Artful Dodger:

> Ha! Good question. Perhaps the flood was local. Water, especially violent flood waters, can be very destructive. I remember studying the young earth view of the flood and didn't find it particularly convincing.

There is a theory that tries to explain the origin of the flood myth. I saw it in a documentary some 20 years ago.

The theory is that the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles were blocked. The Bosphorus is the straight narrow passage that connects the Black Sea to the Sea of Marmara. The Dardanelles connect the Sea of Marmara to the Mediterranean. These straits are located in modern day Turkey. Because the area was formed of a solid landmass, it was blocked and the waters of the Mediterranean could not enter what is our modern Sea of Marmara. This created a plain that sat below sea level. Then an earthquake happened several thousand years ago and the landmasses of the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles collapsed. The waters of the Mediterranean and the Black Sea came pouring in and flooded what today is the Sea of Marmara. The inhabitants in the area perished as their settlements were engulfed by the rushing waters.

Both western and Soviet archaelogists tried to find remnants of settlements under the Sea of Marmara, the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov. However, no solid evidence was found to support this theory. There were settlements on the shores, but they did not go back far enough in time to prove the theory.

To me it was very interesting. It would show a cataclismic flood that gave origin to the myth, but would also be on a scale that is more logical than what is portrayed in the Old Testament and in other myths outside the Abrahamic religious tradition.

In reality, I think that flood myths are merely a reflection of our fear of water and our fear of the destructive power of nature. Flood myths exist everywhere, not just in the Old Testament.

The Popol Vuh of the Maya Quiche natives of Guatemala has a flood myth too. The Gods had created men made of wood, but these men were mute. They could not speak and thank their Gods for having created them. The Gods became angry and send a great flood that destroyed most of the men of wood. Those that survived ran away into the jungle and became monkeys. This flood myth has no relationship to any of the Old World myths. It merely represents two things: floods sent by the Gods destroy things, thank your Gods or they will send a flood to destroy you. The teaching in the myth is much the same as in the Old Testament. It is meant to have a didactical effect and not to be taken as some fundamental truth of what really happened.

mckinley: Yep religion can be very exhausting even more so if you're doing an Exorcism to drive those little devil's out :)

mckinley: No. that's not what I meant.

I looked back some years ago on the origin of 'Satan' and the concept thereof and came across this...

In Genesis 2:7, the Bible states that G-d formed (vayyitzer) man. The spelling of this word is unusual: it uses two consecutive Yods instead of the one you would expect. The rabbis inferred that these Yods stand for the word "yetzer," which means impulse, and the existence of two Yods here indicates that humanity was formed with two impulses: a good impulse (the yetzer tov) and an evil impulse (the yetzer ra).

The yetzer tov is the moral conscience, the inner voice that reminds you of G-d's law when you consider doing something that is forbidden. According to some views, it does not enter a person until his 13th birthday, when he becomes responsible for following the commandments. See Bar Mitzvah.

The yetzer ra is more difficult to define, because there are many different ideas about it. It is not a desire to do evil in the way we normally think of it in Western society: a desire to cause senseless harm. Rather, it is usually conceived as the selfish nature, the desire to satisfy personal needs (food, shelter, sex, etc.) without regard for the moral consequences of fulfilling those desires.

The yetzer ra is not a bad thing. It was created by G-d, and all things created by G-d are good. The Talmud notes that without the yetzer ra (the desire to satisfy personal needs), man would not build a house, marry a wife, beget children or conduct business affairs. But the yetzer ra can lead to wrongdoing when it is not controlled by the yetzer tov. There is nothing inherently wrong with hunger, but it can lead you to steal food. There is nothing inherently wrong with sexual desire, but it can lead you to commit rape, adultery, incest or other sexual perversion.

The yetzer ra is generally seen as something internal to a person, not as an external force acting on a person. The idea that "the devil made me do it" is not in line with the majority of thought in Judaism. Although it has been said that Satan and the yetzer ra are one and the same, this is more often understood as meaning that Satan is merely a personification of our own selfish desires, rather than that our selfish desires are caused by some external force.

