Noah's Arc left behind most people and animals, was that not Evil?

Jump to Last Post 1-18 of 18 discussions (242 posts)

77
Castlepalomaposted 12 years ago
Noah's Arc left behind most people and animals
Was that an Evil or a Good act?

My thoughts is Safety first! Automatic I've would of thrown out life jackets or peaces of wood for all of God's creatures to be saved during the flood. If God made everything perfect, why would God have 95% of Land Animals go instinct-ed and have 27 million People killed. Wouldn’t it be Yahweh screw up for not making everyone and thing so perfect?
reply report
1. 58
  Jeramiposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It is my belief the book of Genesis is Metaphoric in nature.
  The tree of knowledge represents a kind of knowledge other than how we precieve it to be today.
  It was that knowledge which was destroyed in the flood.
  reply report
  77
  Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Are you saying the Bible did write about Dinosaurs and other missing species, but it got destroyed in the flood?
  
  Sound like the Rex ate the Christian homework
  
  Although it was mention in a creationist Museum that the Rex ate Vegetables for 40 days and 40 night and was extremely good with sharing
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I always got a kick out of how Noah immediately sacrificed one of the two remaining members of an animal species as soon as his family disembarked the ark. I assume this species went extinct because of it. He must have burnt a unicorn!
  
  reply report
  58
  Jeramiposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It would seem that you assume MUCH more than I do!
  reply report
  64
  Claire Evansposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The occult is often metaphoric as widely illustrated in the Old Testament. Take Jacob's Ladder, for example.
  
  "We cannot expect that the Scottish Rite freemasons will give away their secret knowledge that they have preserved for centuries without further ado; the revelation of the information that they have given on the Bradford’s University’s website may be as close as we can ever get about learning their esoteric mysteries, yet they have left the door ajar enough for us to swing it open and reveal what’s inside.
  
  We must keep in mind that the nature of the information that is provided by the Scottish Rite freemasons is of an exoteric nature. The hidden esoteric or occult meaning of their information is only revealed to the initiates of the Order. While a Masonic symbol may have a clear obvious exoteric appearance it may distract us from the multiple intended esoteric meanings. In other words an exoteric symbol may have one or more esoteric meanings.
  
  All we have is the mysterious ‘Tracing Board’ and the clues that were given by the Scottish Rite freemasons on their website.
  
  Here’s a summary of the important clues that were given:
  
  Quote:
  
  “The blazing star, or glory in the centre, refers us to the Sun, which enlightens the earth, and by its benign influence dispenses blessings to mankind in general”.
  
  “In all regular, well-formed, constituted Lodges, there is a point within a circle round which a Mason cannot err; this circle is bounded between North and South by two grand parallel lines, the one representing Moses, the other King Solomon; on the upper part of this circle rests the Volume of the Sacred Law, supporting Jacob's ladder, the top of which reaches to the heavens; and were we as conversant with that holy book, and as adherent to the doctrines therein contained, as both those parallels were, it would lead us to Him who will not deceive us, neither will He suffer deception.”
  
  “The three great Pillars supporting Mason's Lodges are emblematical of the Divine attributes; they further represent Solomon, King of Israel, Hiram, King of Tyre, and Hiram Abif. Solomon, King of Israel for his Wisdom in building, completing, and dedicating the Temple at Jerusalem to God's service; Hiram, King of Tyre, for his Strength in supporting him with men and material and Hiram Abif, for his curious a masterly workmanship in beautifying and adorning the same. But as we have no noble orders in Architecture known by the names of Wisdom Strength, and Beauty, we refer them to the three most celebrated, the Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian.”
  
  Moses caused a tent or Tabernacle to be erected in the wilderness, which by God's especial command was situated due East and West, for Moses did everything according to a pattern shown him by the Lord on Mount Sinai. This Tent or Tabernacle proved afterwards to be the ground-plan, in respect to situation, of that most magnificent Temple built at Jerusalem by that wise and mighty Prince, King Solomon, whose regal splendour and unparalleled lustre far transcend our ideas.
  
  Jacob’s Ladder
  
  Jacob’s ladder appears in the ‘Tracing Board’ and is reaching into the Heavens. Jacob was the grandson of Abraham and Sarah, the son of Isaac and Rebecca. Jacob's 12 sons were the ancestors of the 12 tribes of Israel. The 12 tribes of Israel is a reference to the twelve houses of the Zodiac, just like the 12 apostles of Jesus are. That’s why Leonardo Da Vinci portrayed the apostles in 4 groups of three in his painting of the Last Supper separating the zodiac into four seasons.
  
  Jacob dreamt of the Milky Way as a ladder with angels ascending and descending it. The ascending angles of course are the up and down moving stars in the sky.
  
  And he dreamed that there was a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven; and behold, the angels of God were ascending and descending on it!
  (Gen 28:12)
  
  During summertime the Milky Way stands erect on the horizon and forms a ‘Stairway to Heaven’ or Jacob’s ladder. The idea of representing the Milky Way as a stairway or ladder leading to Heaven was a very common theme in ancient times. This idea was expressed as a rope, a tree (World Tree) or a ladder leading into the skies. The Maya called the Milky Way the Wakah Chan during summer sunrise ‘the raised up sky’ and it was represented as the World Tree.
  
  On the website the Scottish Rite freemasons speak about the ‘The Volume of the Sacred Law’ appearing on the table with the circle and dot (Sun) supporting Jacob’s ladder. The Volume of the Sacred Law is a reference to the religious book, the Holy Bible containing the Masonic square and compasses.
  
  This statement I believe states that the Sun (circle and dot) is supporting the Milky Way (Jacob’s ladder) and that this knowledge is contained in ‘The Volume of the Sacred Law’, the Bible which rests between the Sun (circle and dot) and the Milky Way (Jacob’s ladder). In other words they are speaking of the importance of the Sun on the Milky Way (Galactic Alignment), information that is contained in the bible..."
  
  http://www.soulsofdistortion.nl/2012_fr … tions.html
  reply report
2. 60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Imagine the in-breeding which would have resulted from this fictional event, both in the human and animal species. I wonder how the fish survived with all of the fresh water being introduced into the oceans?
  
  reply report
  77
  Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  There are real fresh water sharks out there, yet far more land sharks.
  
  There were 5% species that did survive on the Arc, which must have been waving good bye to the 95% species who miss the boat, or was it God's judgement to leave them behind. It's till a huge Christian scientific mysterious which never be solved by the book.
  
  Christian scientist rather pick on how human bones did not match up right, on a half a million year old Human/ape bones . You try going to an auto Wreckers Yard and build a whole car out of all those loose parts.
  reply report
3. 86
  Marisa Wrightposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It depends on your point of view. I think it's metaphorical, not to be taken literally (like most of the Bible). On the other hand, most fundamentalists wouldn't see the problem. After all, they're quite happy for the whole world to be damned, except them.
  
  I once asked a fundamentalist work colleague what happens to remote jungle dwellers when they die - people who never had the chance to find Jesus. Her reply was that they would all go to Hell, because they hadn't been saved. Too bad it wasn't their fault.
  reply report
  64
  Claire Evansposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You ought to tell her not all Christians go to heaven.
  reply report
  61
  Reviewsbypatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  They'd probably be judged on how they conducted their lives. As in, they were good for the sake of goodness itself, and not lived positively for the fear of damnation or hellfire. It is said, Jesus is Merciful, surely Mercy then would extend to all God's children, even those who are aware of Him, but don't know His story.
  reply report
  78
  Chris Nealposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It's been one of the great questions not only as a stumbling block to non-believers but even within believing circles. I've heard several different explanations, but I personally don't have an answer for it.
  reply report
4. 78
  Chris Nealposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Animals don't have souls. They weren't created in God's image. I'm not advocating that we should kill animals because they don't have souls (I can just hear somebody say that's what I'm saying,) I've had pets and I love animals. But they're not people.
  
  The Bible says that all people were doing evil all the time, except for Noah and his family. So, if you want to accuse God of doing evil because He didn't save the whole human race, don't be quite so quick. The implication is that people were doing true evil all the time. And it's not like nobody had a chance to figure it out and change. How long did it take Noah and his sons to build the arc? They didn't go to a place where there were no people and do it in secret. People saw what was going on, they would have talked to Noah and had plenty of time to change their minds and ask to be saved.
  reply report
  0
  SirDentposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It is like you read my mind. The OP starts off on a false premise by giving a false statement about the flood, no matter if real or not in his own mind. 120 years it took to build the ark. All who saw Noah would have known, as you said, what was going to happen.
  
  The Bible also says the imagination of their hearts was evil continually. Nothing good ever crossed their minds. I am also reminded of Sodom and Gomorah. Abraham asked if there were 10 righteous in those cities, would God still destroy them. God would have spared those cities if only 10 righteous people were found in them.
  
  Now to this day and time we now live. You can see by those who post in these forums that many do not believe, even those the signs all point to the Bible being true. It is what it is. God has always given space and time for repentance.
  reply report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And there were no infants or children alive at the time? No pregnant women? Did no one notice that it had been 18 or so years since anyone got pregnant or had a child?
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Apparently there were no children as everyone was gay, Melisssa. See, simple as pie!
  
  reply report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So basically... no children for 18 years and an average lifespan of about 30... so the human race would have likely died out in 40 or so years max. Animals have no souls so cannot be inherently evil or good. So basically God decided just to kill the bad people who were dying anyway and kill a couple million animals for piss and giggles... Gotcha.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Ah, but that's when people lived hundreds or even a thousand years. Woo! I don't even want to imagine how grouchy a 600 year old pregnant woman would be!!
  
  reply report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No you probably don't... I'm only 37 and I haven't seen my hubby since the end of my first trimester... I think he's hiding under the bed. The cat is sneaking him food.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, Man's next-to-best friend!
  
  reply report
  0
  SirDentposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Dogs give birth to dogs and cats give birth to cats. 120 years the people had to repent, but they did not. Wicked people give birth to wicked people. That is just how it is.
  reply report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So it's okay for God to kill babies in the womb and small children who have never sinned because they were eventually going to be evil?
  
  I assume you are pro-choice then?
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So if two bad parents are wicked we should simply kill their children? Wow!
  
  reply report
  77
  Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  God did not care when he killed 27 million people and millions of species of animals, Why would God (Yahweh) care about a few innocence kids
  reply report
  86
  Marisa Wrightposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Say a woman was found guilty of a brutal, sadistic murder and was sentenced to death.
  
  Say she had a three month old baby.
  
  Are you saying that since the mother was evil, the baby must therefore also be evil and should also be sentenced to death?
  reply report
  0
  SirDentposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No. A 3 month old child can still be taught rightly.
  
  They had 120 years to repent then teach their children. Any full grown woman who had a child when Noah started building the ark had the opportunity to repent and live right.
  reply report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  But the child didn't. So God aborted fetuses in the womb and infants at breast. Innocent children. Sinless children... some not even born yet.
  
