Jump to content

Questions About Noah's Flood That Beg An Answer.


Pegasus_Voyager
 Share

Recommended Posts

I sent Dr Kent Hovind, the reknowned Christian creationist apologist a number of questions concerning Noah's Ark. I received a response from one his subordinates, a guy named Paul. I broke down his his "Christian" response into separate points, answered them, and received no reply. I guess he could dish it out, but not take it.

 

PAUL: Gee, maybe a 500 year old man could not have made the Ark. Also, the Great Pyramid must be a myth too.

 

MY RESPONSE: The Great Pyramid was undoubtedly built with the aid of thousands of laborers. Please do not insult my intelligence by saying that four guys built the thing!

 

PAUL: You know, if you spent as much time learning as typing you might learn a thing or two

 

MY RESPONSE: This is a rude, smart-a**, insolent response, and PROVES NOTHING! It is a common Christian apologist tactic known as the "red herring" argument. Look it up in the dictionary, and YOU might learn a thing or two!

 

PAUL: Why don't you watch one or two of our seminars sometime!

 

MY RESPONSE: Gee, Paul, when you live on Social Security Disabilty, it's difficult to find the money to travel. By the way, a question is supposed to end with a QUESTION MARK, EINSTEIN!(Forgive me, but smart-a** responses compel me to respond in kind!)

 

PAUL: (I am not trying to be mean.)

 

MY RESPONSE: Hmm. so you're just subconsciously a "smart-a**"?

 

PAUL: ...Your questions are good ones, but they also show that you want to waste our time. With all due respect, WATCH A FEW OF OUR VIDEOS, please.

 

MY RESPONSE : You know, I realize that God sends spiritual gifts, but I doubt that mind-reading is one of them!!! These questions in no way, shape, size or form are intended to waste your time. I rejected the Christian faith after being one for 40 years IN PART because I am convinced that Genesis is BALONEY! These are questions that I posted on an apologists blog, and the replies are got back were inane and ludicrous. As far as watching your videos, I DON'T HAVE THE MONEY! I am a disabled military veteran, SIR, and can't afford them! And even if they were online FREE, I couldn't watch them because I use MSN TV to access the internet, which cannot download a file.

 

PAUL: We just cannot give 6 billion persons individual answers to everything.

 

MY RESPONSE: Gee, then why encourage people to ask questions????? And besides, I doubt STRONGLY that 6 billion people are clamoring for your attention, Paul, since that just about comprises almost the whole of the Earth's population! In other words, don't flatter yourselves!

 

PAUL:Watch some of our seminar videos. That is why they exist. ...in case that thought had escaped your notice.... sigh.... Sincerely, Paul (Dr. Dino Staff) www.drdino.com

 

MY RESPONSE: No Paul, it hadn't escaped this simpleton's notice, but once again, I live on disability, and when you have to make a choice between groceries and videos, I think you can predict my obvious choice!!!!!!.......SIGH........(And besides that, what happens if I watch your videos, and I see and hear a point that I feel I can refute logically and scientifically, are you just going to tell me to shut up and accept Dr Hovinds word as "gospel truth "?)

 

The questions I sent Dr Hovind are as follows. I have yet to receive a reply.

 

UPDATE: Obviously, "Dr" Hovind is indisposed now.

 

Concerning Noah's Ark: In order to believe the story of Noah's Ark , you are expected to believe that a 500+ year old man, working with only 3 carpenter helper's (his son's) built a boat the size of a small aircraft carrier completely out of wood. I'm sorry, but that seems like a stretch of reality. Building a boat this size, especially out of wood, would require an almost ingenious understanding of nautical structural engineering. You don't throw together a boat the size of asmall aircraft carrier like some huge wooden box and expect it to maintain structural integrity on the high seas. Questions that beg an answer are:

 

1) Many experts in the field of nautical engineering have maintained that Noah's Ark was an engineering impossibility. You simply cannot builda woodenboat 450 feet long with only pitch to "glue" the thing together. Most experts maintain that at best, 300 feet would be the maximum length a wooden ship with no metal structural supports could hold together on the ocean. How did Noah overcome this?

 

2) Where did Noah obtain the tools necessary to build this thing, and get replacements when they wore out?

 

3) How did Noah and his son's mill the timber in order to make them fit precisely?

 

4) How did Noah lift logs weighing hundreds of pounds, especially to the upper decks?

 

5) Where did Noah obtain the hundreds of gallons of pitch necessary to hold the wood together? Even if he could obtain it, pitch alone will not hold together a boat of this size.