People have the ability to choose which impulse to follow: the yetzer tov or the yetzer ra. That is the heart of the Jewish understanding of free will. The Talmud notes that all people are descended from Adam, so no one can blame his own wickedness on his ancestry. On the contrary, we all have the ability to make our own choices, and we will all be held responsible for the choices we make.

http://www.jewfaq.org/human.htm

When I say DeViL or devil or 'devil' and the same on Satan .. I mean it in the sense as above.

IMO treating the devil as an actual real entity takes the Bible into being basically a 'Most Haunted' script.

rod03801: I'm with you Rod. He hit it out of the ballpark.

rod03801: "I don't enjoy religious talk."

Neither do I. Anywho, I coudn't find the chart I mentioned before, but I did find this one.

Iamon lyme: Right, but since I don't believe it's a "God-caused" thing, I don't see that it matters a whole lot anyway, if it did or didn't happen literally, or if it's been exaggerated. Except for possibly interesting meteorological history.
Anyway. I don't enjoy religious talk. So, most likely I'm going to bow out of it.

rod03801: Saying "I dunno" actually puts you ahead of the curve. When I started looking into these things it wasn't from the approach of do I believe it or not. The approach I took was, Was it possible for it to happen. Did it have to be a supernatural event, or was it physically possible for a flood like that to occur, and was it possible to get enough samples of animal life on something the size of the ark to account for all of the animal life we see today. Another question I needed to answer for myself was, Given what we know about the earth early on, and what a one supercontinent land mass might look like, was it even possible for a flood like that to cover the entire land mass... was there enough water, where did it all come from, etc etc. And by the way, the research I did was for myself, I wasn't trying to collect material for persuading anyone else.

To make a long story short, I eventually concluded that yes, it would have been possible for the event to literally occur as the Bible said. Why? Because the topography of the ocean floor and of the land mass back then was likely more uniform than it is today, which means it wouldn't have taken near as much water as it would today to cover every square inch of land mass. And evolutionists can be thanked for showing us how a relatively few samples of animal life could have easily multiplied into all of the species we see today, through what they call speciation. I meant to go find and show you a chart showing how the mastodon branched out into an almost unbelievable number of different species, it was a few years ago but maybe I can find it again. Anyway, seeing as how I found that information on an evolutionist website, I suppose there is no reason to not believe it... they aren't exactly in the business of trying to support the creationist viewpoint, if ya know what I mean.

There is more, but maybe this is enough for you to understand that maybe (I'm just saying maybe) a world wide flood and an ark carrying animals is not as farfetched as it sounds.

Just sayin... Paul Ryan's speech was awesome. I wish he was the one running for pres.

Übergeek 바둑이: Ha! Good question. Perhaps the flood was local. Water, especially violent flood waters, can be very destructive. I remember studying the young earth view of the flood and didn't find it particularly convincing.

rod03801: um, my views are 100% correct. So ask me anything.

Iamon lyme: I highly doubt the entire Earth was under water, and if so, I doubt God had anything to do with it. I pretty much assume that if there was indeed massive flooding, it was the entire world as THEY knew it.
Dunno.
And I'm NOT an Atheist.

I have my own personal beliefs that I feel no need to share, as I'm not going to (nor do I care to) change anyone else's mind.

Besides, my attitude is that ANY of us could be right. Or None of us could be right.

Iamon lyme: You got nothin

The Col: "I fail to see the connection between Noah's Ark and the current President of the USA"

Think about it for awhile, and it may come to you.

"if you can, please enlighten me."

I don't see it being do-able now, let alone ever.

Iamon lyme: I fail to see the connection between Noah's Ark and the current President of the USA, if you can, please enlighten me.In regards to the USA being a "Canadian thing" we are your largest trading partner and share borders.If you don't understand that being a significant reason to be concerned with your politics, I suggest you go back to school.

The Col: "When did Noah's Ark become a USA thing?"

When did the USA become a Canadian thing?

