Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Doubting Didymus · 05-31-2004, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quoll

So if God had to make water from nowhere to flood the earth, provide supernatural qualities to earthly building products to hold the ark together, wave the magic wand to calm the oceans so the ark didn't shatter, transport animals from all over the earth (after sexing the relevant ones), magically replenish food/water, somehow keep host specific parasites alive, return the animals to the correct places after the flood, replenish vegetation etc etc etc why didn't he just use magic to directly achieve his aims? Why so indirect that he had to use the very natural drowning capability of water in an otherwise supernatural episode?

It makes much better prose that way. If I were the old testament god, I'd do things in a spectacular way as well. After all, I'm getting people to write this stuff down. It wouldn't impress anyone if the bible just said "and all the world was wicked in gods eyes except for noah, and then BANG, suddenly everything was dead."

Quoll · 05-31-2004, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doubting Didymus

It makes much better prose that way. If I were the old testament god, I'd do things in a spectacular way as well. After all, I'm getting people to write this stuff down. It wouldn't impress anyone if the bible just said "and all the world was wicked in gods eyes except for noah, and then BANG, suddenly everything was dead."

I disagree.

I understand the theatrical requirements to make a best selling book, however I think that god could have created events much more directly and believably to wipe out the sinners.

If god had exploded members of one village, spontaneously combusted those of another, melted those of a third, or any combination of spectacular and ghastly things, that would have been awe-worthy, and would have satisfied my requirement for less stuffing about (wink).

Then again as only Noah and family survived, he could have just eliminated the sinners, and implanted a memory of some far fetched (and news worthy) story in the survivors heads to ensure they recorded it. Maybe that is really what happenned.

That would make god a deceiver, but no more so than creating starlight in situ, placing fossils to make common descent appear as fact etc.

DigitalDruid · 05-31-2004, 09:44 PM

I think this whole Noah's ark business is highly illogical and ludicrous. I understand God was pissed off with human beings and so decided to decimate them, save a virtuous few. But why did the birds and the animals get punished by death in such gruesome manner? What sin did they commit? How does this square with the concept of a just God?

Quoll · 05-31-2004, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DigitalDruid

I think this whole Noah's ark business is highly illogical and ludicrous. I understand God was pissed off with human beings and so decided to decimate them, save a virtuous few. But why did the birds and the animals get punished by death in such gruesome manner? What sin did they commit? How does this square with the concept of a just God?

I agree.
I don't know.
I don't know.
It doesn't.

Which takes us back to your first sentence!

Zora · 05-31-2004, 10:08 PM

In the same TV special, they also went on to tell us that a flood myth, complete with an ark and a family and saving animals existed in two pre-biblical cultures in the Mesopotamian region. (Epic of Gilgamesh and an earlier one I can't remember.) Their floods were local, their boat was smaller, the number of animals was fewer, the flood was of shorter duration. The Bible story sounds like "Oh yeah! Well, MY god made it rain for 40 days AND nights and he killed everybody everywhere and it was a year long flood....so my God could kick your God's ass." I don't understand why these earlier stories are not a "smoking gun."

ten to the eleventh · 05-31-2004, 10:11 PM

Well, we could have the flood to kill everyone off, for the reason that "it pleased God" to have one. But why bother with the ark. It is an absolute fact that the ark could not be built of the materials the bible rather clearly specifies (even if one granted the use of brass reinforcement, which the bible does not), even today, with our best engineering. It is clearly impossible that all the animals could have naturally arrived at the ark, then been loaded, and kept alive for a year. It is clearly impossible that these animals could have replenished the earth to the degree that we know existed two thousand years ago. So Magus is right, we are left with the miracle explanation.

But why bother with the boat, then? Why not suspend Noah and his family and all the critters above the waters on palm leaves, and have angels spoon feed them manna? Why bother with all the boat details? Why won't Magus answer the rather direct question of why bother with the whole rigamarole of semi-natural events and mechanisms at all? Why kill off the animals? Why won't Magus answer this? Is it because he realizes how ridiculous the flood story really sounds?

greenbear · 05-31-2004, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magus55

What do you mean, what technology available to Noah? He was instructed by God. God could have told him the technology to build the space shuttle and colonize the moon.