 

6) How did animals traveling hundreds, perhaps thousands, of miles away from their natural habitat to get to the ark, survive along the way without food? How did turtles, snails, slow-moving insects, etc, make it to the ark before dying of old age or exposure to the elements? How did penguins orpolar bears make it from the North or South Pole?

 

7) Many marine species which require a very precise habitat to flourish in would have died in a Noahic flood. ex: Salmon in their delicate breeding environment. Also, marine species living at the ocean floor would be forced to almost immediately swim higher in order to avoid implosion due to the increased water pressure, and then would die once they achieved higher depths due to the sudden shift in pressure.. How was this overcome?

 

8] How did Noah find a way to keep water potable (drinkable) for his family and all the animals for 150 days? Without chemicals, water will surely become "brackish" by that time.

 

9) How did Noah "ventilate" the ark? Living conditions on a boat that size filled with animals urinating and defecating would have become unbearable. The stench would have been intolerable, and both animals and humans would have suffocated without a ventilation system.

 

10) What did predatory animals who require fresh meat to survive eat on the ark? It is probably a safe bet that Noah did NOT have refrigerators on the ark, and a predatory animal (lion or tiger) will NOT eat salted or preserved meat(And PLEASE don't resort to the "vegetarian lion" argument. A "vegetarian" carnivorous predator is an anomalous "freak of nature".)

 

11)Although an argument can be made that some animals can survive in captivity outside their natural habitat almost indefinitely, most insects and arachnids CANNOT! How did Noah house and feed the thousands of species of insects that would have been on the ark?

 

12) How did Noah store food on the ark for the animals and he and his family for 150 days without it spoiling?

 

13)How did Noah dispose of the hundreds of pounds of manure and hundreds of gallons of urine that surely accumulated on the ark?

 

14) It stands to reason that pregnant women died in the Noahic Flood, effectively making God an "abortionist"! How do you reconcile this with the fact that Christians consider God to be "pro-life"? I have heard Christians argue that God did this to spare the children from unnecessary suffering. If this is true, you are, by default, arguing in favor of "mercy killing"!

 

15) If the entire world was deluged with water, where did it run off to?

 

16) A scientist calculated that in order for rainfall to cover the entire surface of the Earth over the highest mountains in only 40 days, it would require a rainfall amount of about 6 inches per minute, which would have torn the ark to pieces! (A category 5 hurricane produces 6 inches of rainfall an hour!)

 

17) If the entire world was deluged with water, all vegetation on Earth would have died. The surface of the Earth , at least "dry" land, would be barren of any vegetation. How did God restore vegetation? Keep in mind that the sediment buildup would bury most plants to a depth that their seedlings could not germinate.

 

18] How did amphibious animals (crocodiles and alligators) who require both water AND land to survive, survive on the ark? Did Noah build a small lagoon the ark? 19) After exiting the ark, what did Noah, his family, and the animals eat? Obviously, not plants, as I refer back to question #17 (and PLEASE don't insult anyone's intelligence with the "they ate fish" line.) Can you picture a cow sticking it's snoot in a lake trying to catch a trout? Also, predatory carnivores would immediately be "scoping" for their prey long before that prey had a chance to repopulate their species, thus wiping them out! In responding to these questions, please do resort to what I call "The Sorcery Argument". In other words, God waved his magic wand and made it all work out! If Christians wish to be taken seriously in the scientific community, you cannot constantly fall back on "magic" as the means by which implausible feats were accomplished in the Bible. The entire premise of the story of Noah's ark lends aspersions to the character of God and his concept of justice. God destroyed all mankind because he "repented" of making him. In essence, God admitted to making a mistake, and in order to correct that mistake, he plays judge, jury, and executioner, and annihilates all mankind a la "Robo-Cop" without a trial, thus committing genocide. I have no doubt that there was evil, but how evil is a one year old child?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those are great questions, but you will be proved wrong when they find Noah's Ark on Mount Ararat!

 

*sarcasm*

 

I'm definitely not trying to defend Christianity in any way, but I will say that there are some arguments out there that suggest a localized flood and animals only touched by man, but that gets into all of the Hebrew meanings which I don't understand. I know that because I studied Noah's Ark a lot when I was trying to prove to myself that I believed in Christianity. Even if that were so though, that would only answer a couple of your questions. I really like your number 14 though, I've never thought of that.

 

And if anyone knows some good arguments against the localized flood and what not, arguments that really get into the Hebrew meanings, please let me know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All good questions but I'm quite sure that poor Paul has heard them a million times before (no offense). Considering the flood has to be the most verifiable story in the bible and it has a total of zero evidence in its wake (bad pun intended) it is no wonder that apologists are short tempered when it is discussed (seconded only by the exodus myth in opinion).

