Originally Posted By X-san ***One of my favorite "Far Side" cartoons is when the lions ate one of the unicorns.*** lol. That's a good one.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "The whole story in its' entirety, short of a miracle, is impossible. Particularly rounding up all the species on the planet to put onto a single boat. Just..really..impossible. If you want to equate it to a miracle, that's fine, but please don't try and justify it "scientifically" because that's just ridiculous." Not so fast. I think what you're doing here is holding this to an exacting set of proofs, and I'd be willing to wager that stories such as Noah's Ark are more about generalities. Play along with me here. For example, assume for a moment the earth was created in six days and on the seventh God rested. This assigns a value of 24 hours to a day, which might not necessarily be true in this case, if we continue along with the assumption that's how it all happened. A day to God, possibly, could be ten thousand years to us for all we know. It could be in the grand scheme of things, to God, he created the earth earlier this year or something. Same with Noah's Ark. Could be old Noah didn't really round up two of everything, but just two of what was hanging around at the time. Moreover, and more to what uk fan was saying, there HAVE been books, studies, archeological expeditions, etc. that aren't biase in any way that have bheen able to credibly lay out that there might have been an Ark. Matter of fact, if memory serves, earlier this year (in our measurement of time) something came out where somebody said they might have its final resting spot on Mt. Ararat pin pointed.
Originally Posted By X-san ***Same with Noah's Ark. Could be old Noah didn't really round up two of everything, but just two of what was hanging around at the time. Moreover, and more to what uk fan was saying, there HAVE been books, studies, archeological expeditions, etc. that aren't biase in any way that have bheen able to credibly lay out that there might have been an Ark. Matter of fact, if memory serves, earlier this year (in our measurement of time) something came out where somebody said they might have its final resting spot on Mt. Ararat pin pointed.*** I'm not arguing that some guy built a boat, and found a bunch of animals that he put on board. It's the "EVERY SPECIES" claim that is impossible. Not to mention the idea that humans, as a species, were wiped out save one family, which somehow repopulated the whole species. That, in and of itself, is impossible. Humans would be extinct if such an event occured. For sure. Save for some sort of series of miracles. Which is fine, if you want to believe that. But you can't boil such a thing down to scientific "fact" because the facts in a matter like this would be that humans would be gone (if there were only that handful walking off the ark), and they couldn't have rounded up all the creatures on Earth in the first place.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "It's the "EVERY SPECIES" claim that is impossible." Again, I think you're being too exacting, or literal, because I don't think you're going to find too many biblical scholars who say the bible should be taken so stringently.
Originally Posted By u k fan I'm not up on my theology, but is it possible that at that point not every creature that exists now existed then? I'm sure that's true of bugs, but not sure how that works when we get to the bigger animals! Also, some of the animals were taken in 7's. I can't remember which was which, but it was a "clean" Vs. "dirty" thing!!!
Originally Posted By u k fan Also, I'm not saying that Noah's Ark is scientifically possible. I'm saying the book says it is. I think the truth (assuming one is a Christian) is somewhere in bewteen!!!
Originally Posted By X-san ***Again, I think you're being too exacting, or literal, because I don't think you're going to find too many biblical scholars who say the bible should be taken so stringently.*** Of course, but it seems we're conversing with literalists, doesn't it? So, you argue the points at hand, I guess. I would hope that any idiot would understand that the ancient bible is a teaching tool of sorts and not a literal statement of facts, but that doesn't seem to be the way some are talking about it, no?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I would hope that any idiot would understand that the ancient bible is a teaching tool of sorts and not a literal statement of facts, but that doesn't seem to be the way some are talking about it, no?" And therein lies the problem. It is the extremists at work yet again. Moderate, sensible, religious individuals don't feel the need to intrude upon others' lives and impose their will in the name of clean living, goodness and moral values. The moderate ones are live and let live and also realize not everything in the bible is exactly what happened.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 Here are some hypotheses from Wikipedia about what could have inspired flood myths in ancient cultures: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_%28mythology%29#Hypotheses_of_origin_of_Flood_myths" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...od_myths</a> Interestingly enough, mrk's asteroid theory is on there. It makes for very interesting reading, and it's pretty amazing how many cultures have flood myths. There must have been some crazy flooding at some point in the ancient world. Of course, that doesn't mean the biblical account is any more accurate than any of the other accounts from mythology.
Originally Posted By X-san ***It makes for very interesting reading, and it's pretty amazing how many cultures have flood myths. There must have been some crazy flooding at some point in the ancient world.*** Perhaps similar to THIS? <a href="http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=awjxwVIkvMo&feature=related" target="_blank">http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=...=related</a> I've no doubt anyone caught up in that one (how many 10's of thousands died?) would not hesitate to describe it as "biblical". Nor any of the thousands of other events throughout history.
Originally Posted By mele I think I really only have a problem with people who take everything in the Bible literally. When they make huge leaps of logic just to prove that things in the Bible are true, I have a hard time respecting it. And when they insist that they are 100% sure that their theories are correct, well, it's hard not to mock. I respect people more for saying they're just not sure and have faith anyway. There is no way we'll ever know everything...that's okay.
