Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Grumpy · 05-07-2002, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nescio:
...the reason the raven didn't come back was that ravens are scavengers and that it probably was too busy pecking at floating corpses to return to the ark.

Your teacher was referring, I assume, to the corpses which did not end up as fossilized skeletons.

James AD · 05-07-2002, 03:53 PM

Why would anyone want that story to be true? To save one family while wiping out the rest of the world, would make Yahweh the biggest mass murderer in history. I rarely see that objection raised. Could you imagine a first attempt at populating the world as being that badly botched? It's hard to contemplate the story as cheerfully as everyone seems to, without the assumption that it is a fable.

The appealing side of the flood story is the idea of having a fresh start. But think about the moral lesson being taught. Kill all the idolaters, infidels, the unclean, and the corrupt, then start over to create a beautiful new world. How many times has that been attempted in history?

cloudyphiz · 05-07-2002, 04:07 PM

christians cannot interpret the flood myth as allegory; it's imperative that they accept it as literal truth because according to the gospels, that's exactly what jesus did. and, as we all know, jesus couldn't have been wrong...

matthew 24:38-39 (jesus speaking)

Quote:

...For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they did not know until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of man.

-gary

mjolner · 05-07-2002, 04:35 PM

Quote from talulah:

"And so, underline "olive-leaf" in Genesis 8:11, and marginally note: The Olive tree can leaf under water - the Bible is accurate"

great logic..... not!

another example of this type of flawed logic goes like this:

god is love
love is blind
ray charles is blind
ray charles is god!!!

duh.

[ May 07, 2002: Message edited by: mjolner ]</p>

mjolner · 05-07-2002, 04:49 PM

check out what this guy has to say about the flood: <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/08/1/l_081_04.html" target="_blank">ken ham - nut case</a>

if you can't see how ridiculous this is than I am quite saddened and have lost a little faith in humankind's ability to be rational. I watched this clip some time ago and have been haunted by the complete lack of critical thinking that there seems to be going on in this day and age.

Duvenoy · 05-08-2002, 03:26 PM

Purely apart from the question of an olive tree's surviving under that much water for that long (it won't), there is the question of the dove picking the inedible (to it) leaf of an olive and carrying it back to Noah.

This has always reminded me of those children's fables that have talking animals in a partnership with the hero. Was Winnie the Pooh on the Ark as well?

d

Grumpy · 05-08-2002, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cloudyphiz:
christians cannot interpret the flood myth as allegory; it's imperative that they accept it as literal truth because according to the gospels, that's exactly what jesus did.

It must not be so "imperative" because many people who call themselves Christians don't believe in a literal (or at least global) flood.

More importantly, I don't see why it is necessary to read Jesus' comments about the flood story as an endorsement of those events as historical. He could simply have been referring to a mythological example. For that matter, are we so sure that 1st Century Jews believed the early chapters of Genesis were genuine history?

My point is... well, I need a biblical literalist in order to make my point. The literalist would say, Jesus said there was a flood, therefore there was a flood. I'd say, how do you know he wasn't alluding to a fictional story? They'd say, it couldn't be fictional because Jesus said it really happened. And then we'd be off into the Magical Land of Petitio Principii.

Jayhawker Soule · 05-09-2002, 07:23 AM

I suspect that "many Christians" rely heavily upon cognitive disconnect. They love Jesus but hate specifics.

As for the rest, the problem with not taking the Flood [capital 'F'] seriously is that it raises the question of selection criteria. If not Noah, why Adam and Eve? If not Moses, why the Virgin Birth? If not Buddha, why Jesus?

wordsmyth · 05-09-2002, 09:19 AM

Something I've never understood is, why 40 days and nights? It supposedly only took him 6 days to create the world, so why would it take so long to basically destroy the damn thing?

God supposedly created ALL the animals in less than a day, so it seems to me in the interest of efficiency that he would have just created new animals rather than trying to save a few.

Were the animals that Noah supposedly brought on the Ark righteous, is that why they were saved and all the others deserved to die? Can an animal even be righteous?

IMO, the whole Flood story reeks of something told to children before bed time. How any reasoning adult can not only believe its true, but actually attempt to rationalize its plausability is truly beyond me.

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

05-07-2002, 03:53 PM	#22
James AD Regular Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Tabuco Canyon (Orange County), CA, USA Posts: 106	Why would anyone want that story to be true? To save one family while wiping out the rest of the world, would make Yahweh the biggest mass murderer in history. I rarely see that objection raised. Could you imagine a first attempt at populating the world as being that badly botched? It's hard to contemplate the story as cheerfully as everyone seems to, without the assumption that it is a fable. The appealing side of the flood story is the idea of having a fresh start. But think about the moral lesson being taught. Kill all the idolaters, infidels, the unclean, and the corrupt, then start over to create a beautiful new world. How many times has that been attempted in history?

05-07-2002, 04:35 PM	#24
mjolner New Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Kitchener, ON Canada Posts: 4	Quote from talulah: "And so, underline "olive-leaf" in Genesis 8:11, and marginally note: The Olive tree can leaf under water - the Bible is accurate" great logic..... not! another example of this type of flawed logic goes like this: god is love love is blind ray charles is blind ray charles is god!!! duh. [ May 07, 2002: Message edited by: mjolner ]</p>

05-07-2002, 04:49 PM	#25
mjolner New Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Kitchener, ON Canada Posts: 4	check out what this guy has to say about the flood: <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/08/1/l_081_04.html" target="_blank">ken ham - nut case</a> if you can't see how ridiculous this is than I am quite saddened and have lost a little faith in humankind's ability to be rational. I watched this clip some time ago and have been haunted by the complete lack of critical thinking that there seems to be going on in this day and age.

05-08-2002, 03:26 PM	#26
Duvenoy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Just another hick from the sticks. Posts: 1,108	Purely apart from the question of an olive tree's surviving under that much water for that long (it won't), there is the question of the dove picking the inedible (to it) leaf of an olive and carrying it back to Noah. This has always reminded me of those children's fables that have talking animals in a partnership with the hero. Was Winnie the Pooh on the Ark as well? d

05-09-2002, 07:23 AM	#28
Jayhawker Soule Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,777	I suspect that "many Christians" rely heavily upon cognitive disconnect. They love Jesus but hate specifics. As for the rest, the problem with not taking the Flood [capital 'F'] seriously is that it raises the question of selection criteria. If not Noah, why Adam and Eve? If not Moses, why the Virgin Birth? If not Buddha, why Jesus?

05-09-2002, 09:19 AM	#29
wordsmyth Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Des Moines, Ia. U.S.A. Posts: 521	Something I've never understood is, why 40 days and nights? It supposedly only took him 6 days to create the world, so why would it take so long to basically destroy the damn thing? God supposedly created ALL the animals in less than a day, so it seems to me in the interest of efficiency that he would have just created new animals rather than trying to save a few. Were the animals that Noah supposedly brought on the Ark righteous, is that why they were saved and all the others deserved to die? Can an animal even be righteous? IMO, the whole Flood story reeks of something told to children before bed time. How any reasoning adult can not only believe its true, but actually attempt to rationalize its plausability is truly beyond me.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.