 

We had a nice loooooong debate in the Colosseum with one fellow about the flood (that really got under my skin...which you can see if you can manage to dig up the thread). We went round and round over these details but when he couldn't resolve the time-line to that which is in the bible we were finished (rather I was finished). If Noah is floating over the heads of the Egyptians while they're building the pyramids and they don't seem to notice then I guess the flood really wasn't that impressive after all. :) In my mind there's no point debating the finer points of the story if you can't even establish when it happened in the first place (apologists will run you ragged with if's and maybe's...so not could it have happened but when and exactly how...like you I've yet to get an answer that has lined up with reality and the evidence that exists).

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm definitely not trying to defend Christianity in any way, but I will say that there are some arguments out there that suggest a localized flood and animals only touched by man, but that gets into all of the Hebrew meanings which I don't understand. I know that because I studied Noah's Ark a lot when I was trying to prove to myself that I believed in Christianity. Even if that were so though, that would only answer a couple of your questions. I really like your number 14 though, I've never thought of that.

 

And if anyone knows some good arguments against the localized flood and what not, arguments that really get into the Hebrew meanings, please let me know.

 

The problem with a localised flood is that the bible describes the flood as being higher than Ararat.

 

What held all that water in one localised place for all that time? Water finds its own level, it runs off.

 

If the flood was localised, why did Noah have to take 2 of every species? Surely these animals would have survived anyway in the areas outside of this localised flood? ie. the zebras in africa wouldn't have to be in an ark that's bobbing about somewhere in mesopotamia. So what were these animals that were so localised that they had to be saved in the ark? And why couldn't God have just made the animals and/or Noah & family take a small trek to outside the local flood area, God does the kill everyone thing with water & then they all walk back.

 

Also the issues regarding construction methods and materials still stand for localised flood.

 

So global flood/local flood it's still shot full of holes. All you're left with eventually is using the story as a lesson on how God can use people to manifest his will on earth, that he will protect his chosen, and he has promised the world is now forever safe from flood (don't bring up the Dec 26 Tsunami) And of course, once you start deciding what in the bible is fact and what is allegory and parable it becomes open season.

 

Regards

 

Stew

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did Noah find a way to keep water potable (drinkable) for his family and all the animals for 150 days?

The time on the Ark was a full year "on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible", so double all of your thoughts for storage! One quick calculation I like to use is based on Christian websites they claim 50,000 animals (so 25,000 species in pairs, very low compared to the millions that there are, but take this as a good starting point) would have been all there was on the Ark. At an average of 1 litre of water per animal, 50k per day for 300 days is 15 million litres of water that must be stored. Either that or open the boat to water strong enough to destroy mountains, or drink the water filled with the floating/decaying corpses of billions of animals and humans.

 

A few things against the local flood idea include the measurements of the boat given (eg why build a 400 foot boat to save a family and a few farm animals?), the idea that it was to wipe out all sin (local event would have left millions of sinners alive therefore making the whole event pointless), the description of "higher than the mountains" and simply because its the accepted/taught Christian belief.

 

I've debated Noah's Ark many times with Christians, but I always run into the same wall of "Goddidit". How did the animals turn up? Err, miracle, God could do it if he wanted. How did the animals survive locked up for a year? Err, miracle... I counted in one debate that there were 14 answers of "its a miracle!" given. Alot of them also have read the "Noah's Ark - A feasibility study" document that some apoligist came out with. The study leaves gaping holes and makes ridiculous claims, but Christians cling to it like a life raft ("Thank God someone is thinking for me! I almost had to use my brain!").

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find myself repeatedly shocked at just how easily xtians are able to let a discussion descend into personal attack and hdow often they are the one to fire the first missle.

 

Fucking unbelievable. Pretty much makes it clear that there is no holy spook cleaning up their lives.

 

When I was an xtian, I would have been ashamed to do that. Things have really changed.

 

Of course, since they follow the most morally ambivalent religious book in existance, they can justify whatever they want.

 

Mongo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It either didn't happen, or it did not cover the whole earth. The inhabitants may not have known that though. I don't trust the story since it was a legend passed down and there are no first or even second hand accounts of it. f there was an ark, it may have been smaller and could have carried enough species to evolve into the present lot. The objection about marine species not being able to survive because they had to come up higher is really gratuitous.

 

Rad

 

I find myself repeatedly shocked at just how easily xtians are able to let a discussion descend into personal attack and hdow often they are the one to fire the first missle.

