Movie review: Noah

[RE]

If the event happened

Which event?  The Birth of a boy in a manger from a Virgin?  The world being inundated by water? A guy SAVING all living species on his boat?  A skinny guy walking on water? A Dead Guy coming back to life? 150 year old men procreating the human species with their 50 year old sisters?

Precisely which "event" described by the Bible as FACT are we talking about here?

RE

• Tweet

[MKing]

Certainly I didn't say Billy Graham was racist, just that he wouldn't recognize the second coming if it was a black child born in Africa any better than he did that of David Koresh.

Picking and choosing among those claiming to be the return of Christ can be awful tricky I imagine.

The Second Coming is not supposed to be the birth of any child, anywhere. Maybe you should become familiar with the doctrine before making judgments about it and people who believe in it.

Why? Peak oilers certainly don't require learning anything about oil and gas history, reserves, resources, procedures, financing, drilling or discovery particulars before  basing a Rapture style event around it, why can't I talk about religious dogma in the same generally uninformed fashion?

The Book of Mormon clearly lays this stuff out, did reading this religious dogma not inform me enough to begin commenting on the Second Coming?

http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/book-mormon-and-message-four-gospels/7-second-coming-jesus

• Tweet

[MKing]

If the event happened

Which event?  The Birth of a boy in a manger from a Virgin?  The world being inundated by water? A guy SAVING all living species on his boat?  A skinny guy walking on water? A Dead Guy coming back to life? 150 year old men procreating the human species with their 50 year old sisters?

Precisely which "event" described by the Bible as FACT are we talking about here?

RE

All of them? Certainly the Ark on Ararat is just lying there waiting to be found by some intrepid Indiana Jones type, and when they find it they might then be able to explain the beaches depicted in the movie, or maybe they can get a geologist involved and they will be able to explain them, and how they eroded away over the past few thousand years or something?

IMHO if we all just understand that Hollywood and the Bible are really just two forms of storytelling the same fictional event, it makes it all so much more understandable. And when the FBI burned Jesus and all his friends and family the 2nd time (David Koresh), it has been extremely annoying that Hollywood hasn't enshrined his story the same way they did that of Moses or Judah Ben-Hur. Maybe because Charlton isn't around to lend it the gravitas such things might require?

Russel held up pretty well as the bad guy though, if it weren't for some extra babies for folks to commit incest on, who knows where the world might be right now! The Bible certainly doesn't give us the answer to that question! 

• Tweet

[Ashvin]

Certainly I didn't say Billy Graham was racist, just that he wouldn't recognize the second coming if it was a black child born in Africa any better than he did that of David Koresh.

Picking and choosing among those claiming to be the return of Christ can be awful tricky I imagine.

The Second Coming is not supposed to be the birth of any child, anywhere. Maybe you should become familiar with the doctrine before making judgments about it and people who believe in it.

Why? Peak oilers certainly don't require learning anything about oil and gas history, reserves, resources, procedures, financing, drilling or discovery particulars before  basing a Rapture style event around it, why can't I talk about religious dogma in the same generally uninformed fashion?

And you have no problem acting like the 'generally uninformed' people you continuously criticize on other threads?

The Book of Mormon clearly lays this stuff out, did reading this religious dogma not inform me enough to begin commenting on the Second Coming?

Biblical doctrines should be gleaned from... the Bible.

• Tweet

[DoomerSupport]

To argue that the other accounts are unrealistic because their Gods were more like us ignores the fact that the Abrahamic god is a reflection of the idea that a powerful individual or cabal deserves to control our lives.  The 1%.  The Illuminati.  The Holy Church.  The idea that it's okay to abrogate personal responsibility to an elite who you see as "better" than you.

The argument is that other accounts are inaccurate renditions of the same underlying real event. If the event happened, some traditions recounting it are bound to be inaccurate.

The idea that the bible contains "the most accurate account" is a matter of faith, not fact.

You seem to think that comparing the Biblical narratives and Yahweh to "the 1%" is a substitute for making an actual argument...

No, I pointed out that claiming other flood stories are "silly" because they agree with most of humanity's experience of divinity - that of multiple gods - shows that you have a faith-based blindness to human experience.