  I am waiting patiently for you to explain how you are NOT pro-choice but apparently God was. There should be some pretty good theological cartwheels involved.
  reply report
  78
  kirstenblogposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I thought these were supposed to be sinful people, ya know, worse then we got today even. Yet your telling us that these horrible horrible people were NOT baring children in the last 1-2 years of Noah building his arc? All breeding would have had to have stopped for what, a decade or so before the arc was finished in order that all children have at least a small chance to repent before being killed. Something don't add up
  
  BTW, if God were happy to make all women (except for the women in Noah's family of course) then why not just use that as the method of destroying all these 'wicked' people? At least then a bunch of innocent animals don't also need to be killed for vengeance. I mean heck, a virus would be within the capibilities of God so why not a strain of say, the ebola virus that targets the super giants that people must have been but also leaves Noah and his family untouched. Just seems less sadistic that way.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  This is what results when modern educated people analyze the words of primitive goat herders. But sadly, some remain ignorant at the behest of their religious leaders. This must cease if we ever are to rid ourselves of primitive superstitions.
  
  reply report
  78
  kirstenblogposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  What amazes me is the ability to completely ignore even the simplest of logic. At best, stories like Noah and his arc can only be taken as metaphors and even then I suspect its a case of not being able to let go. It's not like the bible says its a metaphor, nor does it say which bits to take as a metaphor (assuming its not an all or nothing situation). Not very smart of a God creating a book for generations of illiterate and barely literate people working every waking moment for their continued survival. One could think this God would make an easy to read book with pictures to illustrate the stories for the generations of people earning their bread by the sweat of their brow with no time to learn to read or study complicated coded books on morality.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Written by ignorant men, and still believed by them.
  
  reply report
  86
  Marisa Wrightposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The logic still doesn't work. There must've been many babies and toddlers around when the Flood happened. You're saying that because their parents failed to repent, those tiny babies and toddlers had to die too. I don't think I like your God.
  
  But then, the God of the Old Testament went in for genocide later, too.
  reply report
  77
  Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Marisawright
  
  I could not do such a thing
  
  On the other hand.....
  
  God><<<<?<<>>>>
  reply report
  78
  DoubleScorpionposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  
  This is kinda like saying...only gay people give birth to gay people...
  
  With this logic, you would be exactly the same as your parents in your actions...So are you like your Father, Mother or are you like both of them put together...
  
  If your father was a mean drunk who fought all the time and your mother was a caring, loving person who operated a homeless food kitchen, which parent to does one take after and how is one just like both parents?
  
  Lets follow the OT logic, and say that since the males where the only ones counted, all children take after their fathers. So at the time of Noah, all males and children were completely evil...what about the wives?? They belonged to the husbands, so I guess they were evil by default.
  reply report
  0
  SirDentposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Like others before you, you fail to realize the 120 years time they were all given to repent.
  reply report
  84
  Jane Bovaryposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  But what about "Wicked people give birth to wicked people. That is just how it is."? You haven't dealt with that.
  reply report
  0
  SirDentposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If two liars had a child, would that child be raised to be a liar? of course it would simply because it is what it is taught.
  reply report
  84
  Jane Bovaryposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That's pretty shaky reasoning SirDent. Have you never heard of people transcending the indoctrination of their parents? Just because he was surrounded by liars. it doesn't follow he would be one himself. Are the children of murderer's always murderers, the children of nudists always nudists and so on...?
  reply report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Theological cartwheels. He is faced with a question he never asked himself before and is struggling to align his previous notions with new information that raises doubts. He can only fit excuses that line up with the old notions because new opinions that question the status quo would shake his surety to the core. Since he needs that surety to continue to exist in his happy world then he will eventually just forget the question and move on... but for now he's painted into a corner. Its a hard place to be in.
  reply report
  0
  SirDentposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Nothing shaky about it. Children learn from their parents first and foremost.
  reply report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  God was killing their parents... they wouldn't have been around to learn from. Your argument doesn't make any sense. There was no reason to kill the babies. They weren't evil and their bad influences were about to be wiped off the map.
  reply report
  0
  SirDentposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Do you believe in God? I think I read somewhere that you are a Christian. Correct me if I am wrong.
  report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I do indeed believe in God. I am indeed a Christian. I've done my own theological cartwheels about this one and made peace with it.
  report
  0
  SirDentposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  What do you think of the following verse of scripture, especially the part that is bolded?
  
  Exo 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
  report
  84
  Jane Bovaryposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That alone, would be enough to put me off your version of religion. There is nothing reasonable, just or loving about that passage.It's senseless revenge.
  report
  0
  SirDentposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Everyone wants all the good things that come with belief in Jesus. They want everything to be like Utopia. Everything is always perfect and nothing bad ever happens, there is no wicked people no murders, no theft, no lies, etc. . . That place does not exist in this realm.
  
  God, who knows and sees all, is not ignorant of what is going on now and what will be in the future.
  report
  84
  Jane Bovaryposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Imagine if we did that in real life - that is, punished the children of those who had committed crimes for four generations? How would that tally with your moral sensibilities? Why should we exclude/excuse God from the same reasoning we use to judge moral standards here in our world?
  report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I think it's part of a warning to not worship false idols... and if taken literally it means that God is a murderous abortionist that likes killing infants because their parents pissed him off.
  
  Or it can mean that he will punish the children if they walk in the steps of their fathers... which would mean that he would kinda have to let them make that choice.
  
  If you choose to believe that he is a murderous abortionist who kills innocent babies then so be it... But you really do have to make peace with that. You really do have to acknowledge that the God that you worship kills babies because he is jealous that their parents worship another God. If my theological cartwheels had led me to that conclusion though I would be pretty sure that I was on the wrong team.
  report
  0
  SirDentposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I love it when you try to put words in my mouth. It means something I said hit home in some way or another. Give me one good reason why I should continue in this thread?
  report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Wow... really defensive. You asked what I thought it meant and I told you. How is that putting words in your mouth? This is really really hard for you isn't it?
  report
  0
  SirDentposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Every post you made to me, you put words in my mouth.
  report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  To try and gain some bit of the already sparse respect you've lost posting on it. Good luck with that though!
  
  report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Because it is good for you to have to figure this stuff out. Because it is good for you to have to think independently and make peace with all the goods and bads of your faith. That's what the Bible is supposed to do... make you develop your faith. You can't do that if you don't actually think about what you are reading and what it really means.
  report
  0
  SirDentposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So are you saying the Holy Ghost is for nothing at all and is useless? Did not Jesus say that he spoke what He heard from the Father?
  report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Where did you get that from? I said no such thing. I didn't even imply that. I don't even see where it relates.
  
  I think you are avoiding the subject... can we get back to the topic?
  report
  0
  SirDentposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I quote you from above.
  report
  61
  recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I guess you mean that you are unable to think independantly and the holy ghost tells you what to do ??
  report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Oh my Dent... do you really think that thinking through the words of the Bible means you are ignoring the voice of the holy spirit?
  
  Why do you think the Bible is there?
  
  But back to topic... It is obvious if you believe in the Noahs ark portion of the bible literally that God killed innocent children when he didn't have to. Now... I would suggest that you internalize that and then go looking for the answers to whatever questions that brings. But you aren't listening to the holy ghost right now... you are arguing with what the bible says happened.
  report
  0
  SirDentposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The topic was changed and lost when you and Randy started posting in this thread last night.
  report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  As I said earlier, Dent, take the blame for regurgitating your nonsense for a change. No one makes you say the silly things you do. If there were a god he would certainly not use you to spread goodwill. You are not articulate enough to speak for anyone, much less a supreme being. Who ever told you you wee good at it?
  
  report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  This is his usual ploy, Melissa. The confused misunderstood act of, "don't blame me, blame Jesus. I'm just the messenger" They talk the talk, but walking the walk? No way!
  
  report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Take it easy on him... this kind of stuff is hard. Its where you break from indoctrination and start developing your own faith. It's scary as hell because the answers haven't already been fed to him.
  report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  But some never can never see how they turn people away by their own self righteousness in judging others. Usually it's those who do not respect themselves but wish to be looked to for something to admire. I feel for him too, Melissa.
  
  report
  61
  recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I have noticed that the fundamental christians that I know or meet vary widely in intelligence but they all are unable to apply reason to their faith. Maybe this is what a fundie is, and the inability to reason （that we see so frequently in these pages) may be at the base of the fascination with all things they don't understand, like their own book etc.
  report
  84
  Jane Bovaryposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The Bible says what it says. In this discussion SirDent is just the messenger of a scripture that doesn't make sense. No wonder he's having a hard time defending it. His is no salad bar religion, he's swallowed the elephant whole.I fear he may be suffering from indigestion.
  report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Even though I've lived among Dent's ilk all of my life here in the deep south, it's still difficult to not have pity on those who place so much stock in the old myths in the bible. These poor folks have been through the mill being taught so much bunk from an early age.
  
  Dent is an okay guy other than being totally misled with his belief in the supernatural. But there is still danger from such primitive thinking. Think Jonestown and you get a glimpse of the danger involved in allowing ignorance to run wild without being challenged.
  
  report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So all of you recent ancestors for several generations were pure, Dent? If not, you are wasting your time making up with Jesus, right. But wait, I'll bet you're special! I doubt you know your ancestors for 3 generations or more in the past! What a load of horses**t!
  
  report
  0
  SirDentposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I am sure my ancestors did evil things, just as I did evil things myself. Jesus is the only one who can break the bonds of sin.
  report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Not for more than 4 generations though, Dent. You're doomed and I hope if you have kids they are 5 generations from your worst kinfolks. Your type of attitude is why I care not for your cult. No wonder the lions ate well during the day!
  
  report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  What you really mean is "are you a bad christian or a good christian like me?
  
  report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Nope... he's just trying to change the subject. I didn't really take it personally. Like I said... he's going on his own here and he cannot doubt or he thinks a lightning bolt will hit him or somesuch.
  report
  84
  Jane Bovaryposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yet there comes a time when people may begin to think for themselves...or don't you believe that is possible?
  
  Apparently it's a pre-emptive strike.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No, you are just plain wrong, Dent. Suck it up like a man and admit it, or else kick forgiveness in the butt, especially for innocent children who didn't have choice of who their parent were. This is the silliest thing you've ever said on these forums. And you've thrown out some doozies in your time here!
  
  reply report
  59
  nightwork4posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  i was raised by parents who beat the crap out of me on a whim. i've never hit my kids or abused them in any way so i guess that makes me like a super-human. cool.
  reply report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I am realizing that 120 years. I got it. Now what about the babies that didn't have ANY time to repent or the ones that were in the womb? They were... by you own admission... innocent yet they were killed by God.
  
  If you don't have an answer just say so... but to ignore the question is silly. Those infants were completely unaware of 120 years of anything. They had committed no sins and in some cases weren't even born. So why did God kill them?
  reply report
  0
  SirDentposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If you had a chance to save someone from certain death and chose not to do it, then is it not as much your fault as anyone else's fault?
  
  Death was coming, and the parents of children chose not to save them.
  reply report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  God killed them. If someone shoots someone in front of me who is more responsible... me for not saving them or the person firing the gun?
  
  Dent... you really can't get around this... If you believe the story of the ark then God murdered innocent babies. Period.
  
  Let me restate... he drowned small infants because their parents were bad. Little tiny innocent babes that he said had free will... He killed them without giving them any chance to live. He is the ultimate abortionist.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So you are playing the part of Noah, eh Dent? The messenger of god, trying to convince us YOU know what is right and moral. How does it feel, Dent? I mean, you have such a great relationship with the most powerful being ever and get to admonish the rest of us because YOU are able to look down on us like the prophets of old. Feel a bit smug with your power, do you?
  
