The whole idea was to rid the wicked people from the world. Did it work?
Finally, even if the flood model weren’t riddled by all these problems, why should we accept it? What it does attempt to explain is already explained far more accurately, consistently, and thoroughly by conventional geology and biology, and the flood model leaves many other things unexplained, even explainable. How is flood geology useful?
References
Easterbrook, Gregg, 1997. Science and God: a warming trend? Science 277: 890-893.
Whitcomb, J.C. Jr. & H.M. Morris, 1961. The Genesis Flood. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Philadelphia PA.
Woodmorappe, John, 1996. Noah’s ark: A feasibility study. Institute for Creation Research, Santee, California.
Young, Davis, 1988. Christianity and the Age of the Earth. Artisan Sales, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Problems with the Global Flood
Building the Ark
Wood is not the best material for shipbuilding. It is not enough that a ship be built to hold together; it must also be sturdy enough that the changing stresses don’t open gaps in its hull. Wood is simply not strong enough to prevent separation between the joints, especially in the heavy seas that the Ark would have encountered. The longest wooden ships in modern seas are about 300 feet, and these require reinforcing with iron straps and leak so badly they must be constantly pumped. The ark was 450 feet long [ Gen. 6:15]. Could an ark that size be made seaworthy?
2. Gathering the Animals
Bringing all kinds of animals together in the vicinity of the ark presents significant problems.
Could animals have traveled from elsewhere? If the animals traveled from other parts of the world, many of them would have faced extreme difficulties.
Some, like sloths and penguins, can’t travel overland very well at all.
Some, like koalas and many insects, require a special diet. How did they bring it along?
Some cave-dwelling arthropods can’t survive in less than 100% relative humidity.
Some, like dodos, must have lived on islands. If they didn’t, they would have been easy prey for other animals. When mainland species like rats or pigs are introduced to islands, they drive many indigenous species to extinction. Those species would not have been able to survive such competition if they lived where mainland species could get at them before the Flood.
Could animals have all lived near Noah? Some creationists suggest that the animals need not have traveled far to reach the Ark; a moderate climate could have made it possible for all of them to live nearby all along. However, this proposal makes matters even worse. The last point above would have applied not only to island species, but to almost all species. Competition between species would have driven most of them to extinction.
There is a reason why Gila monsters, yaks, and quetzals don’t all live together in a temperate climate. They can’t survive there, at least not for long without special care. Organisms have preferred environments outside of which they are at a deadly disadvantage. Most extinctions are caused by destroying the organisms’ preferred environments. The creationists who propose all the species living together in a uniform climate are effectively proposing the destruction of all environments but one. Not many species could have survived that.
How was the Ark loaded? Getting all the animals aboard the Ark presents logistical problems which, while not impossible, are highly impractical. Noah had only seven days to load the Ark ( Gen. 7:4-10). If only 15764 animals were aboard the Ark (see section 3), one animal must have been loaded every 38 seconds, without letup. Since there were likely more animals to load, the time pressures would have been even worse.
3. Fitting the Animals Aboard
To determine how much space is required for animals, we must first determine what is a kind, how many kinds were aboard the ark, and how big they were.
What is a kind? Creationists themselves can’t decide on an answer to this question; they propose criteria ranging from species to order, and I have even seen an entire kingdom (bacteria) suggested as a single kind. Woodmorappe (p. 5-7) compromises by using genus as a kind. However, on the ark “kind” must have meant something closer to species for three reasons:
For purposes of naming animals, the people who live among them distinguish between them (that is, give them different names) at roughly the species level. [Gould, 1980]
The Biblical “kind,” according to most interpretations, implies reproductive separateness. On the ark, the purpose of gathering different kinds was to preserve them by later reproduction. Species, by definition, is the level at which animals are reproductively distinct.
The Flood, according to models, was fairly recent. There simply wouldn’t have been time enough to accumulate the number of mutations necessary for the diversity of species we see within many genera today.
What kinds were aboard the ark? Woodmorappe and Whitcomb & Morris arbitrarily exclude all animals except mammals, birds, and reptiles. However, many other animals, particularly land arthropods, must also have been on the ark for two reasons:
The Bible says so. Gen. 7:8 puts on the ark all creatures that move along the ground, with no further qualifications. Lev. 11:42 includes arthropods (creatures that “walk on many feet”) in such a category.
They couldn’t survive outside. Gen. 7:21-23 says every land creature not aboard the ark perished. And indeed, not one insect species in a thousand could survive for half a year on the vegetation mats proposed by some creationists. Most other land arthropods, snails, slugs, earthworms, etc. would also have to be on the ark to survive.
Were dinosaurs and other extinct animals on the ark? According to the Bible, Noah took samples of all animals alive at the time of the Flood. If, as creationists claim, all fossil-bearing strata were deposited by the Flood, then all the animals which became fossils were alive then. Therefore all extinct land animals had representatives aboard the ark.
It is also worth pointing out that the number of extinct species is undoubtedly greater than the number of known extinct species. New genera of dinosaurs have been discovered at a nearly constant rate for more than a century, and there’s no indication that the rate of discovery will fall off in the near future.
Were the animals aboard the ark mature? Woodmorappe gets his animals to fit only by taking juvenile pairs of everything weighing more than 22 lbs. as an adult. However, it is more likely that Noah would have brought adults aboard:
The Bible (Gen. 7:2) speaks of “the male and his mate,” indicating that the animals were at sexual maturity.
Many animals require the care of adults to teach them behaviors they need for survival. If brought aboard as juveniles, these animals wouldn’t have survived.
The last point does not apply to all animals. However, the animals don’t need parental care tend to be animals that mature quickly, and thus would be close to adult size after a year of growth anyway.
How many clean animals were on the ark? The Bible says either seven or fourteen (it’s ambiguous) of each kind of clean animal was aboard. It defines clean animals essentially as ruminants, a suborder which includes about 69 recent genera, 192 recent species [Wilson & Reeder, 1993], and probably a comparable number of extinct genera and species. That is a small percentage of the total number of species, but ruminants are among the largest mammals, so their bulk is significant.
Woodmorappe (p. 8-9) gets around the problem by citing Jewish tradition which gives only 13 domestic genera as clean. He then calculates that this would increase the total animal mass by 2-3% and decides that this amount is small enough that he can ignore it completely. However, even Jewish sources admit that this contradicts the unambiguous word of the Bible. [Steinsaltz, 1976, p. 187]
The number and size of clean birds is small enough to disregard entirely, but the Bible at one point (Gen. 7:3) says seven of all kinds of birds were aboard.