Originally Posted By ecdc Of course, there's any number of ways to interpret the Bible as metaphor or myth. You can get around any number of stories that way. The question becomes, what's the message of that metaphor? The story of Abraham and Isaac, for example, is really quite awful. God commands a man to sacrifice his only son? If God or anyone else told me to kill one of my boys, there'd only be a two-word answer, initials F.Y. If God wants my son dead, he can give him a disease and my wife and I will take care of him until he dies, reminding him each day of how much we love him and cherishing the memories we've had with him. So what about the Flood? What's the story there? God smites the wicked and makes the faithful suffer humiliation and sacrifice everything until they get on the Ark? And I'm sure following the flood was no bed of roses - repopulating the earth? I hope those ladies were seriously hot. And don't even get me started on Job. God tortures a believer to prove a point to Satan? So ask yourself, what's more plausible here - that these are ancient stories best understood in the context of their cultures (to the extent we can understand them), or that these are real metaphors passed to us from God to tell us what a jerk-face he is? The irony is, the Bible really is very inspiring in some respects. It does teach us about ancient literature and tells us something about our ancestors. Humanity in and of itself is quite wonderful; the more we know about ourselves and our condition, the better. It also shows a progressive shift in cultural attitudes between the Old and New Testaments. He may not have been divine, but I sure dig the stuff attributed to that Jesus fellow. Sure, some of it was written centuries later and inserted into the Bible, but it's good stuff. Finding the underlying message isn't too tough.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<The people who believe in the Koran say the exact same thing, of course.>> <Islam is an religion that believes in an false idol god who is uniquely exclusive.> The Islamic God is the Judeo-Christian God; they just have a different name for Him and say that Mohammed was the last and greatest prophet. They believe in the OT, and consider Jesus a prophet (but not divine). But they also consider the Koran the perfection of God's word to us, and prove that by... quoting the Koran. Kind of like you do with the Bible. Remember, mrk, I'm a Christian myself. That's my faith, but I do understand that it IS faith. (SPP)<And therein lies the problem. It is the extremists at work yet again. Moderate, sensible, religious individuals don't feel the need to intrude upon others' lives and impose their will in the name of clean living, goodness and moral values. The moderate ones are live and let live and also realize not everything in the bible is exactly what happened.< Exactly.
Originally Posted By X-san ***that these are ancient stories best understood in the context of their cultures (to the extent we can understand them)*** Yup. I recently read some stuff by Ken Wilbur that makes a lot of sense when you look at the course of human development (not to mention everyones' personal development), and he talks about the stages that a society goes through as it matures. The stages supposedly consist of archaic, magic, mythic, rational, pluralistic, and integral, and he theorizes that we are now somewhere in the middle of mythic/rational/pluralistic (with the fundies still being stuck in mythic). So in that context, you figure folks back then were thinking more in archaic and magical terms, and thus when bad stuff happened they had to explain it away as God somehow making a point (the same way some today explain stuff away as "God's will", but we're a touch more evolved and so not silly enough to say God is smiting little Billy Billings with his cancer because his parents forgot to kill a goat this month). Anyway, I thought that stuff was interesting and the part about it that *I'M* struggling with is the idea that reaching the Integral stage means you embrace and love all the other stages as essential to human development. That was a real kick in the teeth for me, and I've been doing a lot of thinking since then about some of the stuff I've said and written regarding religions and religious folks. Here's a link I found that explains those stages and what they mean, if anyone is interested. I'm not sure I buy it myself, but I found it interesting anyway. <a href="http://www.twelvestagevision.com/introduction.htm" target="_blank">http://www.twelvestagevision.c...tion.htm</a>
Originally Posted By X-san ***<You are very presumptuous, to assume such things.> Yes, I know.*** God doesn't like that.
Originally Posted By dshyates I have rewritten my post 5 times and I really haven't been able to really sum up my thoughts without being totally offensive to the "believers'. But I truly think you guys are as nuts as the 9/11 hijackers. And possible just as dangerous. You are as convinced you are right as they were. Pious righteousness has been the bain of civilization since the get go. And now with the crazy evangelical movement in this country and particularly in the military and groups like Blackwater taking their righteousness to war, I think you guys will be the end of the civilization, all by choice. I really can't not say it. You guys are nuts and scare the crap out of me. You really believe in a ridiculous fairy tale.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<Anyway, I thought that stuff was interesting and the part about it that *I'M* struggling with is the idea that reaching the Integral stage means you embrace and love all the other stages as essential to human development. That was a real kick in the teeth for me, and I've been doing a lot of thinking since then about some of the stuff I've said and written regarding religions and religious folks.>> I clicked on the link and read those stages. Seems like pretty basic anthropology/sociology to me: the more informed people are, the less primitive their religious beliefs. His "higher stage of development" -- in which one has compassion and understanding for those at lower levels -- makes sense, too. But he also makes it clear that having compassion does not mean that we should allow those with primitive beliefs to dictate the rules. Yes, we should realize that not everyone is on the same plane of understanding. Yes, we should treat others with respect. No, we should not be silent when the less informed attempt to impose their superstitious beliefs on the rest of us.
Originally Posted By X-san ***But he also makes it clear that having compassion does not mean that we should allow those with primitive beliefs to dictate the rules.*** Totally agreed. Thing is, I think the ranks of those who are thinking on a higher level is growing quickly these days. I was impressed by a poll someone linked to that indicated LOTS of religious folks these days don't believe that their way is the only way (a big step, methinks). That's very different from 20-30 years ago, I believe. A very good thing.