  Of course you do! How can you help it when you are so much more enlightened than us mere sinners. With so much power, I'll bet you are really successful in everything you do or try. Well, perhaps your writing could use a little boost, but I'm sure your god will edit your stuff for you if you need it. All hail the prophet Dent!
  
  What's a few dead babies when the job calls for it? The end justifies the means, right?
  
  Perhaps if you used different colored text........
  
  reply report
  84
  Jane Bovaryposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And added some dancing girls and a brass band
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Those are too sinful for the Prophet Dent!
  
  reply report
  61
  Reviewsbypatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The nephilim and their offspring corrupted humanity, and were gaining a seriously unfair advantage over the sons of Adam (the human race). This necessitated extreme action to ensure the survival of the species, hence the flood. God takes the souls of the innocent unto Himself. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-XX0u4mnUg
  reply report
  77
  Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Why would anyone want to repent to a Yahweh when he/she is not the only all loving God in the Universe and if Yahweh really did mass murder all of the billions of animals, us included
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Fairy tales and old myths! What a god you got there, Dent. You are welcome to him!
  
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The flood myth was stolen from the Epic of Gilgamesh, Dent. It predated the bible by centuries at least. Read it for yourself if you don't believe me. Much of the bible is simply plagiarized myths and stories from previous civilizations and incorporated from old goat herder tales into religious stories.
  
  reply report
  0
  SirDentposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The OP is about Noah's ark. Nothing mentioned about The Epic of Gilgamesh.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And you don't see the connection if the myth was stolen to be used for the Noah's Ark tale, Dent?
  
  reply report
  60
  Paul Wingertposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The Noah's Arc story was my favorite as a kid. But even then, the more I thought of it, the more ridiculous it became. Why would god choose a 600 year old senior citizen to build a wooden ship 2/3 the size of the Titanic? Instead, God could of easily kill off the evil people in the world and save the BS. The Noah story is based on the ancient Sumerian story of the flooding of the Tigress River. Too many holes in the Noah story to be taken seriously. For starters, I'd rather be on the maiden voyage of the Titanic, where I would have a 1/3-survival rate. I say this simply because the Titanic actually floated. Noah's arc would sink like a rock because of this thing called the Laws of Physics. I'm not going to go into the pairs of animals and a worldwide flood because it's too flaky.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Of course! As children we believe things we later laugh at as adults. This includes the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus. At least some of us do. But others can never get past the childlike state of believing in things which are obviously just figments of our imagination.
  
  These people have been convinced since childhood we are being controlled by a evil tempter or a good deity in everything we do. Controlled to the point of ignoring common sense and indisputable facts just because they are told to.
  
  reply report
  61
  Reviewsbypatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Good point, but remember, we observe the past from our present, awaiting the future. The spirits reside outside time and space, to say the bible copies other instances is to ignore the fact that chronologically the story's end was known from the beginning, and all the acts of the play are put in place at strategic moments to invoke credulity, and ruin credibility, which you have pointed out yourself.
  reply report
  78
  Chris Nealposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, you are absolutely right.
  
  To be fair, Castlepaloma doesn't believe in the God of the Bible, but he does believe that a loving god would practice universalism. From his standpoint, this is a valid question. I agree the premise is false, and we are called upon to point that out, but ultimately we must leave it in God's hands.
  reply report
  77
  Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I think everything is connected in the Universe with high and low energies with a source of good intention, Evil is mainly over negative and or lack reasoning. All of these - One and only God over 10.000 other Gods is too much ugly show business
  reply report
  78
  Chris Nealposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  There's a lot of show business, to be sure. But God is the only one. There aren't 10,000 other gods.
  reply report
  84
  Jane Bovaryposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So this has a soul...
  
  But this doesn't..
  
  "Heaven goes by favor; if it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in."~ Mark Twain
  reply report
  78
  Chris Nealposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, that's correct. Whether animals will be in Heaven or not is a question that has been debated for centuries, and it has gone back and forth. But animals were not created in the image of God.
  
  Mr. Twain was right. He was no believer, but he was certainly a sharp-witted man!
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Okay Chris, I gotta call you on this one. Where did you find out animals don't have souls and people do? I mean, surely you wouldn't state something as a certain fact without having a link to back up this outrageous claim?
  
  reply report
  84
  Jane Bovaryposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And at what point of the evolutionary time scale of man was the soul slipped in?
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  There is no evolution in the bible!!
  
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  At the moment that pile of dirt rose up and formed itself into Adam.
  reply report
  78
  Chris Nealposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
  
  26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
  
  27 So God created mankind in his own image,
  in the image of God he created them;
  male and female he created them.
  
  28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground. ”
  
  29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food. ” And it was so."
  Genesis 1:24-29
  
  God made man in His image, then gave man dominion over the animals. He did not make animals in His image.
  
  Obviously I don't expect you to agree with me, but that is my backup for the claim.
  
  It also doesn't mean that we should be wasteful and kill all the animals. But it does mean that animals don't have souls. They have emotions, they have consiousness, they can love and fear. But they aren't made in the image of God.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Of course I don't agree with you, Chris. There is not one mention of "souls" in your entire post of old scripture. "Dominion over" does not preclude the presence of souls at all.
  
  This is why it's very difficult to take anything you avow as truth seriously. You interpret verses as you please, not as they are clearly stated in the old novel.
  
  reply report
  78
  Chris Nealposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  But it does say that only human beings were created in the image of God. And nowhere in the Bible does it talk about animals going to Heaven or hell, but it does about humans.
  reply report
  77
  Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Other animal just have not been taught how to read the Bible and programed into it.The monkeys and apes in some areas of the World are trained to work and the odd one knows how read at a age 3 level. Already Christian baptized their pets in church and some think their animal go to heaven and some marry their pets. Only 3% human attended the church now and as animal rights keep growing so will the new church members like other animal will be trained into a new form of slavery.
  
  It is only matter of time that other animals will allow new members of the church be other forms of animal like gays and people of color, As more intellectual humans learn how to use their brain more and more humans will leave the church more dumb animals will join
  reply report
  78
  Chris Nealposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Okay, so just to be clear, you're comparing me to a "dumb animal?"
  reply report
  77
  Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Naturally , yes
  reply report
  78
  Chris Nealposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you, I think you've just said it all.
  reply report
  77
  Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  i'm an animal too, we both have just a larger brain then other kinds of animals
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Of course it doesn't, but then, the bible was written by common men who were merely guessing at how the world came to be and existed. This is why the mythical flood was accepted so easily by the ignorant, just as it is today. You are assuming animals have no soul because the bible doesn't mention it, but have no problem interpreting other things not fully addressed in the bible.
  
  It doesn't mention dinosaurs or Neanderthal man in the old novel either. Do you believe they never existed because your old book doesn't mention them, Chris?
  
  reply report
  78
  Chris Nealposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'm frankly not real sure what to think about them.
  
  I also do take some stories on faith, as I've said often. Like the Flood Story.
  reply report
  79
  Trish_Mposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Humans are animals
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Believers detest the thought of being mere animals. They must feel superiority over something to be happy.
  
  reply report
  78
  Chris Nealposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No, we're not.
  
  I know, I was taught that we're the highest animals in school. But the Bible says different. We have the imago deo, the spark of God, in our souls. We can go to Heaven, and we can go to hell. Animals don't have any of that.
  
  Except for one brief excerpt early in Genesis, God never demands from animals nor does He give to animals what He demands and supplies to human beings.
  
  We're not animals.
  reply report
  84
  Jane Bovaryposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  What about humans who are brain damaged from birth and cant tell right from wrong. What does God demand from them? Do they have souls? If so, then being able to tell right from wrong can't be a criteria for having a soul.
  
  If God doesn't demand anything from them, does that mean they don't have souls?.
  reply report
  77
  Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  agree, the only advantage human have over other animals is the size of our brain. There are up side to having greater brain power and there are downsides. I say, we are equal with all animals, no better or worst and we share the planet , not own it, like some greedy dummies think
  reply report
  78
  Chris Nealposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Excuse me while I choke back my anger. You may not have meant it this way, but there are so many people who believe that "damaged" or "incomplete" people are not human beings. And that is not a hypothetical for me. My wife has cancer, my daughter is severely autistic. The contention that my family would be "better off" without them is sometimes an evil I am faced with daily.
  
  That's not disconnected from my answer. ALL human beings are made in God's image! Brain damaged, autistic, amputees, black, white, red, yellow, brown, straight, gay, men women and fetuses swimming around in the uterus! And they ALL have souls that will live on after their bodies are dead. And we are our brothers keeper. If someone cannot tell right and wrong for themselves, we are required to help them. If they cannot take care of themselves, we must help them.
  
  Animals were not created in God's image, and Jesus did not die to take away their sins.
  reply report
  77
  Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I wont's count them all with you, for all the other tiny natives and tribes. lets just say there is a lot more of them than within your group.
  reply report
  78
  Chris Nealposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I try hard not to misunderstand people, and I try not to argue just to argue. I said that ALL human beings are uniquely and incomprehensibly valuable. You answered that there are "more of them than in my tiny group." What are you saying?
  reply report
  77
  Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  There has been 10,000 God ID-ed
  
  Who should really care who has the best God or be childish fighting over who has the best God. I just want a friendlier world why not make everyone god and respect each other instead?
  reply report
  78
  Chris Nealposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If there were no God, then I would agree with you.
  
  But...
  reply report
  77
  Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yahweh,
  
  " If I can't have you, I don't want no other God, baby!!!"
  
  A personalize God song
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  What if there was another god, but not your present one? Would you simply switch over if he threatened you with eternal torment if you didn't worship him?
  
  reply report
  77
  Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If Chris grew up and lived in a Middle Eastern Muslim Country, he would be rewarded and punished by another slave like God.
  
  For me, I stand up the bullies anywhere and at anytime, yet harmless
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No doubt! He would now be telling us Allah loves us and we need to trust in his goodness. As well as ignoring or accepting the paradoxes in that religion, whichever the case required for him to rationalize it to himself.
  
  For belief in supernatural entities requires one to ignore, or merely rationalize in some manner, that which makes no logical sense in reality. This is a believer's--no matter the cult--faith.
  
  In order to get into these god's good graces one has to disbelieve what their senses tell them is true in order to believe what these same senses tell them isn't. Chris has no problem rationalizing this paradox, or perhaps he does. He will always err on the side of safety as he sees it. Of course, he doesn't believe in the OTHER gods, so he feels he has a 50/50 chance to be correct. Another paradox since he cannot disprove the other gods being, no more than he can prove his favorite god exists.
  
  Where does this put him? It has him judging those who don't accept known facts against his own imagination. Lucky for him he just happened to be exposed to the right god at the right time. Does this mean people in the other parts of the world--who are indoctrinated at an early age into other beliefs--are not given the same chance as Chris to know Jesus? Of course! I don't believe even Chris can accept this as fairness by his deity. I could be wrong though! And I'm sure he will straighten me out on it using HIS idea of facts.
  
  report
  78
  DoubleScorpionposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I don't think that everyone realizes that where you were born, how you were brought up and other social "norms" of your region have a great affect on the current beliefs one holds.
  
  As Castle says, if one was born in the Middle East, chances are they would be Muslim and believe in Allah.
  