So, could they all fit? It is important to take the size of animals into account when considering how much space they would occupy because the greatest number of species occurs in the smallest animals. Woodmorappe performed such an analysis and came to the conclusion that the animals would take up 47% of the ark. In addition, he determines that about 10% of the ark was needed for food (compacted to take as little space as possible) and 9.4% for water (assuming no evaporation or wastage). At least 25% of the space would have been needed for corridors and bracing. Thus, increasing the quantity of animals by more than about 5% would overload the ark.
However, Woodmorappe makes several questionable and invalid assumptions. Here’s how the points discussed above affect his analysis. Table 1 shows Woodmorappe’s analysis and some additional calculations.
Table 1: Size analysis of animals aboard the Ark. Page numbers refer to Woodmorappe, 1996, from which the figures in the row are taken. (Minor arithmetic errors in totals are corrected.) Woodmorappe treats many animals as juveniles; “yearling” masses are masses of those animals after one year of growth. “Total mass after one year” is the maximum load which Woodmorappe allows for. Additional clean animal figures assume they are taken aboard by sevens, not seven pairs, and also assume juvenile animals.
Log mass range (g) 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8
Ave. mass (kg) (p. 13) .005 .05 .5 5 50 316 3160 31600
# of mammals (p. 10) 466 1570 1378 1410 1462 892 246 7424
# of birds (p. 10) 630 2272 1172 450 70 4 4598
# of reptiles (p. 10) 642 844 688 492 396 286 270 106 3724
total # of animals 1738 4686 3238 2352 1928 1182 516 106 15746
Ave. yearling mass (kg) (p. 66) .005 .05 .5 5 10 100 300 1000
Total mass after one year 8.7 234.3 1619 11760 19280 118200 154800 106000 411902
Total mass assuming adults 8.7 234.3 1619 11760 96400 373512 1630560 3349600 5463694
Additional clean birds 1575 5680 2930 1125 175 10 11495
Additional ruminants (138 genera) 260 420 10 690
Additional clean animal mass (yearling weight, kg) 8 284 1465 5625 4350 43000 3000 47600
Collecting each species instead of each genus would increase the number of individuals three- to fourfold. The most specious groups tend to be the smaller animals, though, so the total mass would be approximately doubled or tripled.
Collecting all land animals instead of just mammals, birds, and reptiles would have insignificant impact on the space required, since those animals, though plentiful, are so small. (The problems come when you try to care for them all.)
Leaving off the long-extinct animals would free considerable space. Woodmorappe doesn’t say how many of the animals in his calculations are known only from fossils, but it is apparently 50-70% of them, including most of the large ones. However, since he took only juveniles of the large animals, leaving off all the dinosaurs etc. would probably not free more than 80% of the space. On the other hand, collecting all extinct animals in addition to just the known ones would increase the load by an unknown but probably substantial amount.
Loading adults instead of juveniles as small as Woodmorappe uses would increase the load 13- to 50-fold.
Including extra clean animals would increase the load by 1.5-3% if only the 13 traditional domestic ruminants are considered, but by 14-28% if all ruminants are considered clean.
In conclusion, an ark of the size specified in the Bible would not be large enough to carry a cargo of animals and food sufficient to repopulate the earth, especially if animals that are now extinct were required to be aboard.
References
Gould, Stephen Jay, 1980. A quahog is a quahog. In The panda’s thumb, Norton, New York.
Steinsaltz, Adin, 1976. The essential Talmud. Basic books.
Whitcomb, J.C. Jr. & H.M. Morris, 1961. The Genesis Flood. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Philadelphia PA.
Wilson, D.E. & D.M. Reeder (eds.), 1993. Mammal species of the world. Smithsonian Institution Press. (http://www.nmnh.si.edu/msw/)
Woodmorappe, John, 1996. Noah’s Ark: a feasibility study. Institute for Creation Research, Santee, California.
4. Caring for the Animals
Special diets. Many animals, especially insects, require special diets. Koalas, for example, require eucalyptus leaves, and silkworms eat nothing but mulberry leaves. For thousands of plant species (perhaps even most plants), there is at least one animal that eats only that one kind of plant. How did Noah gather all those plants aboard, and where did he put them?
Other animals are strict carnivores, and some of those specialize on certain kinds of foods, such as small mammals, insects, fish, or aquatic invertebrates. How did Noah determine and provide for all those special diets?
Fresh foods. Many animals require their food to be fresh. Many snakes, for example, will eat only live foods (or at least warm and moving). Parasitoid wasps only attack living prey. Most spiders locate their prey by the vibrations it produces. [Foelix, 1996] Most herbivorous insects require fresh food. Aphids, in fact, are physically incapable of sucking from wilted leaves. How did Noah keep all these food supplies fresh?
Food preservation/Pest control. Food spoilage is a major concern on long voyages; it was especially thus before the inventions of canning and refrigeration. The large quantities of food aboard would have invited infestations of any of hundreds of stored product pests (especially since all of those pests would have been aboard), and the humidity one would expect aboard the Ark would have provided an ideal environment for molds. How did Noah keep pests from consuming most of the food?
Ventilation. The ark would need to be well ventilated to disperse the heat, humidity, and waste products (including methane, carbon dioxide, and ammonia) from the many thousands of animals which were crowded aboard. Woodmorappe (pp. 37-42) interprets Genesis 6:16 to mean there was an 18-inch opening all around the top, and says that this, with slight breezes, would have been enough to provide adequate ventilation. However, the ark was divided into separate rooms and decks (Gen. 6:14,16). How was fresh air circulated throughout the structure?
Sanitation. The ungulates alone would have produced tons of manure a day. The waste on the lowest deck at least (and possibly the middle deck) could not simply be pushed overboard, since the deck was below the water line; the waste would have to be carried up a deck or two. Vermin composting could reduce the rate of waste accumulation, but it requires maintenance of its own. How did such a small crew dispose of so much waste?
Exercise/Animal handling. The animals aboard the ark would have been in very poor shape unless they got regular exercise. (Imagine if you had to stay in an area the size of a closet for a year.) How were several thousand diverse kinds of animals exercised regularly?
Manpower for feeding, watering, etc. How did a crew of eight manage a menagerie larger and more diverse than that found in zoos requiring many times that many employees? Woodmorappe claims that eight people could care for 16000 animals, but he makes many unrealistic and invalid assumptions. Here are a few things he didn’t take into account:
Feeding the animals would take much longer if the food was in containers to protect it from pests.
Many animals would have to be hand-fed.
Watering several animals at once via troughs would not work aboard a ship. The water would be sloshed out by the ship’s roll.
Many animals, in such an artificial environment, would have required additional special care. For example, all of the hoofed animals would need to have their hooves trimmed several times during the year. [Batten, 1976, pp. 39-42]
Not all manure could be simply pushed overboard; a third of it at least would have to be carried up at least one deck.