 

Fucking unbelievable. Pretty much makes it clear that there is no holy spook cleaning up their lives.

 

When I was an xtian, I would have been ashamed to do that. Things have really changed.

 

Of course, since they follow the most morally ambivalent religious book in existance, they can justify whatever they want.

 

Mongo

 

Well at least some recognize they are hypocritical and unholy enough to require outside help. Ever think we are all frighteningly alike?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It either didn't happen, or it did not cover the whole earth. The inhabitants may not have known that though. I don't trust the story since it was a legend passed down and there are no first or even second hand accounts of it. f there was an ark, it may have been smaller and could have carried enough species to evolve into the present lot. The objection about marine species not being able to survive because they had to come up higher is really gratuitous.

A local flood requires no animals to be taken aboard to evolve into anything. A local flood requires one to simply leave the area (if you have time to build an ark and stock it with animals and supplies for a prolonged voyage then you have time to move away from the flood zone).

 

The only flood (as far as massive scale goes) anyone might be able to use as a local flood origin is the Mediterranean flooding into the Black Sea. However, the authors responsible for that theory (one of them at least) is trying to distance himself from this idea and the other is also wavering but still holding onto his belief for now. Signs are pointing to the Black Sea flooding into the Mediterranean after all. Unfortunately, I read all this about two months ago and so I don't have the information handy but I'll try to track it down if there's interest (since I can't cite a reference I'll toss in the usual disclaimer that I might not be remembering this with 100% accuracy).

 

So we're left with something like the Epic of Gilgamesh as the oldest known source of a deluge story on record. Does this mean that this is the real flood and that a flood really did happen? I don't think so. I simply think the flood stories are "memories" of floods that happened at the end of the last ice age when the global water levels rose and there were many floods. Since most of the worlds population lives near the coast (or other bodies of water) they were affected when the ice melted and the water rose and flooded them. The stories just grew in proportion over time (as stories tend to do). In a way this makes the flood "global" but you're really pushing the definition of the word (and would make hundreds or even thousands of "Noah's").

 

No matter what the story in the bible fails in every way. The story of Noah is simply there to teach the reader a lesson and nothing more.

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find myself repeatedly shocked at just how easily xtians are able to let a discussion descend into personal attack and hdow often they are the one to fire the first missle.

 

Fucking unbelievable. Pretty much makes it clear that there is no holy spook cleaning up their lives.

 

When I was an xtian, I would have been ashamed to do that. Things have really changed.

 

Of course, since they follow the most morally ambivalent religious book in existance, they can justify whatever they want.

 

Mongo

 

This is unfortunate, Mongo. But I'm afraid Christians are no more guilty of this than Democrats or Republicans or Atheists for that matter. It is a knee-jerk reaction to strike back with words or fists. Look what happened to Michael Richards (a.k.a. Kramer on "Seinfeld" last week in that West Hollywood comedy club.

 

We all -- theists, Deists, Agnostics, Atheists, Democrats, etc. -- need to cultivate more of that delicious fruit of the spirit called self-control.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find myself repeatedly shocked at just how easily xtians are able to let a discussion descend into personal attack and hdow often they are the one to fire the first missle.

 

Fucking unbelievable. Pretty much makes it clear that there is no holy spook cleaning up their lives.

 

When I was an xtian, I would have been ashamed to do that. Things have really changed.

 

Of course, since they follow the most morally ambivalent religious book in existance, they can justify whatever they want.

 

Mongo

 

This is unfortunate, Mongo. But I'm afraid Christians are no more guilty of this than Democrats or Republicans or Atheists for that matter. It is a knee-jerk reaction to strike back with words or fists. Look what happened to Michael Richards (a.k.a. Kramer on "Seinfeld" last week in that West Hollywood comedy club.

 

We all -- theists, Deists, Agnostics, Atheists, Democrats, etc. -- need to cultivate more of that delicious fruit of the spirit called self-control.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

What? Did you just say something? I'm pretty sure those are words I see, up there, and it looks like English. If there's a meaning, however, I must be too dumb to understand it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find myself repeatedly shocked at just how easily xtians are able to let a discussion descend into personal attack and hdow often they are the one to fire the first missle.

 

Fucking unbelievable. Pretty much makes it clear that there is no holy spook cleaning up their lives.

 

When I was an xtian, I would have been ashamed to do that. Things have really changed.

 

Of course, since they follow the most morally ambivalent religious book in existance, they can justify whatever they want.

 

Mongo

 

This is unfortunate, Mongo. But I'm afraid Christians are no more guilty of this than Democrats or Republicans or Atheists for that matter. It is a knee-jerk reaction to strike back with words or fists. Look what happened to Michael Richards (a.k.a. Kramer on "Seinfeld" last week in that West Hollywood comedy club.