Sorry, the New Atheists have made all of those reckless state-before-you-read/think conclusions before, and none of them hold weight when looking at what the OT actually says.

It's what the OT "actually says" that makes it clear that the similarities between abusive elites over the ages and the examples in the bible are many, and the bible has been used to "justify" those actions over the centuries.  Rape is an OT virtue.  Genocide is an OT virtue.  Incest is an OT virtue.

Christians love to pick and choose what is "relevant".  The rule on homosexuality applies, but the rule on eating shellfish, pork or wearing mixed fibers does not. 

The idea that the ark could float is a matter of faith, much like the Gilgamesh boat, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who knows ship building who would say it was seaworthy - the faithful followers of the divine 1% excepted.

Right, like the people who have actually re-created the Ark according to biblical dimensions and put it on water?

Really?  to scale, or a model?  I can make a glider out of a sheet of paper, if I scale it up to the size of a jumbo, I may have trouble getting it to fly. 

• Tweet

[MKing]

Peak oilers certainly don't require learning anything about oil and gas history, reserves, resources, procedures, financing, drilling or discovery particulars before  basing a Rapture style event around it, why can't I talk about religious dogma in the same generally uninformed fashion?

And you have no problem acting like the 'generally uninformed' people you continuously criticize on other threads?

People don't usually ACT ignorant...they ARE ignorant. And I certainly hold no ill will towards those who are professionally educated on a subject and are then in a position to contradict everything I say from an authoritarian stance. I call that learning. When it comes to religion, I can generally be considered ignorant on the topic, beyond it being used as a punishment as a child, and having read most of the Old Testament as a "learning" experience. Not that it taught me what some might expect.

This Second Coming thing for example, in my ignorance I figured that "Second Coming" meant...well....Jesus would come back and begin doing...well...something. When David Koresh was claiming he was Jesus Christ it seemed amusing at first....then I thought about it for a little..and then realized....well...why the hell NOT!

Maybe he was Jesus Christ just like he claimed. Certainly not everyone believed anything Jesus said the FIRST time he came around, why would anyone believe him the SECOND? And certainly if he was born, or appeared, or arrived one afternoon, looking, talking and belonging to some other group, I figure that you couldn't get a born again fundy to buy what he was selling to save their lives. They have preconceived notions as well, and a dark skinned person not speaking English preaching peace love and peyote somewhere in a poor African village just doesn't fit the suburban born again, rule following (the rules they WANT to follow, mind you, religion isn't important enough to allow it to change our chosen lifestyles, habits or vices) churchie.

Obviously, David is just one example, but still, it all begs the question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_claimed_to_be_Jesus

The Book of Mormon clearly lays this stuff out, did reading this religious dogma not inform me enough to begin commenting on the Second Coming?

Biblical doctrines should be gleaned from... the Bible.

Why? Bible comes from the Latin word biblia, meaning "the books". Certainly when discussing religious dogma there is no requirement to recognize the validity of any one interpretation from any one book over any other, the Mormons are as Christian as the Pope, their interpretation from "the books" is as equally valid as Lutherans, Presbyterians, Catholics, Born Agains, Assyrian Church, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodox, Restorationism, or any of the looney tune equivalents deriving from a common origin.

 

• Tweet

[DoomerSupport]

And you have no problem acting like the 'generally uninformed' people you continuously criticize on other threads?

People don't usually ACT ignorant...they ARE ignorant. And I certainly hold no ill will towards those who are professionally educated on a subject and are then in a position to contradict everything I say from an authoritarian stance. I call that learning. When it comes to religion, I can generally be considered ignorant on the topic, beyond it being used as a punishment as a child, and having read most of the Old Testament as a "learning" experience. Not that it taught me what some might expect.

I was a Christian before I went to university with a tendency towards a fundamentalist interpretation.  I was told beforehand that a theology degree would cause me to question my faith - a significant number of those who read divinity change or abandon religion.  They were right, knowledge does banish ignorance, and replaced it with a healthy respect of what Yahweh does when the power of his followers is left unchecked.  Murder.  Child abuse.  Genocide.  Rape.  All have been, and are in some societies, acceptable behaviors if you carry a bible in your hand.