Corpses of the dead animals would have to be removed regularly.
Animals can’t be expected to run laps and return to their cages without a lot of human supervision.
References
Batten, R. Peter, 1976. Living trophies. Thomas Y. Crowell Co., New York.
Foelix, Rainer F., 1996. The biology of spiders, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, New York. Chpt. 6.
Woodmorappe, John, 1996. Noah’s Ark: a feasibility study. Institute for Creation Research, Santee, California.
5. The Flood Itself
Where did the Flood water come from, and where did it go? Several people have proposed answers to these questions, but none which consider all the implications of their models. A few of the commonly cited models are addressed below.
Vapor canopy. This model, proposed by Whitcomb & Morris and others, proposes that much of the Flood water was suspended overhead until the 40 days of rain which caused the Flood. The following objections are covered in more detail by Brown.
How was the water suspended, and what caused it to fall all at once when it did?
If a canopy holding the equivalent to more than 40 feet of water were part of the atmosphere, it would raise the atmospheric pressure accordingly, raising oxygen and nitrogen levels to toxic levels.
If the canopy began as vapor, any water from it would be super-heated. This scenario essentially starts with most of the Flood waters boiled off. Noah and company would be poached. If the water began as ice in orbit, the gravitational potential energy would likewise raise the temperature past boiling.
A canopy of any significant thickness would have blocked a great deal of light, lowering the temperature of the earth greatly before the Flood.
Any water above the ozone layer would not be shielded from ultraviolet light, and the light would break apart the water molecules.
Hydro plate. Walt Brown’s model proposes that the Flood waters came from a layer of water about ten miles underground, which was released by a catastrophic rupture of the earth’s crust, shot above the atmosphere, and fell as rain.
How was the water contained? Rock, at least the rock which makes up the earth’s crust, doesn’t float. The water would have been forced to the surface long before Noah’s time, or Adam’s time for that matter.
Even a mile deep, the earth is boiling hot, and thus the reservoir of water would be super-heated. Further heat would be added by the energy of the water falling from above the atmosphere. As with the vapor canopy model, Noah would have been poached.
Where is the evidence? The escaping waters would have eroded the sides of the fissures, producing poorly sorted basaltic erosion deposits. These would be concentrated mainly near the fissures, but some would be shot thousands of miles along with the water. (Noah would have had to worry about falling rocks along with the rain.) Such deposits would be quite noticeable but have never been seen.
Comet. Kent Hovind proposed that the Flood water came from a comet which broke up and fell on the earth. Again, this has the problem of the heat from the gravitational potential energy. The water would be steam by the time it reached the surface of the earth.
Runaway subduction. John Baumgardner created the runaway subduction model, which proposes that the pre-Flood lithosphere (ocean floor), being denser than the underlying mantle, began sinking. The heat released in the process decreased the viscosity of the mantle, so the process accelerated catastrophically. All the original lithosphere became subducted; the rising magma which replaced it raised the ocean floor, causing sea levels to rise and boiling off enough of the ocean to cause 150 days of rain. When it cooled, the ocean floor lowered again, and the Flood waters receded. Sedimentary mountains such as the Sierras and Andes rose after the Flood by ISO-static rebound. [Baumgardner, 1990a; Austin et al., 1994]
The main difficulty of this theory is that it admittedly doesn’t work without miracles. [Baumgardner, 1990a, 1990b] The thermal diffusion of the earth, for example, would have to increase 10,000 fold to get the subduction rates proposed [Matsumura, 1997], and miracles are also necessary to cool the new ocean floor and to raise sedimentary mountains in months rather than in the millions of years it would ordinarily take.
Baumgardner estimates a release of 1028 joules from the subduction process. This is more than enough to boil off all the oceans. In addition, Baumgardner postulates that the mantle was much hotter before the Flood (giving it greater viscosity); that heat would have to go somewhere, too.
Cenozoic sediments are post-Flood according to this model. Yet fossils from Cenozoic sediments alone show a 65-million-year record of evolution, including a great deal of the diversification of mammals and angiosperms. [Carroll, 1997, chpts. 5, 6, & 13]
Subduction on the scale Baumgardner proposes would have produced very much more vulcanization around plate boundaries than we see. [Matsumura, 1997]
New ocean basins. Most flood models (including those above, possibly excepting Hovind’s) deal with the water after the flood by proposing that it became our present oceans. The earth’s terrain, according to this model, was much, much flatter during the Flood, and through cataclysms, the mountains were pushed up and the ocean basins lowered. (Brown proposes that the cataclysms were caused by the crust sliding around on a cushion of water; Whitcomb & Morris don’t give a cause.)
How could such a change be effected? To change the density and/or temperature of at least a quarter of the earth’s crust fast enough to raise and lower the ocean floor in a matter of months would require mechanisms beyond any proposed in any of the flood models.
Why are most sediments on high ground? Most sediments are carried until the water slows down or stops. If the water stopped in the oceans, we should expect more sediments there. Baumgardner’s own modeling shows that, during the Flood, currents would be faster over continents than over ocean basins [Baumgardner, 1994], so sediments should, on the whole, be removed from continents and deposited in ocean basins. Yet sediments on the ocean basin average 0.6 km thick, while on continents (including continental shelves), they average 2.6 km thick. [Poldervaart, 1955]
Where’s the evidence? The water draining from the continents would have produced tremendous torrents. There is evidence of similar flooding in the Scab Lands of Washington state (from the draining of a lake after the breaking of an ice dam) and on the far western floor of the Mediterranean Sea (from the ocean breaking through the Straits of Gibralter). Why is such evidence not found worldwide?
How did the ark survive the process? Such a wholesale restructuring of the earth’s topography, compressed into just a few months, would have produced tsunamis large enough to circle the earth. The aftershocks alone would have been devastating for years afterwards.
References
Austin, Steven A., John R. Baumgardner, D. Russell Humphreys, Andrew A. Snelling, Larry Vardiman, & Kurt P. Wise, 1994. Catastrophic plate tectonics: a global flood model of earth history. Proceedings of the third international conference on creationism, technical symposium sessions, pp. 609-621.
Brown, Walt, 1997. In the beginning: compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. ( http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook)
Baumgardner, John R., 1990a. Changes accompanying Noah’s Flood. Proceedings of the second international conference on creationism, vol. II, pp. 35-45.
Baumgardner, John R., 1990b. The imparative of non-stationary natural law in relation to Noah’s Flood. Creation Research Society Quarterly 27(3): 98-100.
Baumgardner, John R., 1994. Patterns of ocean circulation over the continents during Noah’s Flood. Proceedings of the third international conference on creationism, technical symposium sessions, pp. 77-86.