.. In Job God has a bet with the DeViL that with God's blessing, the 'devil' can test Job and take everything he values on this Earth.

But, the 'DeViL' is not allowed to kill Job. A genocidal God .. .. it doesn't work.

Iamon lyme: Millions of years of tectonic movement in less than what.. a decade??

.. A genocidal God is now what you worship!!

Not quite right but....

"Project Habakkuk or Habbakuk (spelling varies; see below) was a plan by the British in World War II to construct an aircraft carrier out of pykrete (a mixture of wood pulp and ice), for use against German U-boats in the mid-Atlantic, which were beyond the flight range of land-based planes at that time.

The idea came from Geoffrey Pyke who worked for Combined Operations....

...In early 1942 Pyke and Bernal called in Max Perutz to determine whether an ice floe large enough to withstand Atlantic conditions could be built up fast enough. He pointed out that natural icebergs have too small a surface above water for an airstrip, and are prone to suddenly rolling over. The project would have been abandoned, except for the invention of Pykrete, a mixture of water and woodpulp which frozen together was stronger than plain ice, was slower melting, and of course would not sink. It has been suggested that Pyke was inspired by Inuit sleds reinforced with moss.[1] This is probably apocryphal, as the material was originally described in a paper by Mark and Hohenstein in Brooklyn, NY.[2]

Pykrete could be machined like wood and cast into shapes like metal, and when immersed in water formed an insulating shell of wet wood pulp on its surface which protected its interior from further melting. However, Perutz found a problem: ice slowly flows, in what is known as plastic flow, and his tests showed that a Pykrete ship would slowly sag unless it was cooled to −16 °C (3 °F). To accomplish this, the ship's surface would have to be protected by insulation and it would need a refrigeration plant and a complicated system of ducts.[2]

The Col: There was an idea worked on that using a special ice (additives mixed in) .. it would be possible to make a large mile plus size object that wouldn't melt. With modern computers and a nuclear power source it is possible..

.. but back then it was an idea for building massive floating bomber carriers.

Iamon lyme: When did Noah's Ark become a USA thing?

The Col: "I wouldn't want sewage and feeding duties on that cruise , not to mention the illnesses and atrophy from standing/sitting in a very small place for weeks and weeks.I don't see it being do-able now, let alone then."

Not do-able now for sure. The unions wouldn't stand for it, and experts would show up to explain how it couldn't possibly float because the proportons are all wrong. Obama would not sign off on it even if he thought it could work, because it would show a lack of confidence in his administration. How dare anyone for thinking he couldn't keep them all safe and snuggly warm in their own beds. And Michelle would point out that the on board meals are unacceptable, and that only the flys and dung beatles were being properly fed.

So the overwhelming consensus today would be that conditions outside the boat are far better and more suitable to sustaining life. Now that I think about it, that was the consensus back then, but Noah just blew them off and did it anyway.

rod03801: I don't recall anyone arguing about there being one large supercontinent at one time. It even has a name. Pangaea, or Pangea.

As for how could all those animals get into one little ark? You could ask an evolutionist about speciation, but if he thinks you are talking about the ark he might forget what speciation is. lol

I wondered about how animals could make it from one continent to another after the continents began separating. Maybe they hadn't started separating yet. Or maybe it has something to do with the continents being much farther apart today than they were when they BEGAN to separate. oops, darn that caps lock button... must have touched it when my fingers weren't looking.

I wasn't trying to start up another recycle of the same old questions, but I suppose the atheists have had more than enough time to forget all about it and start this all over again.

(V): I wouldn't want sewage and feeding duties on that cruise , not to mention the illnesses and atrophy from standing/sitting in a very small place for weeks and weeks.I don't see it being do-able now, let alone then.

Übergeek 바둑이: Maybe that was back before all the continents split apart?
I suppose there's a chance that there is some historic "truth" to the story, but I assume the Bible exaggerated it a bunch, or something has been lost in the "translation" over the years. But, I'm a bit biased I guess, since I am not a fan of the book.

Übergeek 바둑이: Noah was a Time Lord and had a TARDIS. That or the original story via oral retelling became a little .. ... exaggerated.