As a believer in reincarnation, the religions of "the Book" are antithetical to our ways. Yahweh seeks to entrap the soul where it is required to worship be fed to it for all eternity, we want our loved ones to come back and reborn with us.  "Conversion to Christianity" has the carries a similar element of eternal loss to us today, as excommunication did for the victims of the medieval church.

• Tweet

[Ashvin]

The idea that the bible contains "the most accurate account" is a matter of faith, not fact.

That's what you say, but you have not directly addressed the arguments in the article I linked to and quoted.

No, I pointed out that claiming other flood stories are "silly" because they agree with most of humanity's experience of divinity - that of multiple gods - shows that you have a faith-based blindness to human experience.

Human experience tells me that there is no reason to trust, rely on, have faith in, etc. "divine" beings that plot, scheme, battle, etc. There is no reason for eternal Hope if our "gods" are in the same sinful state we are in.

It's what the OT "actually says" that makes it clear that the similarities between abusive elites over the ages and the examples in the bible are many, and the bible has been used to "justify" those actions over the centuries.  Rape is an OT virtue.  Genocide is an OT virtue.  Incest is an OT virtue.

Christians love to pick and choose what is "relevant".  The rule on homosexuality applies, but the rule on eating shellfish, pork or wearing mixed fibers does not.

 

And OT-haters love to take isolated passages out of context and use them as "evidence" that it promoted slavery or genocide. Then they arrive at conclusions like those of Mr. Dawkins:

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

But later he ADMITTED that he's not at all familiar with the passages he criticizes and the above is purely a rhetorical strategy used to get laughs from the audience and make his anti-religious propaganda sound more convincing.

All of your "abusive 1% elites" rhetoric rings just as hollow, having little to with the biblical narratives within their contexts and more to do with an audience predisposed to be "anti-1%".

Really?  to scale, or a model?  I can make a glider out of a sheet of paper, if I scale it up to the size of a jumbo, I may have trouble getting it to fly.

To scale.

• Tweet

[Ashvin]

When it comes to religion, I can generally be considered ignorant on the topic...

Shouldn't you just stop the comment there?

This Second Coming thing for example, in my ignorance I figured that "Second Coming" meant...well....Jesus would come back and begin doing...well...something. When David Koresh was claiming he was Jesus Christ it seemed amusing at first....then I thought about it for a little..and then realized....well...why the hell NOT!

Because David Koresh was born here on Earth like you and I, and did not "descend" from the Heavens in a glorious resurrection body to renew the Heavens and the Earth, to put an end to all sin and death.

So now that you have a general understanding of what the doctrine of the Second Coming is, you can stop worrying about being duped by some guy in Africa or wherever.

Why? Bible comes from the Latin word biblia, meaning "the books". Certainly when discussing religious dogma there is no requirement to recognize the validity of any one interpretation from any one book over any other,

You don't have to recognize their validity, as in accept one is true and another is not, but you shouldn't ascribe doctrines to one that come from another. Christian doctrine cannot be gleaned from the Book of Mormon any more than it can be from the Koran.

the Mormons are as Christian as the Pope, their interpretation from "the books" is as equally valid as Lutherans, Presbyterians, Catholics, Born Agains, Assyrian Church, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodox, Restorationism, or any of the looney tune equivalents deriving from a common origin.

The Mormons deny the authority of the Bible in determining Christian doctrine, so they are not interpreting the Bible, but rather replacing it with their own scripture.

• Tweet

[MKing]

People don't usually ACT ignorant...they ARE ignorant. And I certainly hold no ill will towards those who are professionally educated on a subject and are then in a position to contradict everything I say from an authoritarian stance. I call that learning. When it comes to religion, I can generally be considered ignorant on the topic, beyond it being used as a punishment as a child, and having read most of the Old Testament as a "learning" experience. Not that it taught me what some might expect.

I was a Christian before I went to university with a tendency towards a fundamentalist interpretation.  I was told beforehand that a theology degree would cause me to question my faith - a significant number of those who read divinity change or abandon religion.  They were right, knowledge does banish ignorance, and replaced it with a healthy respect of what Yahweh does when the power of his followers is left unchecked.  Murder.  Child abuse.  Genocide.  Rape.  All have been, and are in some societies, acceptable behaviors if you carry a bible in your hand.