Carroll, Robert L., 1997. Patterns and processes of vertebrate evolution, Cambridge University Press.
Matsumura, Molleen, 1997. Miracles in, creationism out: “The geophysics of God”. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 17(3): 29-32.
Poldervaart, Arie, 1955. Chemistry of the earth’s crust. pp. 119-144 In: Poldervaart, A., ed., Crust of the Earth, Geological Society of America Special Paper 62, Waverly Press, MD.
Whitcomb, J.C. Jr. & H.M. Morris, 1961. The Genesis Flood. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Philadelphia PA.
6. Implications of a Flood
A global flood would have produced evidence contrary to the evidence we see.
How do you explain the relative ages of mountains? For example, why weren’t the Sierra Nevadas eroded as much as the Appalachians during the Flood?
Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. [Johnsen et al, 1992,; Alley et al, 1993] A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn’t such evidence show up?
How are the polar ice caps even possible? Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn’t regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions.
Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a massive extinction, and (n) other characters. Why do none of these show up?
Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time. [Becker & Kromer, 1993; Becker et al, 1991; Stuiver et al, 1986]
References
Alley, R. B., D. A. Meese, C. A. Shuman, A. J. Gow, K.C. Taylor, P. M. Grootes, J. W. C. White, M. Ram, E. W. Waddington, P. A. Mayewski, & G. A. Zielinski, 1993. Abrupt increase in Greenland snow accumulation at the end of the Younger Dryas event. Nature 362: 527-529.
Becker, B. & Kromer, B., 1993. The continental tree-ring record – absolute chronology, C-14 calibration and climatic-change at 11 KA. Palaeogeography Palaeoclimatology Palaeoecology, 103 (1-2): 67-71.
Becker, B., Kromer, B. & Trimborn, P., 1991. A stable-isotope tree-ring timescale of the late glacial Holocene boundary. Nature 353 (6345): 647-649.
Johnsen, S. J., H. B. Clausen, W. Dansgaard, K. Fuhrer, N. Gundestrap, C. U. Hammer, P. Iversen, J. Jouzel, B. Stauffer, & J. P. Steffensen, 1992. Irregular glacial interstadials recorded in a new Greenland ice core. Nature 359: 311-313.
Stuiver, Minze, et al, 1986. Radiocarbon age calibration back to 13,300 years BP and the 14 C age matching of the German Oak and US bristlecone pine chronologies. IN: Calibration issue / Stuiver, Minze, et al., Radiocarbon 28(2B): 969-979.
So again, the evidence is out there and the sources have been noted to my research!
There is a time in which you must answer a simple question before proceeding. That is the one of your Epistomological structure. I was kind enough to lay out more or less what the major structures are and why they are what they are. Unless you come to terms with epistemology gobs of raw information cannot really be processed into categories of being ‘true’ or ‘false’ or even ‘relevant’ or ‘irreverent’.
Though, to clarify, i will let you know that citing a bunch of random peoples views on a topic is more or less ‘irreverent’ at any stage of the conversation under any structure.
If you cannot so much as stand up for yourself and say what you beleive and why then why would you think any raw data (that is what you’ve presented, not evidence in any way, shape, or form) would be relevant to change the views of anyone else?
More importantly you seem unable to think for yourself. Citing data and providing your reasoning on its implications is a good thing, citing someone else’s reasoning on someone else’s data shows only that you’re not very capable of thinking for yourself. Most of the questions you’ve asked are so pedantic that if you took the time to think about them you could solve them yourself.
But you are not the sort of person that actually thinks for himself are you? If you where you could at least attempt to grapple with the basic philosophical questions I’ve posed to you. Now you’re merely trying to deflect your own failings by spamming bulk data. How droll.
To say something more concisely. It is intellectually pathetic to attempt to avoid a simple question about your beliefs by spamming as many questions as available to you about another.
It is a sign you cannot think for yourself, despite what you like to claim. We can address all that spam you posted and more if it comes to it, but it will not. You don’t have the intellectual foundation to make meaningful claims against anyone elses points of view. You don’t even have the intellectual foundation to make meaningful claims period.
So you state that you are the only one who has the intellectual foundation to make meaningful claims against anyone else point of view and if anyone else opposes that view is non-philosophical.? That has to be the most pompous, biased self-righteous, self serving arrogant response that I have ever witnessed so far on this blog. I never avoided your question I simply gave my thoughts on the matter as well as others views to the question stated. Yet they are people who have studied the material at hand researched it . You on the other hand have done none of that because you believe that God is the philosophical answer to all of life’s questions. You too are unable to think for yourself because you have let the thinking of men from a history of long ago who have written their thoughts and views into a book (Bible) influence your thinking! So unless you come to terms that the world has more to offer than Epistemology, your mind will always be closed to new thoughts, information, technology and ideas–and will forever remain–stagnant and when things become stagnant, they rot!
“So you state that you are the only one who has the intellectual foundation to make meaningful claims against anyone else point of view and if anyone else opposes that view is non-philosophical.?”
I did not in fact say anything like that.
Bear in mind this is one hell of a disorganized blog comment section (I’m really amazed by how bad it is for such a major blog, and probably won’t comment here in the long term due to it), and at this point your post re cohesivism had not come up yet.
However do remember that epistemology is the study of proof, without it you can’t even properly understand where you’re coming from, much less anyone else.
On one of your later posts to me you asked me if i believe the scholars because they are scholars or if i have done the work and research myself. I have to honestly say to you that i have. As a teacher and science, math, and history major., both responses would be correct. It is not because they agree with my analysis and research or I with theirs. It is because they are knowledgeable of the subjects and “theories” and as I have come to the same conclusions as to the evidence, proof and facts presented. So it is my opinion that if the results are consistent under the same situations and conditions, than it is reasonable to assume that in all probability they are true.
You put your faith and belief in philosophy. Do you follow the philosophers for the same reasons that you accuse me for following the scholars because you also believe that if you do you will appear smart? You mention faith but what is faith? faith is the belief in something that cannot be proven or its process cannot be seen. What is the opposite of faith? Facts, Proof, and Evidence because with all the facts, proof and evidence, faith would be shattered.
Proof and knowledge destroy faith. If any religion could be proved, wouldn’t we all be members of it? The fact that this diversity of spiritual beliefs exists has shown us that, so far, the only certainty we have is that our beliefs are not facts. Isn’t fact the opposite of belief?
You also asked if I let the experts do the thinking for me. If my research and conclusions coincide with theirs, I would have to say that I do as they are more knowledgeable than I. But on the other hand if my results are different than theirs I research and try to find where they or I are wrong and will continue to search for the truth. So the principles of learning are not “finite’ but infinite and without boundaries.