 

We all -- theists, Deists, Agnostics, Atheists, Democrats, etc. -- need to cultivate more of that delicious fruit of the spirit called self-control.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

What? Did you just say something? I'm pretty sure those are words I see, up there, and it looks like English. If there's a meaning, however, I must be too dumb to understand it.

 

The meaning is that "we all have..." a tendency to attack those with whom we disagree, and "come short" of civility. Too bad that we do that. Reason and reasonableness are much more interesting techniques to get our points across.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Noah's flood is a folktale. It never happened.

It's there as an illustration of how mighty the judeo-christian god is, for the purpose of keeping the "god"'s people in fear of his wrath in contrast with how good and merciful he is to his "faithful" e.g. Noah and his family/clan. It's been taken as an archetype for the rapture by certain fundamentalist groups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sent Dr Kent Hovind, the reknowned Christian creationist apologist a number of questions concerning Noah's Ark. I received a response from one his subordinates, a guy named Paul. I broke down his his "Christian" response into separate points, answered them, and received no reply. I guess he could dish it out, but not take it.

 

PAUL: Gee, maybe a 500 year old man could not have made the Ark. Also, the Great Pyramid must be a myth too.

 

MY RESPONSE: The Great Pyramid was undoubtedly built with the aid of thousands of laborers. Please do not insult my intelligence by saying that four guys built the thing!

 

PAUL: You know, if you spent as much time learning as typing you might learn a thing or two

 

MY RESPONSE: This is a rude, smart-a**, insolent response, and PROVES NOTHING! It is a common Christian apologist tactic known as the "red herring" argument. Look it up in the dictionary, and YOU might learn a thing or two!

 

PAUL: Why don't you watch one or two of our seminars sometime!

 

MY RESPONSE: Gee, Paul, when you live on Social Security Disabilty, it's difficult to find the money to travel. By the way, a question is supposed to end with a QUESTION MARK, EINSTEIN!(Forgive me, but smart-a** responses compel me to respond in kind!)

 

PAUL: (I am not trying to be mean.)

 

MY RESPONSE: Hmm. so you're just subconsciously a "smart-a**"?

 

PAUL: ...Your questions are good ones, but they also show that you want to waste our time. With all due respect, WATCH A FEW OF OUR VIDEOS, please.

 

MY RESPONSE : You know, I realize that God sends spiritual gifts, but I doubt that mind-reading is one of them!!! These questions in no way, shape, size or form are intended to waste your time. I rejected the Christian faith after being one for 40 years IN PART because I am convinced that Genesis is BALONEY! These are questions that I posted on an apologists blog, and the replies are got back were inane and ludicrous. As far as watching your videos, I DON'T HAVE THE MONEY! I am a disabled military veteran, SIR, and can't afford them! And even if they were online FREE, I couldn't watch them because I use MSN TV to access the internet, which cannot download a file.

 

PAUL: We just cannot give 6 billion persons individual answers to everything.

 

MY RESPONSE: Gee, then why encourage people to ask questions????? And besides, I doubt STRONGLY that 6 billion people are clamoring for your attention, Paul, since that just about comprises almost the whole of the Earth's population! In other words, don't flatter yourselves!

 

PAUL:Watch some of our seminar videos. That is why they exist. ...in case that thought had escaped your notice.... sigh.... Sincerely, Paul (Dr. Dino Staff) www.drdino.com

 

MY RESPONSE: No Paul, it hadn't escaped this simpleton's notice, but once again, I live on disability, and when you have to make a choice between groceries and videos, I think you can predict my obvious choice!!!!!!.......SIGH........(And besides that, what happens if I watch your videos, and I see and hear a point that I feel I can refute logically and scientifically, are you just going to tell me to shut up and accept Dr Hovinds word as "gospel truth "?)

 

The questions I sent Dr Hovind are as follows. I have yet to receive a reply.

 

UPDATE: Obviously, "Dr" Hovind is indisposed now.

 

Concerning Noah's Ark: In order to believe the story of Noah's Ark , you are expected to believe that a 500+ year old man, working with only 3 carpenter helper's (his son's) built a boat the size of a small aircraft carrier completely out of wood. I'm sorry, but that seems like a stretch of reality. Building a boat this size, especially out of wood, would require an almost ingenious understanding of nautical structural engineering. You don't throw together a boat the size of asmall aircraft carrier like some huge wooden box and expect it to maintain structural integrity on the high seas. Questions that beg an answer are:

 

1) Many experts in the field of nautical engineering have maintained that Noah's Ark was an engineering impossibility. You simply cannot builda woodenboat 450 feet long with only pitch to "glue" the thing together. Most experts maintain that at best, 300 feet would be the maximum length a wooden ship with no metal structural supports could hold together on the ocean. How did Noah overcome this?

