-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
How did Noah get Polar Bears and Kangaroos on and off the ark?
- Thread starter Dawkinsrocks
- Start date
Werbung:
Dawkinsrocks
Well-Known Member
What makes me laugh is this.
If you take a literal interpretation of the bible it is ridiculous. Apparently Noah built a wooden boat twice the size of the next biggest wooden boat ever built and then lost the plans.
He kept millions of species on board for 6 weeks and enough food to feed them and he managed to stop the lions eating the gazelles as soon as they got off.
The world was covered in water to a depth of mount Everest which if fresh water would have killed many sea creatures and if salt would have killed most river fish.
Blah blah.
If you take an interpreted view of the bible who is to say that your interpretation is the right one?
What gives you the right to say what god REALLY meant when he said he would flood the world?
This is a great example of the ridiculousness of the bible and whilst it sadly has had a big influence that does not stop it being fiction. Plenty of fiction is influential.
If you take a literal interpretation of the bible it is ridiculous. Apparently Noah built a wooden boat twice the size of the next biggest wooden boat ever built and then lost the plans.
He kept millions of species on board for 6 weeks and enough food to feed them and he managed to stop the lions eating the gazelles as soon as they got off.
The world was covered in water to a depth of mount Everest which if fresh water would have killed many sea creatures and if salt would have killed most river fish.
Blah blah.
If you take an interpreted view of the bible who is to say that your interpretation is the right one?
What gives you the right to say what god REALLY meant when he said he would flood the world?
This is a great example of the ridiculousness of the bible and whilst it sadly has had a big influence that does not stop it being fiction. Plenty of fiction is influential.
The Noah story was never meant to be a history of an actual event. It is an allegory, nothing more.
I don't recall anyone on this thread stating otherwise, which makes your post a strawman, nothing more.
Dawkinsrocks
Well-Known Member
How do you know it was an allegory?
What gave you the right to say what god meant?
What gave you the right to say what god meant?
I know it was an allegory, because it is not possible that it is an account of an actual event.
God did not write it. The meaning intended by the author is clear, just as allegories written by Aesop are clear.
And, it is quite clear that your post was a strawman. I don't need to interpret what you said to see that, either.
Dawkinsrocks
Well-Known Member
The bible is full of allegories isn't it?
Funny how they were literal truths until science got in the way.
I suppose the creation story is now an allegory in the light of Darwin.
How many allegories will have to be outed before people accept it is a work of fiction.
Like Aesop's fables.
Funny how they were literal truths until science got in the way.
I suppose the creation story is now an allegory in the light of Darwin.
How many allegories will have to be outed before people accept it is a work of fiction.
Like Aesop's fables.
Dawkinsrocks
Well-Known Member
The bible is full of allegories isn't it?
Funny how they were literal truths until science got in the way.
I suppose the creation story is now an allegory in the light of Darwin.
How many allegories will have to be outed before people accept the bible as a work of fiction.
Like Aesop's fables.
Funny how they were literal truths until science got in the way.
I suppose the creation story is now an allegory in the light of Darwin.
How many allegories will have to be outed before people accept the bible as a work of fiction.
Like Aesop's fables.
Why is it that life can evole but religions cannot? Religions evole as well.
Dawkinsrocks
Well-Known Member
Because religion claims to start from axiomatic truth.
Science travels towards it.
Science gets nearer to the truth and religion further away.
Your argument would mean that the bible was less accurate at the time it was written than it is now which is bizarre.
S
Science travels towards it.
Science gets nearer to the truth and religion further away.
Your argument would mean that the bible was less accurate at the time it was written than it is now which is bizarre.
S
The axiomatic truth of christianity is not that that Noah built an ark though, or that Daniel walked through fire with no problem.
To show that this did not happen does not in any way shake the foundation that religion is actually set on.
Dawkinsrocks
Well-Known Member
So which bits of the bible are true and who says so.
Or is it just see what you can get away with this week until science kills of another story.
Did jesus walk on water or was that allegorical.
We all know it is impossible.
Did he rise from the dead?
We all know that is impossible.
You see, if you start saying that the impossible bits are allegorical you are left with nothing.
And if you believe them as truths you are left with nonesense.
Or is it just see what you can get away with this week until science kills of another story.
Did jesus walk on water or was that allegorical.
We all know it is impossible.
Did he rise from the dead?
We all know that is impossible.
You see, if you start saying that the impossible bits are allegorical you are left with nothing.
And if you believe them as truths you are left with nonesense.
You need to remember also that the Bible is two seperate books. The Hebrew Bible aka the Old Testament and then the New Testament. To try to disprove the old Testament to disprove religion ignores that Christianity is not based on the Old Testament all that much.
As for rising from the dead, no one will ever know. But in the end, does it really matter. Is the overall message of "be nice to people" worth 2000 years of trying to disprove?
Dawkinsrocks
Well-Known Member
the bible is full of very nasty messages and most wars are fought in god's name
The world would be better off without it.
You can be nice to each other without having to rely on some fairy story
The world would be better off without it.
You can be nice to each other without having to rely on some fairy story
How many wars were fought before the Bible? Or after the Bible that had nothing to do with it.
You can be nice to each other without the Bible yes, but the bible was never meant to be taken literally, that is an incorrect interpretation. The bible is life lessons geared for people living in 60 AD time period who were facing their own sets of problems.
While many problems cross all time boundries and we can still gain lessons from the Bible. But no one really advocates to take it literally, not even many priests etc.
That the world is better off without it is simply a matter of personal opinion that can never be proved or disproved.
Werbung:
Dawkinsrocks
Well-Known Member
The bible is at the heart of all the flavours of christianity. Its messages are used by jihadists like the crusaders killing muslims, like Bush thinking god is on his side in the war on terror, like the IRA, the Spanish Inquisition, the Witchfinder general.
It is at the centre of the Roman Catholic church which seems very adept and at making priests out of paedophiles and turning a blind eye. Or what about the Pope who told the AIDS-ridden millions of Africa that condoms are bad.
I don't know about you but I could live without that stuff quite happily.
It is at the centre of the Roman Catholic church which seems very adept and at making priests out of paedophiles and turning a blind eye. Or what about the Pope who told the AIDS-ridden millions of Africa that condoms are bad.
I don't know about you but I could live without that stuff quite happily.