In conclusion, I would say that we are both guilty of following those who are more knowledgeable than we are but for different reasons.
So your hypocrisy also has no boundaries.
“The best thing about this movie is seeing all of the attacks by the athiests who attack and mock the Christians, just like in the story of Noah itself where the world attacked him for protecting his faith – and look what happened to them THEN. As it was in the days of Noah, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. The righteous will be taken to safety while the wicked are destroyed.
Christians, revel in John 15:18-25”
Amen and well said, BB!!
deelilynn, thank you! I wish the world was not so bitter. Why do so many atheists like to spend so much time trying to convince Christians to change their minds? What do they gain from that? Surely the workings of Satan at hand.
And thank you for replying to me, BB!!
The only common denominators I have seen with most of my friends and acquaintances who are atheists is their attitude of self importance and lack of empathy for those who do not think, believe or live the way they do. One other thing I’ve noticed is that much of the time they lack basic human courtesy. For example, I stopped even inviting a couple of buddies over because they felt they didn’t need to follow my house rule of removing their shoes inside the front door and would even help themselves to food and beverages at will without those items even being offered and doing so knowing I am severely physically disabled and on a very limited income.
I also find it interesting how so many atheists complain how they don’t like those who are religious preaching God to them and yet they do the same in reverse. I guess they simply don’t see the hypocrisy of that??
In Christ,
Deeli
Pingback: In the Spirit of Aronofysky’s ‘Pi,’ Here’s a Mathematical Proof that ‘Noah’ Would Have Pissed Everyone Off, No Matter What | The Western Branch of American Reform Presbylutheranism
I applaud your writing. You nailed it completely. Excellent work. You have a new fan.
I don’t presume you are reading this necessarily, but my people will be contacting you at some point in the future because we would like you to review our movie (which has been released and reviewed by other major critics). We deal with Christian themes and you you will appreciate what we have done (it lambastes the industry).
In regards to anyone else who reads this, posting:
This article is infallible, logically; his takes are spot on; he has figured it out. Those of you who reject Christianity must vicariously replace it with some sort of system, which is ultimately nothing/self-worship. Also, keep in mind that not all factions that claim to represent Christians actually do so (I’m thinking of a place in Rome).
Man this article kicks ass.
You say you are a Christian and you know the Bible well, Than you should know that the Bible is a consolidation of mythologies and theologies from many Pagan religions of the ancients. Egyptian, Babylonian, Mithra, India, Greek, Assyrian, and many other ancient religions to name a few, and is NOT unique in its structure. So to believe in such a fabrication of fables and fairy tales is not only delusional, but out right insanity
“You say you are a Christian and you know the Bible well, Than you should know that the Bible is a consolidation of mythologies and theologies from many Pagan religions of the ancients. Egyptian, Babylonian, Mithra, India, Greek, Assyrian, and many other ancient religions to name a few, and is NOT unique in its structure. So to believe in such a fabrication of fables and fairy tales is not only delusional, but out right insanity.”
Quite humorous that you have copy and pasted this at least two if not three dozen times. Talk about a broken record 😉
Maybe so, But you have chosen to ignore its content because have provided no evidence to disprove it! You are therefore dodging, avoiding and cowering from the issue at hand! You are afraid to confront it head on. If you are so sure as to the evidence that you have, Please provide it so I may review it and pass a reasonable assessment to it and the sources for your evidence!
That is all I ask!
Lol @ David…. Not one shred of archaeology has disproven the Bible…. zero! Yet you claim its a book of “fables and fairy tales”. Archaeology has validated events, places, people and civilizations within the Bible so you cannot discredit the book in its entirety.
Try and convince me (an ex atheist and former criminal) that the word of God is not real. You can dispute whatever floats your boat in the Bible but you have no valid argument when it comes to discrediting an individual’s faith, love and forgiveness. And this is coming from someone with a masters degree and raised in an atheist household.
Finally, if the message contained in the Bible changes people’s lives for the better, then what do you gain from trying to tear it down? Don’t we all benefit fom a more loving and moral society?
If you can prove to me any facts as to the reality and historical account of the characters and events as to your bible from genesis to revelations, and the sources for your research so that i can thoroughly investigate this myself! In the event that I should “miraculously” find it to be true, I will humbly concede my responses to you all and apologize ! So I challenge you! I do believe that some of the places mentioned in the bible existed, however, the stories related to SOME of the characters are fictional and without merit!
If you are happy with the way your life is and your book changed your life for the better, I applaud you! But if I choose to Not believe in your god or book but still choose a righteous path,should I too not be happy with my life? I am not a sin!
“But if I choose to Not believe in your god or book but still choose a righteous path,should I too not be happy with my life? I am not a sin!”
It’s time all of us here ignore your nutty ranting so you’ll get bored and go way … It is truly sad if you consider how you speak to people here as a righteous path …
Why do you want me to go away so badly? Is it because I do not believe in your views? This is a blog which entitles me and you to post opinions and comments for the sake of discussion, debate, argument or critique whether we may agree with each others point(s) or not!
So< I will continue to comment as I wish. You do not have to respond if what i say offends you or if you agree. That is YOUR choice!
I am not the one to have an obtuse and pedantic hardcore theological/intellectual debate on the contents of the entire work: The Bible. I’m sure there are many others that are happy to have such a debate, even on this forum. I deal with logic.
You assert that your research of ancient times is superior to a simple Christian’s own research, which may be limited to The Bible.
But you weren’t there. Besides, even if, as a minor contribution, there were “updated” versions of “legends” told all over the world that appeared in The Bible, that does not make the whole of its contents false. Your argument is absurd.
You’re just trolling this page, and your position is actually quite weak.
If your research is so superior to mine, prove to me that I am wrong, and I will humbly concede!
It just strikes me that a woman such as yourself, who appears to have some logical reasoning, could possibly believe such a fallacy! But than again, I may be putting to much faith in you!.
You place infallibility in the scientific method, and only the phenomenon which can be measured by the five physical senses of humans.
That is, you speak as if these things are INFALLIBLE.
Do you understand?
You incessantly drop the words “FACT” and “PROOF”, as if by so doing, your eternal victory is achieved.
But that’s nonsense. There is no “proof” of anything.
Take gravity, for example. There is no hardcore scientific “proof” that it even exists. All the thousands of years of research by our alleged greatest minds, and nobody can figure that one out.
That is just a poetic example. But what you are doing here, is preaching. Nothing more. You are not utilizing logic at all. And who would choose your poetry, over the works of Christ? Who indeed? I’ve had a near death experience. Do you understand? I dare not confront what awaits me with some system of my own design, or knowledge of the scientific method! What foolishness.
Now stop with your trolling.