  I have heard the argument, that the Christian God is the only God, because of how, when presented with this "truth" people of other beliefs will convert (i.e. missionary work). But I look at the places missionaries go, the living conditions, the supersitions, and other factors; and then I look at the "message" being provided to these people, and it is easy to see why they want to convert...(I'll leave this open-ended, as I know that the majority "Atheist"(Non-Christian believer) will come to the logical conclusion, and the majority "Theist"(Christian believer) will come to a justified conclusion)
  
  Bottom line, in my opinion, unless one breaks from society thinking and learns to think for themselves, they will follow the "belief system" of the majority of those in the area they were raised.
  reply report
  0
  Rad Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Interesting that you think you've got the correct God because you think the missionaries convert people when they are confronted with what you call the truth.
  
  I know many Christians that convert to Islam when they are confronted with the Qur'an. I don't no any that convert from Islam to Christianity.
  
  It's possible that the information you are receiving from missionaries is propaganda. You should look into this. Perhaps you don't have the correct God, but just the version of God that is best at propaganda.
  
  I for one have broken from the society norm and started thinking for myself. Have you or are you surrounded by like minded people? From what you have just said you are not yet thinking for yourself you are being persuaded by propaganda.
  report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Er...I believe you misunderstood DS's post, Rad.
  
  report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  When you expect a certain mindset you interpret everything you hear or read as having that mindset. When you find yourself doing that it's probably time to step back and think about your personal prejudices.
  report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I prefer impersonal prejudices, Melissa!
  
  report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes. The do tend to be more convenient don't they?
  report
  0
  Rad Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  As I said, I did misread the sentence "I have heard the argument, " as (I have the argument) and thought it was his argument, which I argued against. I don't think it's time to step back, it's just a symptom dyslexia to miss words. I'll try to read a little more carefully.
  report
  64
  Claire Evansposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You were purposefully being deceitful and so you are back-tracking by saying you misread the sentence. You did not have symptom dyslexia. You were purposefully being deceitful.
  report
  0
  Rad Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Claire, there is a difference of misreading something and then apologizing and knowing you were wrong and going back and editing you own posts and then saying "I never said that".
  
  Your posts changed. I did not. I said sorry, you tried to cast blame.
  
  That is not christ like.
  report
  64
  Claire Evansposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Let me explain this slowly so that even you can pick this up.
  
  When you quote someone by going to formatting, you cut and then paste (quote=James) and then replace James with the name of the person you are referring to such as (quote=Rad Man). Now since I mistakenly believed I was writing to Johnny instead of Mark, I put Mark as such (quote=Mark) so that it goes, "Mark said..." when you posted your comment.
  
  So I never edited the content of Johnny's comment but merely put the wrong name. I don't recall saying, "I never said that!". In fact, when this error was pointed out to me, I wrote: "Lol, sorry Mark. I confused Mark with Johnny." See the below page for that comment.
  
  http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/93880?page=31
  
  Then Mark wrote:
  "I forgive you. You don't know what you are doing most of the time."
  
  Therefore I acknowledged my mistaken.
  
  I cannot explain it more simply. If you don't understand, tough.
  report
  0
  Rad Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I did misread the "I have heard the argument," part of his sentence, Sorry DoubleScorpion! But I was arguing against the argument he brought forward as to why some Christians think they've got the correct God.
  report
  78
  DoubleScorpionposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No worries. I figured you misread something. I do it on occasions myself.
  report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  We all do this occasionally, except for the believers, that is. They have a personal deity making sure everything they say is completely true. If you don't believe me, ask them.
  
  report
  0
  Rad Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Funny you should say that. When I make an error I say sorry and move on. I've noticed some or at least one of the believers have resorted to going back and editing there comments and when they error and then ask What are you talking about I didn't say that (hope you follow). This seems deceitful and un Christian if you ask me, but it doesn't stop them or her. This however does not refer to Chis, who seems to me completely honest to himself and to others. He may be wrong but I think he is honest about it.
  report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I agree with you about Chris. Although he is hopelessly mired in his religious beliefs, he is still a good guy to discuss things with. Unlike many of the others, I at least get to hear what an honest believer has to say about their strange god. He isn't afraid to admit he doesn't understand some of the contradictions in the old myth book.
  
  And yes, those who go back and edit their posts to try and seem guiltless only make themselves seem even more pathetic than their previous posts have already indicated. The church edited the works of Josephus and many other historians in a an attempt to create evidence there was really a Jesus Christ. Liars for Jesus is a common term applied to such folks. Satan must make them do it!
  
  report
  64
  Claire Evansposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I think I'm going to report this as a personal attack. Labeling me a liar for Jesus is a personal attack. Time for you to sit on the naughty stair for three days.
  report
  64
  Claire Evansposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Radman, how can you accuse me falsely? If I did that on purpose, wouldn't I be rather thinking stupidly because someone, like you did, would bound to pick it up? Mark and Johnny look kind of similar.
  
  It's un-Christian to make errors! LOL! Shame, you can't find any reason to call me deceitful to you make stuff up. SAD!
  report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I forgive you. You don't know what you are doing most of the time.
  
  Verbally attack him again to show us what real christians are like. Is that the same as turning the other cheek?
  
  SAD!
  report
  64
  Claire Evansposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  
  Thanks, Mark. I was tossing and turning last night agonizing how I wronged you. I'm sure you couldn't sleep, either, because you were so hurt and angered.
  
  So I am not allowed to defend myself? It is amusing somewhat that RadMan would accuse me of deceitful ignoring the fact it was an error. It's sad.
  
  I don't think it is unChristian to point out someone accusing another. Jesus didn't hold back at those who were unrighteous.
  
  Matthew 3:7
  New International Version (NIV)
  7 But when he (Jesus) saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?
  
  When one turns the other cheek, it means they must be the better person and not stoop to the level of the person who insults. For example, if I countered Rad Man by seriously calling him deceitful when he was not. When I called him deceitful because he misread a sentence. I obviously wasn't being serious when he misread that sentence. I was just showing him how erroneous his accusation was and the hypocrisy of it. Applying the same "logic" he did to me.
  
  I just had to double check that you were Mark!
  report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I am me - worry not. Now I can rest easy, knowing you are not putting words in my mouth.
  
  Not seeing you be a better person myself, and I am well aware that most christians are not fans of doing what Jesus said and turning the other cheek. Self righteousness such as you display is the reason your religion causes so many fights.
  report
  64
  Claire Evansposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  report
  0
  Rad Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Claire, from this post it's clear you are unaware of the post I was referring to. I know you got Mark and Johnny confused and mixed them up. That's okay. I'm not sure how you changed there names in the posts, but THAT doesn't matter. You admitted you were mistaken as I did about misreading the posts.
  
  I was refer to a post that you made a while back that disappeared. Where you stated something like (All people are born Christians) or something to that affect. That post went missing and you stated you never said that.
  
  I think you know what I'm talking about.
  report
  64
  Claire Evansposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No, stop being dishonest. This is what you wrote:
  
  "Claire, why does your post quote Mark when it was clearly jonnycomelately who made the post you quoted and it's directly above yours?
  
  Have you been going back and editing your older posts and then asking where I got that quote from. It's confusing and deceitful."
  
  http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/93880?page=31
  
  Now, regarding the "All people are Christian" part, you never accused me of editing and it had nothing to do with Mark and Johnny. This is the part you miscontrued:
  
  Claire:
  
  "God can create a Christian who turns to crime later in life." I, as an adult and Christian, am a creation of God as opposed to babies being born Christian. I never said babies are born Christian.
  
  What I said supports this:
  
  Rad Man wrote:
  "To be a christian you have to believe in God, can babies believe?
  
  Your statement are so illogical. Don't you see I can just change the words every time because you are not using logic."
  
  Claire:
  
  "No, they can't so no baby is born a Christian. However, baptism introduces Christianity to a baby on behalf their behalf."
  
  Pasted from <http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/93880?page=29>
  
  So no post disappeared.
  
  You are bearing false witness and that is very deceitful.
  
  BTW, by the time you read the relevant Christian discussion, I would not have been able to have edited it so I am not responsible for it disappearing.
  report
  0
  Rad Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  All I know is that my post made sense at the time. The next day it didn't and I couldn't find the post I was replying to. There is a reason my post was completely illogical and out of context and that reason is unrelated to me. One of us is being either dishonest or delusional.
  report
  64
  Claire Evansposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, the reason is unrelated to you, right? No, it could never be me that is right!
  
  You lied and just be the better person and admit it. Or admit you made a big mistake.
  report
  0
  Rad Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  One of us is lying and likes to g back and change here posts. I know you've done that before. I'll stay away from commenting on your illusions from here on in.
  report
  64
  Claire Evansposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, you acknowledge that I made a mistake by confusing Mark and Johnny and now you tell me I'm lying and like to change people's posts. Prove to me I've done it more than once.
  
  You are disgusting accusing me of things I'm not guilty of and is not man enough to admit you made a mistake.
  report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Agreed! I wonder what percentage of believers--no matter the cult--inherited their faith from their parents? This is why I say free will isn't exactly free for most born ito a religious environment. No way, no how!
  
  report
  77
  Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, lead yourself first, don't have most others do your thinking for you, yet share.
  report
  77
  Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Mark and Claire
  
  LOL LOL HAAA HA HO HO
  
  Happy face
  report
  84
  Jane Bovaryposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Really Chris, of course I didn't mean it that way. I don't even believe there is such a thing as a soul, except in the poetic, descriptive sense.
  
  I was trying to get to the nub of why God would let humans and not animals into heaven. You said God demanded things of humans, that he didn't of animals, suggesting that's one reason why people (some of them) get to heaven and animals don't. Yet that can't be a reason because there are some people who can't tell the difference between right and wrong therefore God can't demand things from them, so unless such people don't have souls (and I know you don't believe that) they still have as much chance of getting into Heaven as anyone else.
  
  So that must men God chooses to let people and not animals into Heaven, not because people can tell the difference between right and wrong but for some other reason. You say it is because we are made in God's image but I'm not sure what you mean by that. Does it mean we look like him, act like him...have moral consciousness? Yet we've already established some people are incapable of moral consciousness.
  
  There's also some evidence of moral traits, such as empathy and compassion, among primates - adopting orphans for no apparent benefit, helping each other with no obvious reward. Our morality is much more complex because we have more complex brains but in some instances, a healthy primate may be more capable of a morally good action than a brain damaged human.
  
  Check out the video below on animal behaviour.
  
  http://www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_waal_ … orals.html
  reply report
  78
  Chris Nealposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The fact that God gave gifts to, and made demands of, humans that He did not for animals is not nullified by the fact that there are people who are not capable of accepting, fulfilling or even understanding these points. In such cases, more demand is placed on the people who can, because we are our brother's keeper.
  
  Humans do have a moral conscience, which animals do not. No animal (that I'm aware of) will choose to turn away from wounded prey out of compassion or pity.
  
  I watch shows about animal behavior. I'm aware that some higher primates show empathy for members of their own species. But no gorilla is going to choose to be a vegetarian because he/she thinks that killing an animal is wrong.
  reply report
  84
  Jane Bovaryposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Then if God is letting people into Heaven just because they are human and not because of their good moral choices, He must be a speciest. Since there are some primates more capable of moral behaviour than some humans, it's the only conclusion to draw, unless of course God doesn't let humans incapable of moral choice into Heaven, which would be pretty mean of Him, since it wouldn't be their fault. But since, according to you, He doesn't let animals in for the same reason, I guess He is that mean.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Christians only own pets less moral than they are! Unicorns usually.
  
  reply report
  78
  Chris Nealposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'm growing increasingly reluctant about these forums because of the difficulties presented by attempting to boil down long discussions into soundbites.
  