It is funny how that works, isn't it? The worst of mankind comes to the front when the true believers are involved.

• Tweet

[MKing]

When it comes to religion, I can generally be considered ignorant on the topic...

Shouldn't you just stop the comment there?

Why? Peak oilers feel comfortable continuing in their ignorance, and I am a real "when in Rome" kind of guy. Besides, I am quite comfortable in the environment Socrates was famous for advocating..."the only true wisdom is knowing that you know nothing".

Even for all I know about my particular area of expertise, it has only taught me the breadth of what I do NOT know.

This Second Coming thing for example, in my ignorance I figured that "Second Coming" meant...well....Jesus would come back and begin doing...well...something. When David Koresh was claiming he was Jesus Christ it seemed amusing at first....then I thought about it for a little..and then realized....well...why the hell NOT!

Because David Koresh was born here on Earth like you and I, and did not "descend" from the Heavens in a glorious resurrection body to renew the Heavens and the Earth, to put an end to all sin and death.

Wow...really? Maybe he descended one afternoon when no one was looking? Making "glorious" to you isn't the same as it might mean to a humble carpenter. And maybe the FBI offed David before he could really expand into putting an end to all sin and death. It isn't as though God's plan can't go sideways just as badly as humans, you do recall this thread is about the FLOOD utilized as a weapon of mass destruction, right?  By the Big Guy, trying to clean up his mess, and not just some random offspring?

So now that you have a general understanding of what the doctrine of the Second Coming is, you can stop worrying about being duped by some guy in Africa or wherever.

Hardly. You see, you have no better ability to predict the future through use of your particular book than Harold Camping did when he used his. Or David when he decided he was Jesus.

Why? Bible comes from the Latin word biblia, meaning "the books". Certainly when discussing religious dogma there is no requirement to recognize the validity of any one interpretation from any one book over any other,

You don't have to recognize their validity, as in accept one is true and another is not, but you shouldn't ascribe doctrines to one that come from another. Christian doctrine cannot be gleaned from the Book of Mormon any more than it can be from the Koran.

Mormonism comes from Christianity just like the others I listed the flow chart for. Who are you to decide which one is right? Or which of the favorite Books are best?

the Mormons are as Christian as the Pope, their interpretation from "the books" is as equally valid as Lutherans, Presbyterians, Catholics, Born Agains, Assyrian Church, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodox, Restorationism, or any of the looney tune equivalents deriving from a common origin.

The Mormons deny the authority of the Bible in determining Christian doctrine, so they are not interpreting the Bible, but rather replacing it with their own scripture.

So? They have the same origins, run around worried about the same things, use the same books and people, they just draw different conclusions than the other sects of Christianity. You like your sect...fine...good for you...I'm sure the Mormons like theirs. One is no more valid than the other, and all ultimately come from the same place. Just like David Koresh turned a Bible to his own ultimate ends, so the Mormons did, so the Protestants did, so all do sorts of folks.  Doesn't make ANY of them more right than the other, it just reinforces the "us versus them" meme so common to religions in general, and this is then used as the standard excuse to denigrate/name call/insult/kill/main/destroy/rape/murder/war between groups.

I have no objection to the Bible as a fundamental piece of propaganda that you can configure in any form or fashion you wish. But I also allow all others to use it the same way, recognizing no value difference in your interpretation over theirs. Or David Koresh's.

Based on nothing more than the established history of how religion and the Bible has been used in the past, I would assign a high level of probability that it was DESIGNED to be internally inconsistent, that future generations could find within it whatever excuse they needed to justify anything and everything they might wish.

• Tweet

[DoomerSupport]

Based on nothing more than the established history of how religion and the Bible has been used in the past, I would assign a high level of probability that it was DESIGNED to be internally inconsistent, that future generations could find within it whatever excuse they needed to justify anything and everything they might wish.

You have admit, getting followers to make human sacrifices out of each other is a pretty smart move on its part.   

• Tweet

[Petty Tyrant]

you do recall this thread is about the FLOOD utilized as a weapon of mass destruction, right? 