You are using a straw-man analogy and you definitely are a POE!
You tell me to stop my trolling, I thought that is what this blog was all ab out stupid, it is to express opinions and comments whether you may approve of them or not!
You are all missing the REAL PROBLEM WITH THIS FILM! Regardless of weather its accurate or based on the bible, its boring as hell. This is the lamest film of all time nobody wants to see it. Only Russell Crow could pull off such a boring film and still make the acting look good.
I understand that you have retracted your insistence on the infallibility of what you have previously asserted were “FACTS” and “PROOF” and now refer to your posts as “OPINIONS”!
Therefore, you should make no more posts to assert that your position is based on anything that can be “proven” at all! So stop harassing people with that line. Just state it for what it is: your “opinion”! And good luck convincing people to disbelief in Christ with such a line.
Your position is actually pseudo-nihilism (atheism parades as nihilism, but true nihilism is something different). It’s silly…you don’t understand what you are actually claiming to represent. Of course, I can understand your desire to hold a “logical” position, but you do not apply any sort of hardcore analysis to your own position, as you seem eager to do to attempt to “debunk” theism.
Do you understand?
You tell me that my argument is weak, yet you provide no Facts to discredit or disprove my claims I have given you Facts and sources and references. You provide none. So whose argument REALLY is Weak? If I am wrong, I will apologize to all and humbly concede. Show me what you got!
Look, man, I haven’t seen a bloody battle. There’s nobody that is going to hold your hand and use some combination of words to make you change your paradigm instantly.
But you need to understand that when you throw words around like “FACTS” and “PROOF” that those are only words, man. Do you understand? You have nothing infallible to present. All you have is the “collective opinion of many ‘official’ men in our society”. You got nothing. And what does that system provide for someone such as you, who has experienced horror?
God is surely a mystery. But who can claim to know His mind? Surely not I, or you. It is not for me to decide His methods. If it was me, I would not have soldiers to suffer horribly so that the rich overlords can profit.
But I am a man, and man’s mind cannot possibly process the “mind” of God.
You are being unreasonable, because on the one hand, you admit freely to possess no actual “facts” at all; yet you harangue multiple other posters badgering them as if you do.
That is dishonest and dishonorable. You ought to stop.
POE = Profession of Eternity, Provider of Enlightenment, Proof of Eden. I am a POE too 🙂
I have given him proof, but he won’t research it (accept and seek out God) to find out for himself. He’s an antagonist, athiest, and a fool.
You have provided me with nothing for facts or proof! What your Bible?
However if the mind is so clouded by fabulous tales of gods and other mythical creatures, how can it be clear enough to interpret data properly?
: Always be allowed to Doubt, to Question!
This idea indicates that it wishes all of us to recognize the need for always being allowed to question, to explore, and not be forced into belief of anything. You may accept something partially, believe something, but keep some of your doubts at all times in order to evaluate the concepts and ideas, which you hold clear, for that creates a healthy mind, one which is not closed by some programming, but one which can evaluate, study and explore from evidence. This idea reminds you, the mind is never truly thinking until it turns and questions everything it knows.
So AGAIN , I ASK THAT YOU PROVIDE PROOF THAT YOUR BIBLE IS NOT A CONGLOMERATION OF FABLES, MYTHS AND LEGENDS PASSED DOWN FROM MANY CULTURES THROUGHOUT HISTORY AND IS ORIGINAL IN ITS CONTENT..
p.S PLEASE PROVIDE THE SOURCES FOR YOUR RESEARCH SO i MAY BE ABLE TO EVALUATE THIS ALSO.
You are a POE– pathetic, obnoxious, entertaining!
Already did in http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/03/29/im-a-christian-and-i-think-noah-deserves-a-four-star-review/comment-page-20/#comment-158550. It is all there. 100% proof if you believe in God. Millions (probably billions over the Earth’s life) of people have seen it. Open your eyes and your heart to Him. It is the ONLY way to know the facts, which is why you don’t see it currently.
Seems like I have a few other messages dealing with you that have yet to be “moderated”.
Look man, you’re getting out of line.
You keep FOOLISHLY INSISTING that you be delivered information to be FILTERED THROUGH A HORRIBLY FLAWED SYSTEM OF YOUR CHOOSING, to be convinced that YOU ARE WRONG.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND?
The words “FACTS” and “PROOF” are just that:
WORDS.
YOU CAN’T PROVE ANYTHING WITH YOUR “FACTS”. TRY GRAVITY. PROVE IT.
I’m calling you out on your fallacious reasoning and faulty position, right here.
You’re just harassing people here.
Get the hell out of here with your nonsense. This is you, getting schooled.
Yea Matt, loved your review. I am a Christian, that only rarely sees Christian films, (so called Christian films, that is) This is one very screwed up world, and the last thing it needed was another blasphemous Hollywood interpretation of a Bible story. Anyone doubt we are living in the End Times, the true Bible prophesy, said we would have times like this when to be a Christian, would be, to be mocked for your beliefs, and it is going to get so much worse than just mockery. So much worse.
sad review, you haven’t read the book of Enoch or even thought about fallen angels (Genesis 6:4) and the consequences.
Gee, I don’t recall the book of Enoch or the bible talking about fallen angels looking like ‘Rocks’. In fact, the Bible never even mentions they had wings. The only description is that they looked like men.
I’m a Christian and I loved Noah. Of course I wasn’t expecting a worship service in the movie theater. I admired the devotion of Noah. Just because something is different it doesn’t make it wrong.
The position of the 50-Cent Party has been noted.
You will receive your check in the mail within 6-8 weeks.
Read Revelation 22:18. And Galatians 1:6-9. And Matthew 15:14 for good measure.
This movie was horrible. If you want to make a movie based on the bible. Try reading the bible first.
That explains why this movie has nothing to do with the bible. The director is an atheist.
Horrible film.
Nice offer ! I think this kind of posting is much more helpful for prospective buyer. I like it.
Bravo Bravo i’d almost pay to read this review, enjoyed you candor so much.
I’m just going to leave this here. Toodles
http://filmdefender.blogspot.com/
P.S. This is from a blog with a different view on the subject. Give it a read.
I’m just going to leave this here.
This is a blog post with a slightly different view. Just read it.
http://filmdefender.blogspot.com/
Cheers.
Christians hate it..? I´ll watch it!!
I wrote a review on this movie also you can read it at: http://www.actorsperception.blogspot.com
Thank you!
Pingback: ‘Noah’ controversy: It’s not about the movie
I’m a regular guy in my thirties. I’m a Christian and go to church from time to time. Here’s my take on the movie Noah. First the positives and then its issues.