Yeah, why not? No more implausible than the ark myth.

ten to the eleventh · 05-31-2004, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zora

In the same TV special, they also went on to tell us that a flood myth, complete with an ark and a family and saving animals existed in two pre-biblical cultures in the Mesopotamian region. (Epic of Gilgamesh and an earlier one I can't remember.) Their floods were local, their boat was smaller, the number of animals was fewer, the flood was of shorter duration. The Bible story sounds like "Oh yeah! Well, MY god made it rain for 40 days AND nights and he killed everybody everywhere and it was a year long flood....so my God could kick your God's ass." I don't understand why these earlier stories are not a "smoking gun."

It's not a smoking gun to them because they can claim that the history is off, and the stories were fabricated later to discredit the other story, or that Satan inspired them to make up the story earlier, or that they are recounting the same story, but incorrectly. Ever wrestle a greased pig?

Or is it, "Have you ever tried to herd cats?"

Doubting Didymus · 05-31-2004, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ten to the eleventh

But why bother with the boat, then? Why not suspend Noah and his family and all the critters above the waters on palm leaves, and have angels spoon feed them manna? Why bother with all the boat details? Why won't Magus answer the rather direct question of why bother with the whole rigamarole of semi-natural events and mechanisms at all? Why kill off the animals? Why won't Magus answer this? Is it because he realizes how ridiculous the flood story really sounds?

I don't get it. If the story WAS that noahs mob was floated on palm fronds and fed manna, then you could just as easily say 'why palm fronds? why not something simple like a boat?'

Doubting Didymus · 05-31-2004, 11:09 PM

After all's said and done, you have to admit that it makes a good story.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-31-2004, 09:44 PM	#73
DigitalDruid Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Florida Posts: 712	I think this whole Noah's ark business is highly illogical and ludicrous. I understand God was pissed off with human beings and so decided to decimate them, save a virtuous few. But why did the birds and the animals get punished by death in such gruesome manner? What sin did they commit? How does this square with the concept of a just God?

05-31-2004, 10:08 PM	#75
Zora Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Missouri Posts: 571	In the same TV special, they also went on to tell us that a flood myth, complete with an ark and a family and saving animals existed in two pre-biblical cultures in the Mesopotamian region. (Epic of Gilgamesh and an earlier one I can't remember.) Their floods were local, their boat was smaller, the number of animals was fewer, the flood was of shorter duration. The Bible story sounds like "Oh yeah! Well, MY god made it rain for 40 days AND nights and he killed everybody everywhere and it was a year long flood....so my God could kick your God's ass." I don't understand why these earlier stories are not a "smoking gun."

05-31-2004, 10:11 PM	#76
ten to the eleventh Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Dallas, Texas Posts: 1,682	Well, we could have the flood to kill everyone off, for the reason that "it pleased God" to have one. But why bother with the ark. It is an absolute fact that the ark could not be built of the materials the bible rather clearly specifies (even if one granted the use of brass reinforcement, which the bible does not), even today, with our best engineering. It is clearly impossible that all the animals could have naturally arrived at the ark, then been loaded, and kept alive for a year. It is clearly impossible that these animals could have replenished the earth to the degree that we know existed two thousand years ago. So Magus is right, we are left with the miracle explanation. But why bother with the boat, then? Why not suspend Noah and his family and all the critters above the waters on palm leaves, and have angels spoon feed them manna? Why bother with all the boat details? Why won't Magus answer the rather direct question of why bother with the whole rigamarole of semi-natural events and mechanisms at all? Why kill off the animals? Why won't Magus answer this? Is it because he realizes how ridiculous the flood story really sounds?

05-31-2004, 11:09 PM	#80
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	After all's said and done, you have to admit that it makes a good story.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.