I thought it was about trying to ridicule peak oilers, it was started by you and you dont come here for anything else. Claiming we know nothing, you are the expert, but offer no arguments to the point other than false analogy. Claim peak oilers have a belief like rapture when you yourself believe the answer to peak oil is to leave planet earth.

• Tweet

[MKing]

you do recall this thread is about the FLOOD utilized as a weapon of mass destruction, right? 

I thought it was about trying to ridicule peak oilers…….

May I recommend…yet again….a proper reading what is written prior to making up what you HOPE or DREAM it says instead?

...it was started by you and you dont come here for anything else.

see above…which has been told to you before…I recommend some memory exercises….perhaps supplements?

Claiming we know nothing, you are the expert, but offer no arguments to the point other than false analogy. Claim peak oilers have a belief like rapture when you yourself believe the answer to peak oil is to leave planet earth.

To be honest, you are about the only one who appears to approach knowing "nothing", most others certainly seem to know…something…about stuff…..and if they don't know much about oil and gas does it really matter? What is more amusing, and telling, is how they choose to better educate themselves (or not) on the points involved.

As far as the relationship between peak oil believers and rapturists, well, that connection has always struck me as fairly obvious. Perhaps the concept should not be limited to just peak oil and rapturists, but zealots in general? It is the zealotry that is the defining characteristic? Doesn't matter the topic?

• Tweet

[Ashvin]

Wow...really? Maybe he descended one afternoon when no one was looking? Making "glorious" to you isn't the same as it might mean to a humble carpenter. And maybe the FBI offed David before he could really expand into putting an end to all sin and death. It isn't as though God's plan can't go sideways just as badly as humans, you do recall this thread is about the FLOOD utilized as a weapon of mass destruction, right?  By the Big Guy, trying to clean up his mess, and not just some random offspring?

No, this thread is about you misrepresenting biblical doctrine, basically admitting you are misrepresenting it and refusing to stop.

Hardly. You see, you have no better ability to predict the future through use of your particular book than Harold Camping did when he used his. Or David when he decided he was Jesus.

I'm not trying to convince you that the Bible accurately predicts the future. That's a different debate. I'm just pointing out how badly you are misrepresenting Biblical doctrines. At first, one could conclude it was unintentional on your part, but now not so much.

Mormonism comes from Christianity just like the others I listed the flow chart for. Who are you to decide which one is right? Or which of the favorite Books are best?

Once again, I'm not claiming one is more accurate than the other. I'm claiming they are, in fact, different theological worldviews with very different core doctrines. You, otoh, are trying to lump everything together. 

So? They have the same origins, run around worried about the same things, use the same books and people, they just draw different conclusions than the other sects of Christianity. You like your sect...fine...good for you...I'm sure the Mormons like theirs. One is no more valid than the other, and all ultimately come from the same place. Just like David Koresh turned a Bible to his own ultimate ends, so the Mormons did, so the Protestants did, so all do sorts of folks.  Doesn't make ANY of them more right than the other, it just reinforces the "us versus them" meme so common to religions in general, and this is then used as the standard excuse to denigrate/name call/insult/kill/main/destroy/rape/murder/war between groups.

I have no objection to the Bible as a fundamental piece of propaganda that you can configure in any form or fashion you wish. But I also allow all others to use it the same way, recognizing no value difference in your interpretation over theirs. Or David Koresh's.

How are you so confident in your conclusions about the Bible when, admittedly, you are generally uninformed about its philosophy and theology? Of course you won't recognize any value difference when you haven't bothered to learn about the various interpretations and think about how they were derived.

Based on nothing more than the established history of how religion and the Bible has been used in the past, I would assign a high level of probability that it was DESIGNED to be internally inconsistent, that future generations could find within it whatever excuse they needed to justify anything and everything they might wish.

Well then it should be pretty easy for you to start listing those internal inconsistencies, instead of just stating they exist.

People have used the writings of all sorts of people to harm others, sometimes on very large scales. Charles Darwin and Karl Marx come to mind as relatively recent examples. That says nothing about either the consistency or the accuracy of their writings.

• Tweet