  Whether God ever lets people into Heaven "just because they are human" I can't say. I don't think you're saying this, but if you are, please let me state categorically that the vast majority of people who make it into Heaven will do so because of their good moral choices, or more importantly their choice to follow Jesus. NOT simply based on what species they happen to be. Now, everything I've read and heard leads me to believe that people who are truly incapable of moral choice, the extremely young and those who have never developed mentally, do go to Heaven when they die. He loves human beings, and everyone has a chance. And to say that "some primates are more capable of moral behaviour than some humans" is to make and extremely broad statement that is highly judgemental of other humans. It's not my job to decide who (among the human beings) will make it into Heaven. And moral choices and conscience are more complex than simply what any one person or animal "seems capable of."
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  
  But aren't you already judging human beings against your religion, Chris? When you think Christians are more likely to make it to heaven, aren't you doing just that?
  
  reply report
  77
  Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Chris,
  When you say good moral choices, do you mean moral choices only come the Bible and they are more complex than simple?
  
  Simply quit the Bible morals, change your 10 commandments and all the other ones, then change to two commandments and get real :
  1..-Be Honest
  2.. Do not harm.
  
  You make life complicated, Life is as simply as you make it
  reply report
  61
  Reviewsbypatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Don't be angry, the warning will remove their blind folds, and reveal to them that we are all indeed our brothers keeper.
  reply report
  77
  Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You mean, agreeing with someone about a bible story or Yahweh orders is a sign of angry?
  
  What do you call a God that kills millions of people and billions of Animals?
  Happy as*
  reply report
73
jacharlessposted 12 years ago
So, wait, if science says that "nature" had this Ice Age and Meteor Bombardment events, that caused the extinction of millions of plants, animals, marine life, that's "totally awesome -wow, it must have been amazing! Can you imagine it? "
But if Judaism states a flood occurred, resulting in essentially the same effect, it is hogwash?

Oh, wait, because it can be documented using mechanics whereby stating it is an identified fact, makes it less disastrous?

Some serious polarization going on, if you ask me.

James.
reply report
1. 60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Are you suggesting meteors and ice ages are just as hard to believe than a scenario of the entire earth being covered in water, especially since there isn't enough water on our planet to do the job?
  
  So where did this water drain away too, JC? And how did the kangaroos get to Australia after they hopped down from the Ark. I always wanted someone to clear this up for me, so here's your chance to impress me with your biblical knowledge.
  
  reply report
  73
  jacharlessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Randy,
  We have already had this convo.
  Given some information, by science, apart from Australia, there are only two major land masses, which are essentially mountain tops. The depth of these mountain ranges is approx 10km below the surface and the highest points 10km above. There is plenty to suggest at one point all land was one mass and due to volcanic eruptions and the "melt" {either Ice Age or Frozen Atmos} caused the water levels to rise. Either way there would be a massive excess of water.
  As for where did it go, it is not impossible that it was absorbed by the land itself, forming underground waterways and pockets -that actually exist today, throughout the world. The continental crust alone is 40km, not including the lower mantles. That leaves p l e n t y of room for water absorption. Anyone who has ever planted a garden can prove that. And the information states it had never rained prior to the Flood, which would then account for the weight of water in the atmosphere that causes rain, and would also explain the changes in climate from a steady 21 to a varying set of degrees.
  
  As for how-did the animals get to different areas, I believe the term is continental migration. The Judaic account isn't clear on this, except that it took 3+ years for the water to recede fully. Is it possible they migrated as the water receded? Certainly. If one looks at Australia and the archipelago of Indonesia, it is easy to consider animals could have migrated. As again apart from present day Australia {and Antarctica} all land is connected. Even "Russia" and "Alaska" are connected half the year by a single mile of frozen water called the Bering Strait.
  
  Knowing what I do of growing things, it takes only eighty-four days to bring seed to harvest -less fruit trees and such. Grasses, herbs, flowers and small vegetation take just four weeks.
  
  Who knows what others changes came after like earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes, hurricanes, etc because of the environmental changes, which effected both land and sea.
  
  James
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry JC, but this is completely ridiculous. The amount of water suggested in the old novel is way too much to be absorbed into the earth, it would come into contact with molten magma and cause the earth to explode over and again by the steam produced with such an event.
  
  It is also incredible to suggest the water was caught up in the atmosphere as it would block out all sun and therefore, all life from forming. the biblical flood was plagiarized from The Epic of Gilgamesh as you probably know. there isn't enough water on our planet to cover the entire earth. And your kangaroo theory isn't even close as you would have to go back millions, not thousands of years for Australia to be connected to the mainland of any continent. If not, there would be kangaroo fossils found on other landmasses around the world.
  
  reply report
  73
  jacharlessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Where do you keep getting the molten magma from? Right now trillions of meters of water is on the planet and rivers flowing through volcanoes, yet the earth is not exploding over and over...
  
  As for water vapor blocking out the sun. Yes, it essentially does that. I believe they are called clouds...
  
  EDIT:
  
  Even still, let's consider, for a moment, the Ice Age. Accordingly, a massive meteor hit the planet, exploding and causing a massive dust/debris layer to occur. This dust is weatherized by existing water vapor, essentially forming a layer of "lightweight mud" in the air, blocking out the sunlight entirely. The temperature of the planet plummets and everything freezes. Animals, plants, birds, snakes and more. Deserts form, glaciers form etc. {The only thing keeping the oceans from freezing is their sodium levels and below the surface, the magmatic rivers in various areas of the continental ridge.} Massive snow hurricanes, like radioactive fallout pound the planet for years. One day it stops. Gradually the temperature begins to climb. Where did all that melted ice & snow go? Did the planet explode over and over as it melted??? If it did, what happened to all that ice, especially at the equatorial line??? It didn't just vanish into thin air, now did it. So, where did it go? essentially the same place the Flood water went: into the oceans, absorbed by the land itself and remainder evaporating into the air -forming the present troposphere, perhaps. This sounds quite familiar to the Judaic account -granted not perfectly spot on, but not so far fetched either.
  
  If this such even could happen with dust, who is to say it could not happen simply by the air temperature in the higher atmosphere being reduced by just a few degrees? Last I checked, the outer atmospheric temperature is quite cold.
  
  Again, I am not concluding the Judaic explanation is complete. But, all literature has holes- historic, sacred, archeological and general scientific. So, it does not discount the event itself. It merely presents to the reader a summary of events within the parameters of their ability to explain the inexplicable.
  
  And, furthermore, a mere forty days of no direct sunlight would not cause people or animals to die out. There are many instances were there is no sun for six months at a time -total darkness- and people live pretty well in those areas. And other places it rains for months at a time and people live well in those areas too. So, I think you are stretching a bit.
  
  James.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The earth's plates float on it, JC. The amount of water neede to make the flood story true would have to sink down into the earth and come in contact with this magma to lower the sea level enough to match today' levels.
  
  And no, there could not be enough clouds in our atmosphere to produce such an amount of water as described in the old myth book. Geeze man, I though you were smarter than that! That many thick clouds would block all light to the earth and there would be no people nor animals alive to even board the ark. Much less allow trees to grow for the timber needed to build it. Elementary science, no less!
  
  reply report
  73
  jacharlessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  See my EDIT above.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Wow! That is even a worse case scenario, JC! you are really grasping for straws now. Mud floating in the air? LOL! And yes, 6 month of darkness can be survived by animals used to cold climates such as those at the poles, but not those from tropical areas. Remember how the dinosaurs vanished 65 million years ago after an asteroid or comet impacted our planet? Perhaps you've read about the cheetah and how it's lack of diverse DNA shows it was impossible for their entire species to be have survived with only 2 animals after the mythical flood.
  
  But unless you include magic into the biblical flood scenario, it is no more possible than a deity actually being afraid a tower could be built into the heavens. Ignorant goat herders knew no better, but apparently your god didn't either or he would simply have let them fail. Some myths are based on truth, but others are simply the products of ignorance of reality. Sorry!
  
  reply report
  64
  Claire Evansposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It's not on the Epic of Gilgamesh. Every culture around the word has a Noah's Ark story.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  What? I know some cultures have a flood story, as floods have happened in many paces over thousands of years. But there has never been a flood which covered the entire earth. There is not nearly enough water on our planet to do so and never has been. There is no evidence EVERY culture has a flood myth because every culture doesn't have written records to document this.
  
  reply report
  64
  Claire Evansposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  A great deluge doesn't mean the entire earth was covered. Here are a few:
  
  India
  
  The story of a great flood is mentioned in ancient Hindu texts, particularly the Satapatha Brahmana.[2] It is compared to the accounts of the Deluge found in several religions and cultures. Manu was informed of the impending flood and was protected by the Matsya Avatar of Lord Vishnu, who had manifested himself in this form to rid the world of morally depraved human beings and protect the pious, as also all animals and plants.[3]
  
  After the flood the Lord inspires the Manusmriti, largely based upon the Vedas, which details the moral code of conduct, of living and the division of society according to the caste system.[4][5]
  
  Australian:
  Grumuduk, a medicine man who lived in the hills, had the power to bring rain and to make plants and animals plentiful. A plains tribe kidnapped him, wanting his power, but Grumuduk escaped and decreed that wherever he walked in the country of his enemies, salt water would rise in his footsteps. [Flood, p. 179]
  
  During the Dreamtime flood, woramba, the Ark Gumana carrying Noah, Aborigines, and animals, drifted south and came to rest in the flood plain of Djilinbadu (about 70 km south of Noonkanbah Station, just south of the Barbwire Range and east of the Worral Range), where it can still be seen today. The white man's claim that it landed in the Middle East was a lie to keep Aborigines in subservience. [Kolig, pp. 242-245]
  
  Hareskin (Alaska):
  
  Kunyan ("Wise Man"), foreseeing the possibility of a flood, built a great raft. He told other people, but they laughed at him and said they'd climb trees in the event of a flood. Then came a great flood, with water gushing from all sides, rising higher than the trees and drowning all people but the Wise Man and his family on his raft. As he floated, he gathered pairs of all animals and birds he met with. Some time later, the musk-rat dived into the water looking for the bottom, but he couldn't find it. He dived a second time and smelled the earth but didn't reach it. Next beaver dived. He reappeared unconscious but holding a little mud. The Wise Man breathed on it, making it grow. He placed it on the water and continued breathing on it, making it larger and larger. He put a fox on the island, but it ran around the island in just a day. Six times the fox ran around the island, by the seventh time, the land was as large as it was before the flood, and everyone disembarked. To lower the flood waters, the bittern swallowed them all. Now there was too little water. Plover, pretending sympathy, passed his hand over the bittern's stomach, but suddenly scratched it. The waters flowed out into the rivers and lakes. [Gaster, pp. 117-118]
  
  Roman:
  Jupiter, angered at the evil ways of humanity, resolved to destroy it. He was about to set the earth to burning, but considered that that might set heaven itself afire, so he decided to flood the earth instead. With Neptune's help, he caused storm and earthquake to flood everything but the summit of Parnassus, where Deucalion and his wife Pyrrha came by boat and found refuge. Recognizing their piety, Jupiter let them live and withdrew the flood. Deucalion and Pyrrha, at the advice of an oracle, repopulated the world by throwing "your mother's bones" (stones) behind them; each stone became a person. [Ovid, book 1]
  
  Jupiter and Mercury, traveling incognito in Phrygia, begged for food and shelter, but found all doors closed to them until they received hospitality from Philemon and Baucis. The gods revealed their identity, led the couple up the mountains, and showed them the whole valley flooded, destroying all homes but the couple's, which was transformed into a marble temple. Given a wish, the couple asked to be priest and priestess of the temple, and to die together. In their extreme old age, they changed into an oak and lime tree. [Ovid, book 8]
  
  Welsh:
  The lake of Llion burst, flooding all lands. Dwyfan and Dwyfach escaped in a mastless ship with pairs of every sort of living creature. They landed in Prydain (Britain) and repopulated the world. [Gaster, pp. 92-93]
  
  The list goes on!
  