 

2) Where did Noah obtain the tools necessary to build this thing, and get replacements when they wore out?

 

3) How did Noah and his son's mill the timber in order to make them fit precisely?

 

4) How did Noah lift logs weighing hundreds of pounds, especially to the upper decks?

 

5) Where did Noah obtain the hundreds of gallons of pitch necessary to hold the wood together? Even if he could obtain it, pitch alone will not hold together a boat of this size.

 

6) How did animals traveling hundreds, perhaps thousands, of miles away from their natural habitat to get to the ark, survive along the way without food? How did turtles, snails, slow-moving insects, etc, make it to the ark before dying of old age or exposure to the elements? How did penguins orpolar bears make it from the North or South Pole?

 

7) Many marine species which require a very precise habitat to flourish in would have died in a Noahic flood. ex: Salmon in their delicate breeding environment. Also, marine species living at the ocean floor would be forced to almost immediately swim higher in order to avoid implosion due to the increased water pressure, and then would die once they achieved higher depths due to the sudden shift in pressure.. How was this overcome?

 

8] How did Noah find a way to keep water potable (drinkable) for his family and all the animals for 150 days? Without chemicals, water will surely become "brackish" by that time.

 

9) How did Noah "ventilate" the ark? Living conditions on a boat that size filled with animals urinating and defecating would have become unbearable. The stench would have been intolerable, and both animals and humans would have suffocated without a ventilation system.

 

10) What did predatory animals who require fresh meat to survive eat on the ark? It is probably a safe bet that Noah did NOT have refrigerators on the ark, and a predatory animal (lion or tiger) will NOT eat salted or preserved meat(And PLEASE don't resort to the "vegetarian lion" argument. A "vegetarian" carnivorous predator is an anomalous "freak of nature".)

 

11)Although an argument can be made that some animals can survive in captivity outside their natural habitat almost indefinitely, most insects and arachnids CANNOT! How did Noah house and feed the thousands of species of insects that would have been on the ark?

 

12) How did Noah store food on the ark for the animals and he and his family for 150 days without it spoiling?

 

13)How did Noah dispose of the hundreds of pounds of manure and hundreds of gallons of urine that surely accumulated on the ark?

 

14) It stands to reason that pregnant women died in the Noahic Flood, effectively making God an "abortionist"! How do you reconcile this with the fact that Christians consider God to be "pro-life"? I have heard Christians argue that God did this to spare the children from unnecessary suffering. If this is true, you are, by default, arguing in favor of "mercy killing"!

 

15) If the entire world was deluged with water, where did it run off to?

 

16) A scientist calculated that in order for rainfall to cover the entire surface of the Earth over the highest mountains in only 40 days, it would require a rainfall amount of about 6 inches per minute, which would have torn the ark to pieces! (A category 5 hurricane produces 6 inches of rainfall an hour!)

 

17) If the entire world was deluged with water, all vegetation on Earth would have died. The surface of the Earth , at least "dry" land, would be barren of any vegetation. How did God restore vegetation? Keep in mind that the sediment buildup would bury most plants to a depth that their seedlings could not germinate.

 

18] How did amphibious animals (crocodiles and alligators) who require both water AND land to survive, survive on the ark? Did Noah build a small lagoon the ark? 19) After exiting the ark, what did Noah, his family, and the animals eat? Obviously, not plants, as I refer back to question #17 (and PLEASE don't insult anyone's intelligence with the "they ate fish" line.) Can you picture a cow sticking it's snoot in a lake trying to catch a trout? Also, predatory carnivores would immediately be "scoping" for their prey long before that prey had a chance to repopulate their species, thus wiping them out! In responding to these questions, please do resort to what I call "The Sorcery Argument". In other words, God waved his magic wand and made it all work out! If Christians wish to be taken seriously in the scientific community, you cannot constantly fall back on "magic" as the means by which implausible feats were accomplished in the Bible. The entire premise of the story of Noah's ark lends aspersions to the character of God and his concept of justice. God destroyed all mankind because he "repented" of making him. In essence, God admitted to making a mistake, and in order to correct that mistake, he plays judge, jury, and executioner, and annihilates all mankind a la "Robo-Cop" without a trial, thus committing genocide. I have no doubt that there was evil, but how evil is a one year old child?

 

These are great questions. Reasonable questions. Some of these actually are answerable-- scientifically, historically. Some are not -- without relying on what you call "magic" or "God's wand." Question 14 is a piercing indictment. (Not that there may be an answer, but at face value it's a very serious charge.)

 

But one thing I don't understand is why hold the view that fundamentalists embrace -- i.e., one must believe everything in the Bible to be a Christian. That I don't get. After all, Noah was not crucified and resurrected for me (or for anyone else). While Jonah was a type of Christ in his "death" in the belly or "grave" of the great fish and "resurrection" at his regurgitation, he was not "crucified, buried and resurrected" for me.

 

This is not my own theological position, but one could theologically reject as much of the Hebrew Bible as s/he wanted to and still believe that Jesus was cosmically unique and that at his advent Heaven and Humanity embraced and that his laying down his life and picking it back up again provide the healing balm so desperately needed.

 

Just my view. Not trying to evangelize. Just giving another viewpoint.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find myself repeatedly shocked at just how easily xtians are able to let a discussion descend into personal attack and hdow often they are the one to fire the first missle.

 

Fucking unbelievable. Pretty much makes it clear that there is no holy spook cleaning up their lives.

 

When I was an xtian, I would have been ashamed to do that. Things have really changed.

 

Of course, since they follow the most morally ambivalent religious book in existance, they can justify whatever they want.

 

Mongo

 

Hi again Mongo. You and I touched on this before. But I must say I don't think we Christians are any more nasty than the Democrats of the Republicans or the Atheists. One could argue that the Holy Spirit should make Christians more loving and kind and patient than those who do not claim to be indwelt by the Spirit (that's a very fair argument), but we are no worse than anyone else (that's nothing to be proud of, granted).

 

While the Bible definitely is from time to time a "morally ambivalent religious book," and sometimes shockingly morally ambivalent, it's likely not the "most." Still, we have to apply our reason, intellect, experiences, and spiritual growth and development of the past 2,000 years to the text.

 

--currentchristian in massachusetts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't trust the story since it was a legend passed down and there are no first or even second hand accounts of it.

 

So why do you trust the gospel accounts then?

 

I haven't watched any due to a lack of patience for that sort of thing, but you can watch Dr Dino's videos on Google vid for free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those are some pretty good questions, pegasus voyager.

 

But, of course, the answer to all of them is goddidit.

 

Deity magic. He may have shrunk the animals down really small. He may have made it rain everywhere except on top of the ark. He may have created a space/time continuum and put all the animals into a state of suspended animation. He may have... well you get it.

 

What the hell - it's just as believable as 500 people watching jesus just float up into the sky somewhere. Just like dorothy in the wizard of oz, only without a hot air balloon.

 

When you live in fantasyland, all things are possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problems with goddidit, other than the most obvious of course, is why did he do it that way? If god was all powerful, why would he need to shrink the animals, help noah build a structually unsound ark, etc? For that matter, why did he have to cleanse the world with a destructive flood in the first place? If god is indeed all powerful, why jump through so many hoops to accomplish a task he could accomplish simply by commanding it be so? Could he not indeed cleanse the earth of all the wicked by just making them all instantly disappear?

 

It's all as convoluted as the gospel stories. Why did he need such a twisted sacrifice when in fact he could choose to just outright forgive the way the rest of us do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, such a wonderful father figure.

 

Your kids are so fucked up, you gotta slaughter em all and start over.

 

Now, there's someone you want to emulate.

 

Makes me want to break into a spontaneous chorus of "Our God is an Awesome God"........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, currentchristian. If you don't hthink the bible is true, why do you think the jesus bit is true?

Not, why would it be nice if it were true.

But what makes you think this bit is any more reliable than the rest??

If the whole book is just examples and guidance rather than the "WORD OF GOD!!!" then why not this bit too? I've seen a very interesting comparison of the jesus story with the sun-god stories. Which were esentially an instruction manual for early farmers.

 

http://members.cox.net/deleyd/religion/sol.../christ2002.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was a child I was told Noah's ark as a bedtime story and I was really disturbed by the fact that God was prepared to kill every human being except Noah and his family. Just goes to show: The Bible - a grim fairy tale...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those are some pretty good questions, pegasus voyager.

 

But, of course, the answer to all of them is goddidit.

 

Deity magic. He may have shrunk the animals down really small. He may have made it rain everywhere except on top of the ark. He may have created a space/time continuum and put all the animals into a state of suspended animation. He may have... well you get it.