It's a little Gilgameshy in origin... or Atrahasism?? Who knows who first told the tale.

I have no problem believing Noah's ark story except that there is a couple of things I don't quite get. How did kangaroos get from Australia to the ark? And then how did they get from the ark back to Australia? I suppose Noah could have done dropoffs. Take a bit of a long ark trip to Australia, drop off kangaroos, dingoes and koalas. Then head over to the Americas and drop off spider monkeys, grizzly bears and moose. Then head back to the old world. If that were the case, Noah discovered America!

mckinley: "I'm thinking Noah's Ark will be found if it petrified."

It's already been found. Aerial photographs were taken as well as close up pictures. A few chunks of it were taken and analysed. It was very heavy and hard, so they think the wood had been waterproofed in some way. For years bible scholars thought gopher wood was supposed to be a type or species of tree, but what it means is the wood has been treated with some kind of hot oil or heated wood sap. The ark itself has split in half, and some of the inside chambers could be seen.

The evidence however will be disputed, when not ignored, so don't expect to see any atheists to suddenly convert based on the evidence of there being an ark... instead expect to hear it's not there, it didn't happen, etc etc.

mckinley: "Some of the ammo athiests use is why do bad things happen if there is a God."

Atheists manufacture their own ammo. First they tell us it's a fairy tale, then they over simplify it by treating it as a fairy tale. See how that works? They don't want us to tell them why bad things happen to good people. They want to tell us that bad things happen to good people and then ask why, as though simply asking the question is enough to answer the question. It doesn't matter how many times you answer their question. They will always ignore your answer, then argue with answers you don't give, and then start all over again by asking the same questions. I watched this cycle go on for a few years at another site, and I'll bet it's happened here as well.

They also manufacture their own inconsistencies when looking for contradictions. Apparently the only rule for them is that there are no rules, and they are free to say or do anything... even if it make no sense to anyone else.

mckinley: Fairy tales are usually stories with lessons/messages wrapped into the telling. There is evidence that there was a major flood at some date previous to the story being written. N' at that time people thinking a God controlled much of the worlds weather.. they wanted reassurance the Gods were not wiping out humanity.

.. plus it helped explain Rainbows!!

A group of American soldiers formed an anarchist militia and plotted to overthrow the United States government, a court in Georgia has heard.

The allegations emerged in a murder case against four soldiers accused of belonging to the group. Prosecutors say the men formed a militia called Fear, standing for Forever Enduring Always Ready. They are alleged to have bought $87,000 (£56,000) worth of arms to bomb targets and assassinate President Obama.

Prosecutor Isabel Pauley told the judge at the Long County court, near the Fort Steward army base, that the militia had bought land in Washington state and planned to bomb a dam and poison apple crops in the area.

Their ultimate aim, she said, was to overthrow the government and assassinate the president.

"This domestic terrorist organisation did not simply plan and talk... Evidence shows the group possessed the knowledge, means and motive to carry out their plans," the Associated Press reports Ms Pauley telling the judge...

....They are accused of the December murder of former soldier Michael Roark, 19, and his girlfriend Tiffany York, 17.

On Monday, Michael Burnett pleaded guilty to manslaughter and gang charges, telling the court that Roark knew of the militia group's plans and had been killed because he was "a loose end". Private Aguigui, identified as the founder and leader of Fear, is accused of using a $500,000 (£316,000) insurance payout from the death of his pregnant wife a year ago to buy weapons and land for the group.

His fellow soldier Private Burnett told the court that Mr Aguigui had introduced him to "the manuscript", which he described as "a book about true patriots".

The militia aimed "to give the government back to the people", he said. Prosecutors also said that they do not know how many members the group has, but recruits have distinctive tattoos of anarchist-type symbols.

>>>>>>> If militia groups did start killing... Would the National Guard be able to cope?

on a Blizzard site while reading about the company blocking Iran from their servers.. The Iranians aren't mad about this, as they can always (if dedicated) play via proxy's....

"I said, making a bomb, not dropping it. They'll have to drop it over my corpse. I'm saying this because I'm not afraid of them, if they go as much as giving me a phone call to intimidate me it'll mean that they intend to make a bomb let alone put me to jail or anything else. The People of Iran won't tolerate even a single nuclear warhead, even if it's meant for "defensive purposes", indiscriminate genocide of all living things is not in any way a justifiable act of defence according to us. People are divided over everything now. That's how smart they are playing their game. It shows how afraid they are of people becoming united, they should think very carefully before even considering making a nuke, over that, people will become united.
This is basically where you guys with your allies come in the picture, you should hold tight watch their every movement your govs have enough power to apply enough pressure and monitoring to find out when that is going to happen if ever, we are here watching everything carefully, debating everything. It won't be long before people find a common ground."

Eating shrooms or just the strange world of unconscious conscious dreams?

Ezechiel saw the wheel

Iamon lyme: Hmm. I like that answer.

The Magician's Nephew was my favorite Narnia book.

rod03801: "Is it "anti Christian" to believe there may be life else where in the universe?"

I don't think so, but that's my own personal opinion. I don't know enough about what the Bible says to be able to answer that definitively and without any doubt. But if God wanted there to be other life forms in other parts of the universe, and not tell us about it, I don't see why that couldn't happen.

One thing that occurred to me when I watched the Narnia movies is that if God can do anything, and He wanted to create a place like Narnia, then what could stop Him from actually doing that? I don't assume that everything there is to know can be found in the Bible. I am assuming that Paul was correct when he said we will know as we have been known, and we are looking through a glass darkly... what that means to me is I'm only seeing a very small fraction of what I'll know later.

But if someone says it's arrogant for me to not believe there is life on other planets, that's where I draw the line on the speculation... because it's just as arrogant to assume there is life on other planets. Either way it's only a guess, because we don't know.

Iamon lyme: I'm not a "religious" person at all, nor an expert at Religion. (I wouldn't call my self an Atheist either though) You made me think about something I don't remember any of my religious relatives ever talking about.
Is it "anti Christian" to believe there may be life else where in the universe?
Though, I imagine like everything else, even with THAT there's probably a ton of different views, that can't really be generalized.

mckinley: "I thought I was helping you discredit Stephen Hawking in a poetic fashion."

My point was not to discret Hawking. I'm aware of Hawkings desire to discredit a belief in God, but I think he's fallen into the trap of trying to use science to promote his own personal beliefs. It's a mistake some Christians make if they don't take the science side seriously enough. But then atheists will also make the mistake of thinking just because they are atheists, then science will automatically support anything they believe. They don't like Intelligent Design, even though the principles of intelligent design are used in forensics and archeology and other established areas of science. There was no point in building SETI for looking for signs of intelligently designed signals if the principles outlined in the intelligent design theory are invalid. It's a sore point for atheists, so what they'll do is call the theory "religion" and hope no one looks too closely at the deception.

Anyway, I'm glad you came back to explain why you gave me those particular chapters out of that particular book. I thought maybe it had something to do with me being proud or something like that. I'm not against a little self exaltation and self promotion, as long as it doesn't cut too deeply into my profound sense of saintly humility... I'm also a bit of a nut, but you may have already figured that out.

rod03801: No.. that was bad accounting and tax collection by Greece. It didn't help that half the country is owned by the church.

"I don't get why this isn't logical to libs and the silly "occupy whatevers""

It's called fraud and tax evasion making regular folk annoyed. If you committed fraud.. you'd be in court. If you didn't pay your taxes you'd be audited (right phrase?)

It's not about small or big government.. efficient government is what we all need. But we need the private sector to stop taking the mickey.

... The law is equal isn't it?

The Col: I've seen the reports on the increase in fringe groups. It's not good reading. There are potentially more 'terrorists' active in the US then Al Qaeda ever had. N' with the NRA's wonderful lobbying on gun control (or the lack of it) .. more well armed.

The batman killer ordered 1000's of rounds online.... ON-LINE.

If Obama wins... ouch.