  Check it out!
  
  http://www.poee.org/documents/Other_Rel … /Flood.htm
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I tried to see who compiled this info and what their agenda is. Any idea?
  
  reply report
  64
  Claire Evansposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  What do you mean what their agenda was? How about reporting on various myths around the world? Google it and compare the legends to the website I provided.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Your "science" is a bit removed from reality no matter how well it matches biblical "truths".
  
  It doesn't matter how much of the continents is underwater - what matters is that an addition 5 miles of water is needed to cover the mountaintops. This means another 1 Billion cubic miles of water on top of what is now sea level. A lower sea level simply means even more water, not less.
  
  There isn't that much water on earth as is and never has been, which means that those billion cubic miles must be imported from somewhere.
  
  When the flood is over, there isn't anywhere to put that water and it must be removed from earth's gravity by magic or some other force. There are indeed lots of caverns and tunnels under the surface, but not a billion cubic miles of them! Plus, at 2 km down (the mine in Africa) the temperature has already risen to 55 deg. C - at 10 km down it will boil water quite readily, creating steam which will promptly rise back to the surface, condense, and fall as rain. Nearly the entire first 10 km will have to be empty space to put that billion miles of water into, and that means that only magic will hold up the thin layer everywhere that we occupy. Certainly nothing else will!
  
  The earth was indeed one continent at one time, some 200 million years ago (plus the oceans, of course). Is that the time frame you propose for the ark? 190 million years before man appeared?
  
  The surface of the earth has never seen a constant temperature of 21 degrees for any length of time. Simple night/day variations will prevent that, latitude surely plays a part as does elevation. Nor is it due to excessively dry air - water vapor in the atmosphere tends to stabilize climate, not cause a climactic change to varying temperatures. Not only gardeners but everyone can see that easily enough - a cloudy night (water in the air) does not get as cold and temperatures are steadier than they are on a cloudless night. Anyone travelling in the desert also recognizes that night desert temperatures vary far more from day temperatures than happens in wetter regions.
  
  Where in the world do you find these wild "scientific" concepts? The bible?
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It seems hard for religious folks to understand the impossibility of the biblical flood, Wilderness. Common sense destroys the old myth before it has a chance to get off the ground. Old myths die hard, despite the knowledge we have acquired over the centuries. Why would a god use a ridiculous story to gain converts when truth is supposed to be so important as a commandment in the old novel?
  
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well, the next idea is that it was only a local flood, covering most of the Arrarat mountains. Of course, they border the Mediterranean, which empties into the Atlantic, which....
  
  This particular idea is dying, but it is a long, hard and slow death. One day perhaps we can finally put it to rest, along with the rest of the old myths.
  
  Truth? Only required for humanity. Gods give "truth" as they see fit, without regard to reality. As you say, religious "truth" is intended to gain converts (and cash) - not to inform man of anything particular.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  All about control, religion is. I'm astonished so many people still fall for the old myths, but then, you've possibly watched Idiocracy before and seen how it is actually sorta scary in it's implications for the future. Silly sure, but there is a bit of truth in some of the zaniness it portrays. Religion promotes such ignorance as it's easier to control ignorant people than those who know better.
  
  reply report
  73
  jacharlessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  200 million years ago?
  I see, and how did you come by that number?
  Last I heard, the oldest human lived between 100 - 1,000 years at best.
  200,000,000/100 = 200,000 century-generations. That is a long $&*#@! time, pal.
  So, 200 MILLION years would be ridiculously unfathomable by a human, regardless of tinker toy measuring tools. But, I do find it funny that science uses such massive numbers to determine/establish fact, knowing that most people are dumbfound by such huge numbers. In FACT science cannot even guess how long that is. And since no human was there, I say it is a lie -well, not a lie- but a fabrication, because they don't know. Where's all that data, documents, proofs, heck even a cave drawing or group of rocks from those humans who provided this information/numbers to you?
  
  So no, your religion is equally missing accurate information as all religions are. And the cop out of "well at least we are trying without the pseudo-god idea" holds no water with me, because I have yet to see the difference.
  
  James.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangea Or you can google "one continent earth" and find other links as well. Keyword is "Pangea" - the name given that ancient supercontinent.
  
  People lived 1,000 years? Only according to ancient myth from the bible, which also says creation of the entire universe took 7 days instead of billions of years and that light existed before stars (suns) did. Take your choice of believing the fables from ignorant goat herders that still believed the entire universe revolved (so to speak) around them or those that have built on hundreds of years of effort to understand that same universe and have at least some knowledge of how it is built.
  
  That you cannot fathom how long 200 million years is doesn't mean it happened sooner. Your (or my own) lack of true understanding of the time involved doesn't shorten it, regardless of how much you might wish it did. The lack of a "gut feeling" as to how long that is doesn't mean that science should change their findings to make them more palatable. That may be the way of religion - fabricate stories as facts to make things easy to understand or accept - but it isn't the way science works. What is, is, and we shall not lie about it simply because it's hard to fathom.
  
  If you truly wish to understand how the concept of Pangea came about and what is accepted worldwide as proof, you will need to spend your time studying geology instead of ancient fables. There is no reliable information in the old tales, and you can verify nothing you find unlike going out and doing your own research on plate tectonics, geology and the like.
  
  It's probably a good thing that you recognize that the bible, with all it's religious "facts" and "truths", has no accurate information, but why would you insult me at the same time by insinuating that I am religious? If I have offended you by doing the math to calculate how much water it would take to cover the earth I'm sorry - I assumed you are incapable of such arithmetic manipulation and would appreciate knowing facts instead of beliefs. After all, it is an elementary method of checking that old myth and anyone actually interested in truth (and could do the calculation) would have already done so.
  
  I know and understand that you see no difference from those fables of our ancient ancestors and the knowledge we have gained through painful effort of generations, but I can only point out your errors. Only you can choose to study and learn rather than believe whatever makes you feel good. You must choose yourself whether "Truth" is worth the effort that goes into learning it or whether you are just as happy believing "feel good" stories that are designed and written so that our ancestors could understand them even in their ignorance of the world about them.
  reply report
  73
  jacharlessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well, as said, neither satisfies me. Both are fables. The "truths" of today will become the fables of 4000 years from now. And that is something neither sensation nor equation will admit. That is perhaps what irritates me most about them. The emphatic arrogance of them.
  
  As for "insulting" you, that is yet to be seen. As far as "your" mathematics calculation, it too comes under the same premise of those 6k years before you. It fit that particular moment of knowledge/understanding/applied mechanics. It does not made theirs or yours correct or incorrect. It simply makes each palatable for their respective systems and perspective. If fact, the math of today {2012.5} is different from that of 100 years ago and 6000 years ago.
  
  As for research, Wiki does not satisfy me either, as it is biased for sure. If you think it is not, read the TOS closer. Even more, research does not lead one to conclusive truth, but to more research, which I can state with much assurance, I have sought after more then you religious people. Your religion hinders your open minded approach to understanding, unequivocally. If your science was unequivocal, unambiguous, I might have reason to change my mind, but after 6000 years of science, I see no way it is going to change. Show me something I do not know already. Show me absolute fact from your perspective.
  
  Sure, I enjoy fables as much as anyone. I read my son fables everyday about a curious monkey who lives with a man dressed all in yellow and another about bones found around the world that are from reptiles that lived 200 million years ago, covered by less than 20 feet of dirt; while cities were discovered 40 feet or more below the same surface...
  
  The explanations from most points of both sides are generally equal, regardless of expression. So until such time as there is absolute fact, I cannot regard either as complete truth.
  
  All Theos is deciduous, science included.
  
  James.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Ha! I had no hope of convincing you of anything, JC. But you do amuse me with your opinions. Whatever happened to Cecilia, or however she spelled her name?
  
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The math is different today? Well, yes, but not the way you insinuate.
  
  While the people 6000 years ago could barely add 2+2 and I don't believe they could calculate the volume of a sphere at all, the answers haven't changed and will not change. Ever. 2+2 will always equal 4 and the formula to calculate the volume will remain constant as well.
  
  But whether they could find the volume of water necessary to cover the earth has absolutely no effect on how it would take. What it does do of course, is indicate that they didn't realize their stories could be repudiated so easily by simple high school geometry. They lied, knowingly or from ignorance, and those lies are proven false by the use of arithmetic any high school graduate should know.
  reply report
  64
  Claire Evansposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Those who belonged to ancient mystery schools were not ignorant of maths. The Old Testament is full of occult numerology.
  
  We can safely say those who built the pyramids knew better maths than 2+2.
  reply report
  73
  jacharlessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Very well said. If fact, the people of the "ancient world" had a better calculative system than the "modern world", which is why many engineers are struggling to recreate with such precision the inventions, designs, methodologies used thousands of years ago. These same engineers also believe the ancient world had more advance technology, beyond electric or petroleum based machines; using solar, water and wind to power their ventures. Perhaps Wilderness, like many industrialists, tend to think people eons ago were stupid or caveman types, when they were quite the opposite.
  
  James
  reply report
  64
  Claire Evansposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Evolution teaches us that man evolved from a primitive state over thousands of years. However, there is strong evidence to suggest that civilizations advance and fall. Sometimes they disappear off the face of the earth forever and humanity has to start all over again.
  
  Ancient Indian literary alludes to nuclear wars. Scriptures, Book 16, from the The Mausala Parva describe the impact of the battle of the Mahabharatha war
  
  "Asses were born of kine, and elephants of mules. Cats were born of bitches, and mouse of the mongoose"
  
  This alludes to genetic mutations from a nuclear fall-out.
  
  "These weapons, having achieved success, have gone away to the place they came from. They will, again, come into thy hands when the Time for their coming approaches."
  
  What ancient weapon would come into posterity that ceased to exist after this battle?
  
  Mahabharatha – Vana Parva (Book 3)
  
  Here (Chapter 22) Krishna describes the war he fought earlier with the Salwa King who had attacked Krishna’s city Dwaraka. It is said that the Salwa King had a aircraft (Vimana) called Saubha Vimana which the king used for both travel and aerial warfare.
  
  Krishna says that...
  
  The sound of this Salwa’s spacecraft was inaudible and this flying car made up of costly metals used to vanish creating illusion!
  
  Clearly an aerial vehicle being “inaudible” shows the level of technology it had, and on top of that it used to disappear quite often. The term used for such aerial vehicles in modern military terminology is Stealth Fighters
  Krishna further describes the aircraft as:
  
  "It was capable of going anywhere at will, bewildering my eyes, reappeared at Pragjyotisha (a nearby city). Then it suddenly drowned me with a mighty shower of rocks."
  