To which I respond by asking: why, if he did all that, didn't he just go and do the tiny bit that remained to be done? Like build the ark, hold all the animals above the water, since they can't possibly sin, save all the infants that had no ability to discern their wrongdoing (you know, thinking in their non-linguistic way that the world was made to serve them), maybe strike all the evildoers with lightning (much more precise than a freaking flood), etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, currentchristian. If you don't hthink the bible is true, why do you think the jesus bit is true?

Not, why would it be nice if it were true.

But what makes you think this bit is any more reliable than the rest??

If the whole book is just examples and guidance rather than the "WORD OF GOD!!!" then why not this bit too? I've seen a very interesting comparison of the jesus story with the sun-god stories. Which were esentially an instruction manual for early farmers.

 

http://members.cox.net/deleyd/religion/sol.../christ2002.htm

 

That's a very fair question, don't you think? There are only a few possible answers:

 

1. Pick and choose the parts of the bible that "ring true" for you, and take the rest with a pound or two of salt. (In essence, creating your own religion.)

 

2. Write the Old Testament off as having no relevance to Christianity (except for "historical" background), and concentrate only on the New Testament.

 

3. Believe that the Bible contains bits of Truth amidst the fiction, but that it takes the "Holy Spirit" to enable the born-again Christian to separate the wheat from the chaff. (The supernaural approach)

 

4. Believe what you want to be true. (The human approach)

 

5. Believe what you were programmed to believe during your formative years, because it feels comfortable - even when it makes no sense. (The standard religious approach)

 

Have I left anything out?

 

 

Rob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problems with goddidit, other than the most obvious of course, is why did he do it that way? If god was all powerful, why would he need to shrink the animals, help noah build a structually unsound ark, etc? For that matter, why did he have to cleanse the world with a destructive flood in the first place? If god is indeed all powerful, why jump through so many hoops to accomplish a task he could accomplish simply by commanding it be so? Could he not indeed cleanse the earth of all the wicked by just making them all instantly disappear?

 

It's all as convoluted as the gospel stories. Why did he need such a twisted sacrifice when in fact he could choose to just outright forgive the way the rest of us do?

 

These are great questions, especially "Could he not indeed cleanse the earth of all the wicked by just making them all instantly disapper?"

 

The last question might be answered this way: God could have done just what you ask, but we having a consciousness of sin and guilt need a "scapegoat" to bear away our sins. Jesus is our scapegoat. All that is "amiss" in us and all the harm we do to ourselves and others was borne by Jesus so that we could have full psychological redemption. (Perhaps, too, the cosmic scales of which we are in the dark have to be balanced and justice must be rendered.)

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough. So if jesus is the "scapegoat" then what is the burnt offering? Don't forget that in this offering there was a burnt portion given to YHWH in the temple (or tent in the earliest version) and then the one released into the wilderness. Also, later on we learn that the one released into the wilderness was given to a demon aptly named Azezel (SP?) (which translates roughly to "scapegoat"...a little "on the nose" for my tastes but what can you do?).

 

I see one answer and that is everyone who goes to the pit of fire is a symbolic "burnt offering" of sorts but are you really prepared to accept that everyone who goes there is essentially half of an offering (jesus symbolically being the other half) for your personal salvation?

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough. So if jesus is the "scapegoat" then what is the burnt offering? Don't forget that in this offering there was a burnt portion given to YHWH in the temple (or tent in the earliest version) and then the one released into the wilderness. Also, later on we learn that the one released into the wilderness was given to a demon aptly named Azezel (SP?) (which translates roughly to "scapegoat"...a little "on the nose" for my tastes but what can you do?).

 

I see one answer and that is everyone who goes to the pit of fire is a symbolic "burnt offering" of sorts but are you really prepared to accept that everyone who goes there is essentially half of an offering (jesus symbolically being the other half) for your personal salvation?

 

mwc

 

It seems that these burnt offerings and other "sin offerings" were for the people, not for God. Even the God of the sacrificial system of the OT claimed to have no interest in such offerings (in more than one passage). It seems to me that these offerings were means whereby the person restored the health of his/her conscience and psyche: I have committed a great sin and need relief, so I sacrifice an animal and "make God happy" and "do away with the residual aftermath."

 

Interestingly, Jesus required that we go a step beyond and "reconcile" with the person we had hurt or the person we had been hurt by -- the instruction about restoring one's relationships prior to giving an offering or making a prayer. Speaking only for myself here, I am "comforted" to know that all my shortcomings and even my most egregious sins (occasions of "missing the mark") have already been reconciled. It is a great hope, for me, to claim what St. Paul taught: we are the righteousness of God by faith. (This former Pentecostal could almost shout about that.)

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.