There were a few messages in the film I viewed as positive. It doesn’t question the idea of a Creator but rather simply assumes there is a God. The movie also conveyed certain positive values such as the benefit of listening to God, the portrayal of God’s nature as loving and forgiving, and family loyalty. It also does not shy away from the fact that mankind has fallen and needs saving.
Unfortunately, there are many issues with this film that do not portray the “essence, values, and integrity” of the Biblical account. Many parts were either completely made-up or flat out opposite to what the Bible says. Here are a few examples:
1) The movie references fallen angels who turned into rock people. Aronofsky may have gotten inspiration from the Nephilim mentioned in Genesis 6:4, but the idea that there were angels who tried to help Adam and Eve in the garden who then fell to the earth and turned into rock people is blatantly made-up and not in the Bible at all.
2) In the Bible, Noah’s three sons all had wives, and they all brought their wives with them on the boat. The scene where Noah lets the girl get trampled while grabbing his son is incorrect – as they all had their wives with them (Genesis 7:13).
3) The Bible gives no account of the birth of twins from one of the girls on the boat, and Noah certainly did not try to kill anyone. This film portrays Noah as homicidal, while the Bible says he was a just man and walked with God (Genesis 6:9).
4) The bad guy sneaking on the ship – not in Bible.
5) The evolution scene is not Biblical. Species do adapt to their environment, but God spoke all living things into being. Nothing evolved from one thing into another (Genesis 1).
6) Overall – the big error. Noah’s was not charged by God to decide whether the human race would continue or not. It was not Noah’s choice, as the movie depicts, to make that decision. God’s reasoning behind the flood was not to eradicate humankind. He was grieved in His heart because of man’s continual evil. Noah was charged by God to save his family and the animals and re-populate the planet with humans. Noah accomplished this directive. God desires relationship with us and ultimately sent Jesus as a way to reconcile us to Himself.
While Aronofsky and Paramount have the right to make and release what they want, there is a huge difference between taking artistic license and completely misrepresenting the facts. Calling this movie Noah is a disservice to the general public. Many people who watch this film will leave the theater thinking the Bible says something it doesn’t at all.
By the way, one last area which is an issue to me is on the topic of faith. Noah was a man of faith. God gave him a vision, and he acted on it, trusting what God told him even though he didn’t understand the why or how. Noah persevered. So, in addition to the above, the movie also misses the role and importance of faith in being led by God. Hebrews 11:7
Reblogged this on midnight musings. and commented:
As my dad said: “If the movie had been called Joe Black, instead of Noah, it would have been an okay movie. But even then, it wasn’t a great movie.”
Pingback: ‘Noah’ controversy: It’s not about the movie | Front Line Moms & Dads
Reblogged this on Julie Patchouli and commented:
I haven’t seen it yet, but there sure is a lot of controversy about this movie!
Dont waste your time, I saw it, the night was young and the movie had yet begun. After having a few laughs at the tavern next door, we walked through the crystal clear glass that lead to our horror. With a big bag of mouthwatering popcorn in one hand and a genetically engineered fructose corn syrup soup in the other. Sitting in the third row, we were traditionally set for our feature presentation starring, Rustle Crow. At first I am moved, pulled in by the selflessness of Noah and his sons. I thought I was proud to be in this crowd, so glad to see a movie that did not promote bad. However it was at this moment that I witnessed something I had never seen before! Something that totally made sense but yet none at all. I needed to take a picture so people would believe me when I share it on social media with the world to save them from making the same mistake we made that beautiful night. To save them from not only having to watch this movie but from possibly facing the same fate of those around me. To my right it was happening. Directly in front of me it was happening, I turned to look behind me and it was happening all around me. I thought at first, its ok, this is a dream, pinch yourself you fool this can’t happen in real life. It hurt, I was not sleeping, not yet, but if I subjected myself to this anymore I could end up doing just that. Doing what all the sinners around me were doing, engaging in what seemed to be either a mass suicide attempt or possibly a slumber party. People were sleeping not only around me but on each other. The young couple to my right fell asleep leaning against each other. The mother who sat in front of me separating her husband and son started snoring. People all around were speechless as we were subjected to the glorious acting out of a psychotic script obviously written or directed by a white male animal lover who probably has small ligaments. A white man that feels inferior to woman and children. Scared that one day people will wake up and realize that this is not a white man’s world. But a natural habitat for humanity. Scared that people will realize there is no one greater than our creator who is genderless and colorless. This movie features 100% people with a white ethnic background and a man who tells his sons that he does not believe there should be kings for there is no man greater than our creator. But after the king and his men are killed by the water from above Noah becomes a King, President, Dictator, Ruler, CEO whatever you want to call it, its all the same. He decided who lives and who dies. He decides who will go and who will stay regardless of the thoughts of the people who make up his pride. A man who believes that woman are to serve man and bear children. Only if he wants them to. He cares not what other humans say, he is only interested in carrying out the decisions that take place in his own mind and claims that they are orders from above, from the almighty who works threw no one other than himself. He believes that humans are not animals, that its only ok for lions to eat other animals, for if a human eats another animal he is eating the forbidden fruit. He supports the idea that killing mass quantities of humans is justified for the humans are all sinners. My take on this movie is that if you believe you are getting orders from god, you should act them out regardless of the thoughts of others around you even if it involves killing babies that are one day old or making mankind extinct. That murdering most the world population if not all is not only justified but glorious in the evolution of our Garden of Eden which we of the modern world refer to as planet earth, the third rock from the sun.
Pretty pathetic when all you can do is copy and paste the same incoherent comment over and over again …
One word: BRILLIANT!
God Bless Everyone,
I want you to know the truth of all religions which claims they let you enter into spiritual world when you read there holy books and prays for them.
A must read truth which might hurt to some angels but god loves truth just like god loves all holy books.
Please visit this link https://www.change.org/en-IN/users/87999979 and read all petitions.
Its spiritual truth of bhagwans and angels who claims they are sinless and cannot tell truth in front of sinners because there god doesnt allows them and hides from everyone.
Please dont miss to read all petitions you will love it, entire story of spiritual world and how resurrection is done by angels.
Awesome! thanks Matt. Also want to thank EDENROCKS, HAZELEYES, BB. Just one advise, do not argue the bible with people who haven’t even seen its cover, it’s an utter waste of your precious intellect and knowledge. Just pray for them. Cheers 😀
The best advice. Bible states not to cast your pearls before the swine. If I believe there are no semi trucks and go stand out on the highway, I’m going to get demolished by a semi truck. Just because a person thinks there is no God doesn’t mean there isn’t one. One day that atheist will bow his knee before the God that he didn’t believe in. I’ve seen too many lives changed and miracles happen before my eyes to deny my God.
So if you believe in miracles, then why don’t you set yourself in front of a semi and see if a miracle awaits you.
Just let me know when you want to challenge your faith, I want to enjoy the results!
I’ll get someone to clean up the mess you left behind!
What a stupid response.
what’s the matter, don’t you have faith in your god?
Thanks, nohasodesigns… I don’t mind writing the things I wrote because it might encourage or shed new light for some, but I won’t continue to “debate” as David R. Carpenter likes to call it. The information is there. He can choose to ignore it. God doesn’t force ANYONE to love Him because that wouldn’t be love. Only we can choose to believe in and love Him.
To BB, I am not ignoring anything, What information are you referring to? I’ll review it. You choose to dodge and hide behind your book . Is that the reference you are referring to?, If it is not , then what or where is it? you have provided nothing to review!
http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/03/29/im-a-christian-and-i-think-noah-deserves-a-four-star-review/comment-page-20/#comment-158550. It is all there. 100% proof if you believe in God. Millions (probably billions over the Earth’s life) of people have seen it. Open your eyes and your heart to Him. It is the ONLY way to know the facts, which is why you don’t see it currently.
do not believe the above information, he just gave a misleading link, yesterday I got stuck. after I clicked on the link above my computer directly
exposed to the virus and die, if you want to watch the film for free, you can see it online here :
http://goo.gl/lrSG8y
you can download it there or seen it in person so you do not have to be afraid of your computer will be exposed to the virus as my experience yesterday,
may be useful
Ran security scans on the link you are supplying here for a free (pirated copy) download of the film and it is what probably gave you the virus.
Pingback: Monday Dialogue… Why I will most likely watch Noah | Four Simply Living
Pingback: Noah: A Deluge of Nonsense, or Not? |
Pingback: ‘Noah’ controversy: It’s not about the movie | Gods Little Army aka GLA
I gotta give you credit. I disagree with everything you’ve ever written but that review of Noah was damn funny!
Yes the best review i too have ever read. 110% on the mark. Saw movie last night and i couldnt have described it better myself. Worst movie ive ever seen. God bless.
Not sure why everyone is SO upset about this movie! It is clearly stated that he took many liberties in regards to Noah. It’s his interpretation and how he sees it. Doesn’t mean you have to agree with it. In his statement he does say the story of Noah can be found in Genesis so maybe, just maybe people will go to the source and check it out. Another thought, the more controversy there is over a movie, the more money it makes. I’m going to go see the movie no matter what anyone says. It’s like going to see any other movie that’s out there. I don’t and never expected biblical accuracy when it came to this movie or any other ‘christian/biblical’ type movie.
I must agree with another who stated that this was the best “film” review she ever read. I’m a filmmaker myself, and would have been very upset to have put myself through such clownish drudgery, knowing that some of my money went into this guy’s hands to help him make yet another piece of crap. Thanks.
Pingback: Jumping on the Bandwagon: My Take on the Movie 'Noah' - More Than Four Walls
The ballerina had a mental illness….She was not mentally ill. Please give respect to the PERSON first.
I guess I should feel indignant from now on if someone says I am physically ill instead of saying I have a physical illness?? Sheesh!!
Taking semantics to the extreme, Nancy?
The movie was great. I believe the Bible’s account 100%. It’s a movie. It’s art that entertains. It did that. It posed great questions. This is not a good review, Matt. It’s biased and blind.
Biased and blind like you.
Pingback: Not By Sight
Pingback: LOL: Christians Conned by Film Noah | Not By Sight
I am a believer and I liked the movie, although yes, it was Hollywood liberal bs. God sent the Flood because of human wickedness, not because of mining or hunting that is needed for survival. However, the Noah story is really not part of Judeao-Christianity at all, since it comes from the Sumerian epic of Gilgamesh and is part of the oral tradition of the Hebrews before God spoke to Moses and the real start of JudaIsm. In the Sumerian original, the gods sent the flood since human noise disturbed them. So I don’t have a problem with another version of the Noah story. If a Hollywood director messed like this with the rest of the Torah,, the Haftorah, or the Gospel of Matthew, I would be upset.
Of course, that known anti-Semite Mel Gibson did exactly that with the Passion, in terms of blaming the Jews for the Crucifixion. He made all the Sanhedrin leaders look very Jewish, like Caiphas, but not Jesus,, who looked European. Ridiculous. Also in showing Pilate did not wanting to crucify Jesus.
I am a Muslim and I thought this review was really well written
Thank you
I think you took this movie to heart. It’s just a movie. We as adults know not to take entertainment seriously. I thought the movie was okay. Something a little different. It’s ashame you can’t satisfy anyone nowadays or please anyone. Your review was sarcastic and far from comedy. Let’s just watch the movies so we can either laugh, cry, or show no emotions just to say we had a outing away from stress, pain, bills, family problems, and jobs.
Re: taking entertainment seriously
“Entertainment”, in this context, is storytelling.
The purpose of storytelling, in our society, is to glean meaning from the story being told, which is used to apply to our own lives, which helps us understand our own situation, which is the incredible mystery of being human on this floating rock in this void of space.
Do you understand? Please, without meaning to offend anybody, feel free to reread the above paragraph several times, making sure to follow each step and how it leads to the next, until you understand it all.
Then, you should think about the implications of a story that tells is listener something that is **harmful** to them, and others. The listener will take that message, and (perhaps without knowing it) use it to damage their relations with other people, which in turn hurts all of us.
A good example that is easy to follow would be something like, if a young girl sees Miley Cyrus onstage, acting like a “sex-crazed, beastly animal”, and see her being lavished by attention by the thousands of people cheering for her performance, she will think that she needs to act that way to receive attention.
So, you see, maybe it would be in your best interest to take these alleged “artistic works” a little more seriously.
Are you being a good example for Christian Reviewers, Mr. Walsh? I’m pretty sure I heard a swear word or two. Please stop cussing Christians, you’re just making it worse for the rest of us, and future believers.
Re: cuss words
Get out of here, you filthy, stinking troll. Who do you imagine we are here, that stand behind the author’s article and viewpoints 100%? A bunch of imbeciles? Get lost, you pox.
Pingback: How Good Intentions Make Bad Art: Christian Reviewers and Aronofksy’s “Noah” | Untrashed
really learning a lot here.http://highflyersarena.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/the-solutions-to-africas-problems-lie-in-africa-prof-george-ayittey/
Pingback: The Round-Up (April 9) | Entreating Favor
Reblogged this on Beginning Again and commented:
Here’s a review Kelly put a link to. It does give the whole story of the movie–is a spoiler. But if its accurate, and I think it is, it’s quite insightful.
Pingback: Rock Giants, Vegetarians, and Sociopaths [A review of "Noah"] | Cross-Current