  Angered by the destruction of his city Dwaraka by Salwa’s aircraft, Krishna then decides to destroy it completely and brings out his favorite weapon which he describes as the weapon of fire, blazing and of celestial origin, of irresistible force, and incapable of being baffled, bursting with energy, capable of penetrating into anything and everything.
  
  http://www.hitxp.com/articles/history/a … -evidence/
  
  More:
  
  . (it was) a single projectile
  Charged with all the power of the Universe.
  An incandescent column of smoke and flame
  As bright as the thousand suns
  Rose in all its splendour...
  
  ...it was an unknown weapon,
  An iron thunderbolt,
  A gigantic messenger of death,
  Which reduced to ashes
  The entire race of the Vrishnis and the Andhakas.
  
  ...The corpses were so burned
  As to be unrecognisable.
  The hair and nails fell out;
  Pottery broke without apparent cause,
  And the birds turned white.
  
  After a few hours
  All foodstuffs were infected...
  ....to escape from this fire
  The soldiers threw themselves in streams
  To wash themselves and their equipment.
  
  There are also elevated radiation levels in the Sinai peninsula:
  
  "One of the other “best candidates” for best evidence is the conquest of the atom – nuclear warfare, which according to Sitchin is precisely what occurred in the Middle East in the third millennium BC. In support for this conclusion, he has consistently relied upon photographs of the Sinai Peninsula, taken from space. They purportedly show an immense cavity and crack in its surface, showing us where the nuclear explosion has taken place. He adds that the area is strewn with crushed, burnt and blackened rocks, which contain a highly unusual ratio of isotope uranium-235, “indicating in expert opinions exposure to sudden immense heat of nuclear origin”, to quote Sitchin
  
  Another candidate for a nuclear explosion, so far left untouched by most of the “ancient astronaut proponents”, is the Indus River Valley, where towns such as Harappa and Mohenjo Daro flourished in 3000 BC, but were then quickly abandoned. One answer that has been put forward is that the ancient cities might have been irradiated by an atomic blast. If true, it would be impossible to ignore the conclusion that ancient civilisation possessed high technology.
  
  What this candidate has in its favour is that a layer of radioactive ash was indeed found in Rajasthan, India. It covered a three-square mile area, ten miles west of Jodhpur. The research occurred after a very high rate of birth defects and cancer was discovered in the area. The levels of radiation registered so high on investigators’ gauges that the Indian government cordoned off the region. Scientists then apparently unearthed an ancient city where they found evidence of an atomic blast dating back thousands of years: from 8,000 to 12,000 years. The blast was said to have destroyed most of the buildings and probably a half-million people. So far, this story seems to have all the necessary credentials.
  
  Archaeologist Francis Taylor stated that etchings in some nearby temples he translated, suggested that they prayed to be spared from the great light that was coming to lay ruin to the city. “It’s so mind-boggling to imagine that some civilization had nuclear technology before we did. The radioactive ash adds credibility to the ancient Indian records that describe atomic warfare.”
  Furthermore, when excavations of Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro reached the street level, they discovered skeletons scattered about the cities, many holding hands and sprawling in the streets as if some instant, horrible doom had killed its inhabitants. People were just lying, unburied, in the streets of the city; there seemed no-one available to bury them afterwards.
  
  What could cause such a thing? Why did the bodies not decay or get eaten by wild animals? Furthermore, there is no apparent cause of a physically violent death. Furthermore, Alexander Gorbovsky, in “Riddles of Ancient History” (published in 1966), reported the discovery of at least one human skeleton in this area with a level of radioactivity approximately fifty times greater than it should have been due to natural radiation. Furthermore, thousands of fused lumps, christened “black stones”, have been found at Mohenjo Daro. These appear to be fragments of clay vessels that melted together in extreme heat."
  
  http://www.philipcoppens.com/bestevidence.html
  
  Article headline:
  
  Jordan's Fossil Water Source Has High Radiation Levels
  
  ScienceDaily (Feb. 24, 2009) — Ancient groundwater being tapped by Jordan, one of the 10 most water-deprived nations in the world, has been found to contain twenty times the radiation considered safe for drinking water in a new study by an international team of researchers.
  
  So what we have been taught is all wrong. There were civilizations that had the same, if not better, technology than we. And has anyone considered that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah was a nuclear fall-out. Pillar of salt also means pillar of vapour in Hebrew so what vapourized her? A nuclear fall-out?
  reply report
  73
  jacharlessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Right. I have read bits of this over the years.
  Some even suggest the pyramids were fueling stations, due to the ability to form a combustible gas inside the chamber, else filter solar energy into a fuel source.
  
  EMR [electro magnetic radiation] was extremely popular in the ancient world, as was physics and what modernists would call quantum mechanics. The I Ching and Fu Xi offer much insight to binary -even genetic and nuclear sequencing. Others like hieroglyph, cuneiform and Mayan semiotics offer even more insight to their advanced technology. {of which I am using as comparisons in my book Quantus Philo}
  
  What impresses most: these were not isolated ideas, these were global applications.
  
  James
  reply report
  64
  Claire Evansposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The fueling station idea is rather interesting. Did you watch the "Ancient Aliens" series? We can safely say the pyramids weren't built for nothing and they weren't burial tombs, either, because the interior is devoid of paintings and treasures.
  
  It is interesting that the same stories crop up in cultures around the world. How so? Did foreigners, perhaps aliens, relate these stories to them?
  report
  73
  jacharlessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  To my own benefit, I do not watch television.
  But, yes, I agree these items were build for something other than burial tombs, food silos, housing/apartments or ritual temples. One very interesting suggestion was one of the pyramids was an observatory. I like that one the most.
  
  James.
  report
  86
  Marisa Wrightposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  100 years? So there were no humans before 1912?
  reply report
  73
  jacharlessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  100 -1000 years meant lifespan of an individual.
  reply report
  86
  Marisa Wrightposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry. I can't see the relevance of lifespan to length of time on the planet, which is why I misunderstood it.
  reply report
2. 58
  Jeramiposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  YEP! and everybody is doing it ..................................................................................................................................................................... Quit IT EVERYBODY !!!!
  reply report
59
SpanStarposted 12 years ago
I say Noah's Ark was a good thing for if God has not instructed Noah to build an ark then we would not be here today arguing that point or any other point.
reply report
1. 59
  Disappearingheadposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Assuming that Noah was either Semitic or Caucasian, where did the African, Chinese, Aborigine, and Polynesians come from?
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Evolution?
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Naw! Noah gathered a pair of each culture too. He made stops at all of the foreign ports as anyone who weren't believers were considered "animals" too!
  
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Of course! After all, he had 40 days and 40 nights to visit each port and with God to provide whale propulsion for the ark he could easily beat out the balloon that took 80 days to go around this tired old ball of dirt.
  
  I wonder if they pushed, like big propellers, or if Noah made a Kevlar harness and used a dozen or so as a "dog" team? That might have made an unpleasant trip - I understand whales have bad breath and a dozen of them blowing every few minutes right in front might be like following a mis-tuned diesel truck down the road for 40 days. Ugh!
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I am constantly amazed a the lengths people will go to to justify beliefs they have been taught simply because someone told them an invisible being was watching their every move. "Never doubt god's inspired word," they are admonished since childhood. Most never ask who actually were inspired to write the old myths because they are too scared to anger the invisible deity. Terror is used to control the masses who buy into such nonsense and it still works well on some, even with today's wealth of knowledge at their fingertips. I have no patience with willful ignorance these days.
  
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Nor I, Randy. We are all ignorant in some field, and ignorant in all fields if you consider that mankind does not have infinite knowledge.
  
  That is no excuse, however, for willfully and intentionally remaining as ignorant as possible in order to placate that invisible diety. For accepting the old myths without ever even considering that they may be false and for refusing to accept knowledge freely available with very little effort.
  
  I fear that it will many, many years before that changes however (if it ever does). We can only live with the fact that so many of our fellow humans prefer to live their lives that way.
  reply report
  59
  SpanStarposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  DisappearingHead
  
  For those educated people of science they use to say people were changed by their environment like the those waves coming from sunlight.
  reply report
2. 95
  wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  There are other possible scenarios, though.
  
  The only people left after the ark were locked into the idea of God, receiving nearly all their "knowledge" from Him. If, instead, we had had a million times as many people, all searching for truth rather than accepting already old mythology as factual we might have already spread to other planets or even stars.
  
  Or maybe the extra population would have caused a massive war by now and we would have slagged the whole surface of the earth. Who knows?
  reply report
3. 0
  Rad Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Or better yet, if God had not decided to kill so many of his creatures I wouldn't think him so cruel.
  reply report
4. 60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And you know this how?
  
  reply report
58
Jeramiposted 12 years ago
All about control; that is what survival is all about ...... and every other subject that we might be talking about!

You are absolutely correct .... and totaly off track .. as we ALL are.
reply report
73
jacharlessposted 12 years ago
Noah was from the pre-Aramaic period, which was a blend of African and Caucus. His sons, Ham, Shem and Japheth, had migrated to the regions of Asia, Africa and what could be called the Americas. The skin tone would have been altered over time based on geographic location, weather, food intake. My friend Benjamin, a geneticist at Colombia U believes the migratory people of African region {nomads} are direct descendants of Eskimos, based on DNA sequencing.
reply report
1. 77
  Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Questions for Christian scientist or anyone in that ball park
  
  1. Where did the Dinosaurs go, forget that one, it's too hard, maybe the carnivores mammal got revenge back on them because they were just baby size on the big boat.
  
  2. The bible says the waters submerged even the tallest mountains, that means 29,000 feet high where the topical animals would freeze to dead and most animals would need oxygen tanks to breath. How could they survive those extreme temperatures and all that thin air?
  
  3. The grand Ice Age occurred between two million years, till 11,000 years ago, If the ice age flooded the earth 2500 BC. where did all the water go after the flood? Did God create underground tunnel to drain the earth so fast or did God sent the water back to North and South pole along with the refrigeration units for the Polar bears and penguins
  
  4. Why did the many predators not eat the zebras, wildebeests, antelopes, pigs only by pairs etc., Which they do not add up to many happy meals over 40 days. Then when the animals hit land, they did not have many month to reproduce while being chased by all kinds of carnivores , maybe carnivore like raptors or T Rex.
  
  I don't know.
  
  5.What about the vegetation eating animals wouldn’t they eat most of the plant life on board OR the millions of species insects
  
  6. How did all the saltwater and freshwater animals survive the mixed water. When they hit land, the only thing that would have been left for all of the animals to eat is nothing but the salty desolate ground beneath their feet. If they could have survive that feat? What about the many months to come where plants take many more months to grow and mature into food. again.
  
  7. Did Noah's family have sex with each other to repopulate the earth like the Adam's family and is incest a sin and if it is, why not just wipe out the whole planet and these endless corrupt humans who are too much trouble to worship Yahweh which gave us everything and could take all of it away any time, like in 1212..
  
  8. Some animals like naked mole rats spend their entire lives underground would they die of exposure or die of being water logged or from getting too seasick. I am start to get sick asking all the silly questions.
  
  The facts you could research is n Turkey on borders the Black Sea, I want some answers to the meaning of life?
  reply report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  One more... how is it possible to fit at least two of every animal in existence in a boat that by the bible's given measurements was smaller than a modern size SMALL freighter.
  
  Oh and another one... considering that -again- by the bibles measurements the height of the boat was only about 60 feet tall... and the boat was made of wood... given the weight of the animals and the boat you do realize that it would have sunk in 61 feet of water?
  reply report
  77
  Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The Arc was only 45 feet tall would that make your theory 15 feet below the surface.of the water Did each of the animals have snorkels and masks or was the big boat turned into a submarine.
  
  God must have given super power to the animals to survive that spiritual journey
  reply report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Depends on which version of 'cubit' you use to do the math. I might be slightly proving a previous poster's point here. The definition of cubit has changed over the years. I used the largest used in the bible and added a couple inches just in case Noah was a freak of a giant.
  reply report
  77
  Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The Noah's family was the last of the ten foot giants and supposedly smarter than us today. Their egos were hurt so bad from the flood that their life expectancy was cut ten fold .
  
  Cavemen, mushroom and campfire stories is like history repenting its self with stories of super hero movies of today on pot.
  reply report
  73
  jacharlessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I have read this also, that he was an Amorite or Anakim. These people were said to have been mighty warriors, hunters, soldiers -much like the Cossacks. They were also called Gibborim or Nephilim. Ezekiel, Daniel and David reaffirm this and there is mention of them about 200 times throughout the texts.
  
  One note about the cubit. This measure is determined by the length of the forearm. so it would vary by culture. I think the average is 18 inches(?).
  
  I can see tall people existing. Like Avatar types. The Scandinavian people are quite tall, as are some African and even Brazilian people- and of course basketball players reaching "unusual" heights of 2 meters.
  
  A thought: should the height thing be true, then the height/length of the boat would have been much larger. The forearm of person 2 meters {or more} would be considerably longer.
  
  This would make the vessel about: 600ft/183m length, 100ft/31m width, 60ft/20m height. The QE2 measures 961ft/293m length, 105ft/32m width, 170ft/52m height, making it longer and much taller than Noah's cruise ship, but nearly the exact width {which nautically is interesting}. The Empire State Building is 443m. If laid down would be roughly 1.5 times the length of the QE2. Certainly adds a little perspective to it. How-weaver, Egyptian measure is quite different than ours, and engineers today have not been successful at matching the precision of their tools, measuring methods and technology {cranes, etc to move "20 ton" bricks}. Makes you wonder...
  
  Also, given the height, humans would certainly appear dominant over even bears, elephants and in relation to dinosaurs or giraffes, not so "short". The texts mention David wrestling with bears and lions as a hobby. Not something a smaller person would do, just because of the strength and leverage needed to even withstand such creatures -without electric prods.
  
  James.
  reply report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The distance from the elbow to the tip of the hand is a quarter of the height of a man.
  
  An eight foot man would have a two foot cubit. That was the "benefit of the doubt" that I was giving Noah... that he used his personal cubit instead of the longest "official" cubit... the Egyptian Long Cubit (20.6 inches). So even if Noah was using a personal cubit then he would have to be about 12 feet tall for the Ark to measure 90 feet tall. I think the bible might have mentioned something about a 12 foot tall Noah.
  
  And then it would have taken 91 feet of water to sink the Ark instead of 61.
  reply report
  77
  Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Noah was said to be 9 feet tall, still, they would have needed a much bigger boat
  reply report
60
Randy Godwinposted 12 years ago
And how did they get rid of all of the animal poop? They would have needed a front end loader just for the brontosauruses alone! Can you imagine toting a giant "bronto burger" up to the top deck in a raging storm?

reply report
1. 77
  Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That's it!!!
  
  They ate all the dinosaurs green portions of food , then the meat eaters ate all the Dinosaurs out of existence. Because Dinosaur are so huge, it is the only honest explanation for their food survival for months on end.
  Since bronto take up 1/3 of the Boat , Bronto burgers could feed most of
  the meat eater so the smaller pairs could hide on the boat or in the crack of the boat for their survival. Mean while the bears, crocodiles and Lions are in a mad eating frenzy and accidentally ate the a raptor, and when you break up a pair, they go extinct too
  
  It all make sense now!!!
  
  Noah and his family could train all the animal to stick their asses over the boat and poop, that's easy, silly Randy
  reply report
60
Randy Godwinposted 12 years ago
Paul Bunyan was definitely one of the surviving giants from this time! Babe the Blue Ox also shows the animals from the ark were much bigger too, so the ark had to be even larger than supposed. This makes me wonder how long Bunyan's forearm really was!

reply report
1. 95
  wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  From the known fact that dragging his axe is what formed the grand canyon, I would shoot for a forearm that is rather large. The ark may actually have made the USS Enterprise look like a child's paper boat floating around and dwarfed even a supertanker.
  
  That might even give enough room to carry the necessary two blue whales, which would have surely died as the oceans lost 90% of their salinity.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  See there! If we merely believe all myths are true everywhere, then everything works out just fine for the flood myth! Hey! Delusion is kinda fun when you do it this way! Superstition solves any problem!
  
  reply report
  60
  Paul Wingertposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Especially when you can make it up as you go. Your imagination is your only limit! "The ark may actually have made the USS Enterprise look like a child's paper boat floating around and dwarfed even a supertanker." That's some arc! How come there haven't been aship built that big out of wood since? They build large ships out of steel for a reason.
  reply report
  77
  Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Randy Godwinposted 14 hours ago in reply to this
  
  See there! If we merely believe all myths are true everywhere, then everything works out just fine for the flood myth! Hey! Delusion is kinda fun when you do it this way! Superstition solves any problem! yikes
  
  This gives imagination a bad name, without some good reason it all falls apart.
  reply report
0
paxwillposted 12 years ago
Sorry, but I lol'ed at Noah's "arc." Is this is a geometry question? Carry on.
reply report
84
Jane Bovaryposted 12 years ago
Don't worry SirDent, you've always got the "God moves in mysterious ways" fallback.
reply report
0
SirDentposted 12 years ago
When Jesus was taken before Pilate, the crowd asked for Barabbas to be released instead of Jesus who went about doing good. Barabbas was a thief and a murderer, yet the people wanted him more than Jesus.
reply report
1. 60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'll bet one of your ancestors was defending Jesus in the trial. If he used your idea of fairness, no wonder they chose Barabbas !
  
  reply report
0
SirDentposted 12 years ago
Good night.
reply report
1. 58
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Good night Dent. I'll pray for you.
  reply report
61
Reviewsbypatposted 12 years ago
Yes, Jesus is the only one who can break the bonds of sin, well said. The nephilim were instrumental in bringing about the flood due to their interference in the affairs of humanity. They are about to stage another appearance it seems. If Darwin was correct in any of his assertions, it would not matter what animal you save, it would evolve into a myriad of other species. lol.
reply report
1. 77
  Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Welcome to the hub pages
  Reviewsbypat
  
  What do think ?
  
  1. is it an evil act, that God kills billions of animals and millions of people just to prove to us acting sinful is wrong.
  
  2. Is God killing all those people for their sinful acts worst of an evil act than Us judging other for capital punishment. Still we can not prove to others, to kill someone is to prove killing is wrong
  
  3. Is every sin is a step toward hell punishment which worst than the crime. Watch out America, it's Sodom an Gomorrah all over again and again, There has been 400 threat in human history to End the World by Christian groups, most recent 2012 threat. Is fear mongering bullies the best way to teach all of on how to love?
  reply report
64
Claire Evansposted 12 years ago
I think research tells us it didn't happen.
reply report
1. 77
  Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It is the only christian explanation why dinosaurs went extinct and for the roots of Christianity since God (Yahweh) gave us everything
  reply report
  64
  Claire Evansposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Lol
  reply report
86
Richawriterposted 12 years ago
As not one person on this planet can honestly say they understand why, how, and how long ago this universe, planet, world was created or by whom that question is pretty much redundant, I'm afraid.

Even science cannot explain fully. As neither a religious man nor an atheist the way I see it is that science and religion compliment each other. Religion 'seems' to fill in the blanks that science is unable to explain and vice versa.

Is science saving out planet and doing so much more for it than this 'apparently' ridiculous belief in God? No, on the contrary. Science is destroying us and our planet because we are too ignorant of the cost we must pay in order to enjoy the short term benefits we are currently seeing.

Is science being used by greedy human beings to keep the masses in check and make hoards of money for some unknown purpose? Yes, it is. By science, I'm talking about technologies and engineering, even the science of the mind.

We create these technologies and worship them, yet our planet is literally falling apart under our feet, the earth being filled with our waste product and the atmosphere being pumped full of toxins. Why? If you ask me, science is blinding humanity to the truth. The truth that we won't survive for much longer unless we start cutting down on this 'science' that is eating the planet alive.

Religion is for me, something which although in essence, is good, has been used by the wrong people of which the Earth abounds. I have said it before, religion 'seems' to have been created to bring us together. However, it has failed and has instead caused countless wars and death.

Both religion and science have great potential for the human race and can answer many questions when used together, unfortunately, too many people are unwilling to even contemplate accepting religion as a means of perceiving and acknowledging reality.

Currently, they are both harmful to us. They both cause massive death and destruction. Both initiate unnecessary competition and greed.

Neither religion/God or science is to blame for the 'evils' of this world. Mankind is to blame for the evil and destruction wrought upon this planet and our people.

It's time to stop blaming abstract things and start looking at something a little more concrete - HUMANITY

Peace to you all.
reply report
1. 77
  Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I agree for most part of what you have posted, yet also agree for most part with science and Religious and what they have to say, yet finding my middle ground between the two. This one act of God about Noah's Arc, I do not agree with by ethics, as it could only be an act of evil to destroy billions of animals plus millions of humans Also by scientific evidence to show how it;s a myth, a fairy tale for Adults in trying to explain their roots
  reply report
61
u-turnposted 12 years ago
Here we come? DOES OTHER LIFE FORM ? AND IF SO, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT GOD and aliens can both be real?
reply report
1. 77
  Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Welcome to Hub pages,
  
  I will know they are both real, when I physically meet them.
  
  By 90% consensus people believe there is a God, God is just a word that people are incapable of knowing or claiming to know. The more someone claims strongly to know God the more they become more elusive.
  
  For the zillions of Planets out there there is most likely life on other planets. Alien intelligent have just not advance enough to reach us and we are not advance enough in my life time to reach them
  reply report
60
Randy Godwinposted 12 years ago
Imagine all of the dead animals--including dinosaurs--and humans stinking up the landscape when the ark finally grounded. Only a few buzzards, hyenas, and other creatures of carrion to clean up the horrible stench and prevent all sorts of diseases to the very few remaining animals and humans. All the trees dead or dormant and merely a few birds to nest in them.

All of the grasses would be dead and the streams polluted with the decay from the drowned dinosaurs and mammals. No clean water to drink, nor food to eat other than decomposed flesh from the carrion. Yes, unbelievable isn't it?

reply report
1. 77
  Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The closest thing I could imagine it to be like is the American Civil War, times a million
  reply report
60
paradigmsearchposted 12 years ago
And it hits the fan...

"The story of Noah is appalling. God took a dim view of humans, so he (with the exception of one family) drowned the lot of them including the children and also for good measure, the rest of the (presumably blameless) animals as well. "

http://the-militant-atheist.org/noahs-ark.html
reply report
1. 77
  Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Praise Be to our Genocidal Maniac and if you do not worship thou then Yahweh will it again in 2012
  
  LOL
  reply report
75
skyfireposted 12 years ago
Hell yeah
reply report
1. 77
  Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Fear me, For I am God too.
  
  Hell Yeah!!!
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Noah's Arc left behind most people and animals, was that not Evil?

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Noah's Arc left behind most people and animals, was that not Evil?

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies