Thinking about Noah's ark

[MennoSota]

Why? What good has it done for you?

God has shown me that your church is not in agreement with what He says.
God has shown me, in His word, that He alone can make a person alive with Christ and adopt a person into His family. He has shown me that any righteousness is found only in Christ Jesus and not in self.
God's word has been sharper than a two edged sword.
Hebrews 4:12-13
For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account.

Read God's word, MC. Toss away the catechism that binds you to the law of your church and removes you from grace.

 

[MoreCoffee]

God has shown me that your church is not in agreement with what He says.

That's not a good result; it's just propaganda and if you think God did it then you're wrong. You did it. God had nothing whatever to do with your stated prejudices and dislikes.

God has shown me, in His word, that He alone can make a person alive with Christ and adopt a person into His family. He has shown me that any righteousness is found only in Christ Jesus and not in self.

I'd be tempted to agree with that statement. and taken at face value it is fine except for making yourself the centre of it.

God's word has been sharper than a two edged sword.

I bet you think "the word of God" in that passage is about your bible. It isn't. Bibles are not living entities. Bible will not be the judge on the last day.

Hebrews 4:12-13
For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account.

Just applying some colour and boldness to the underlined text and there it is, the word of God is a male person not a neuter inanimate book.

Read God's word, MC. Toss away the catechism that binds you to the law of your church and removes you from grace.

Nah, I will not be taking advice from you today

 

[MennoSota]

That's not a good result; it's just propaganda and if you think God did it then you're wrong. You did it. God had nothing whatever to do with your stated prejudices and dislikes.


I'd be tempted to agree with that statement. and taken at face value it is fine except for making yourself the centre of it.


I bet you think "the word of God" in that passage is about your bible. It isn't. Bibles are not living entities. Bible will not be the judge on the last day.


Just applying some colour and boldness to the underlined text and there it is, the word of God is a male person not a neuter inanimate book.



Nah, I will not be taking advice from you today

You do realize it was you who asked me what God's word has done for me... don't you? It is funny how you attempt to turn it around.
MC, your church denomination has proven itself to be just like the whitewashed Pharisees and Sadducees that Jesus condemned. Leave the legalistic bonds that tear you away from God and His grace. You are in an organization that points others toward bonds to them rather than toward the grace of God.

 

[MoreCoffee]

You do realize it was you who asked me what God's word has done for me... don't you? It is funny how you attempt to turn it around.
MC, your church denomination has proven itself to be just like the whitewashed Pharisees and Sadducees that Jesus condemned. Leave the legalistic bonds that tear you away from God and His grace. You are in an organization that points others toward bonds to them rather than toward the grace of God.

My question was intended to be a little bit rhetorical. Evidently you did not realise that.

 

[MennoSota]

My question was intended to be a little bit rhetorical. Evidently you did not realise that.

MC, with your propensity for pasting church dogma, I took you seriously.

 

[MoreCoffee]

MC, with your propensity for pasting church dogma, I took you seriously.

That's good. I sometimes take your posts seriously too. Mainly the ones that do not spend half or more of their words on complaining about Catholicism.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

It's a tidy alley

I was going to say that. Despite the apparent filth the outside of the "cup" is rather clean

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

God has shown me that your church is not in agreement with what He says.
God has shown me, in His word, that He alone can make a person alive with Christ and adopt a person into His family. He has shown me that any righteousness is found only in Christ Jesus and not in self.
God's word has been sharper than a two edged sword.
Hebrews 4:12-13
For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account.

Read God's word, MC. Toss away the catechism that binds you to the law of your church and removes you from grace.

Borrowing this post for this thread:

Are Catholics Boring Catechists?

 

[Pedrito]

How did he know where I live?

 

[MoreCoffee]

How did he know where I live?

The alley isn't Noah's ark though.

It is a slight deviation in this thread's course, a sort of billabong like bend in a river of thought.

We can return to the matters raised in the videos ... rude as some of the comments in the videos are ... and think about how Noah and hs family dealt with the millions of species that they were to preserve on the ark.

How did they house them all, feed them all, and manage to keep then from eating each other or infecting and killing their hosts. Various parasites, germs, viruses can only survive in a living host and that would mean for those worms, germs, and viruses (as well as other parasites that are not worms, germs, or viruses) would need a host to keep them alive for the time that the flood was covering the whole world, if it really did cover the whole world.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

You do realize it was you who asked me what God's word has done for me... don't you?

And YOU do realize the intent of the question... don't you? What has it done FOR YOU? Folks typically don't answer something like that with "well, it's shown me you're wrong". Good responses usually begin with "well it's helped ME to become more a,b,c,d..." and so forth (humble, patient, kind, you get the point... don't you?)

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

The alley isn't Noah's ark though.

It is a slight deviation in this thread's course, a sort of billabong like bend in a river of thought.

We can return to the matters raised in the videos ... rude as some of the comments in the videos are ... and think about how Noah and hs family dealt with the millions of species that they were to preserve on the ark.

How did they house them all, feed them all, and manage to keep then from eating each other or infecting and killing their hosts. Various parasites, germs, viruses can only survive in a living host and that would mean for those worms, germs, and viruses (as well as other parasites that are not worms, germs, or viruses) would need a host to keep them alive for the time that the flood was covering the whole world, if it really did cover the whole world.

And that's the assumption to deal with - that it was the "whole world". The idea of a world-wide flood, while interesting and believable in Sunday school (not perceiving all the animals that would be involved and the sheer weight of them - including Dinosaurs if you believe some), doesn't make logical sense. Perhaps a wide regional flood would explain more - and the species of animals that were present in the region

 

[MoreCoffee]

And that's the assumption to deal with - that it was the "whole world". The idea of a world-wide flood, while interesting and believable in Sunday school (not perceiving all the animals that would be involved and the sheer weight of them - including Dinosaurs if you believe some), doesn't make logical sense. Perhaps a wide regional flood would explain more - and the species of animals that were present in the region

I agree that it scales down the problem of housing all the species and the other issues raised in the video if we take "cover all the earth" to mean all the land that Noah could see but it also means that "cover all the earth" cannot be taken at face value and that poses problems for the reliability of what is said in the bible. But considering the moral issues raised in other videos by the same Australian guy I think that Noah's ark is only a side show for serious atheists challenging the bible's reliability. The moral dimension of God commanding slavery, killing, genocide are surely very serious and difficult for Christian who believe, like I do, that God is good and loving and moral. The flood story is like a crack in the dam wall. If it is ignored or merely painted over then soon enough a hole will appear and then a flood.

 

[Andrew]

The alley isn't Noah's ark though.

It is a slight deviation in this thread's course, a sort of billabong like bend in a river of thought.

We can return to the matters raised in the videos ... rude as some of the comments in the videos are ... and think about how Noah and hs family dealt with the millions of species that they were to preserve on the ark.

How did they house them all, feed them all, and manage to keep then from eating each other or infecting and killing their hosts. Various parasites, germs, viruses can only survive in a living host and that would mean for those worms, germs, and viruses (as well as other parasites that are not worms, germs, or viruses) would need a host to keep them alive for the time that the flood was covering the whole world, if it really did cover the whole world.

Well the thing about all the types of ants is false, just needed two of each likeness, so two ants...

 

[MoreCoffee]

Well the thing about all the types of ants is false, just needed two of each likeness, so two ants...

One of Noah's sons suggests that, Shem I think in the video, and eventually Noah accepts at the end of part 2.

 

[Pedrito]

==============================================================================================

Post #11 (MoreCoffee):
What is your original thinking on the subject of Noah's ark?

Post #12 (MennoSota):
Noah built it. God brought the animals. God brought a worldwide flood. Noah and his family survived.
Just as scripture states.
Many tribal groups have a universal flood story. These stories give credibility to the Bible.

Post #13 (MoreCoffee):
So you think alluding to the bible is original thinking.

==============================================================================================

Well, one of two things is true.

If what MennoSota proposed is not entirely true, then he could have been exhibiting original thinking (unless he was parroting the thoughts of others).

-- OR --​

If what MennoSota proposed is entirely true, then I suspect that God’s original thinking takes precedence over any human thought.

==============================================================================================

Of course, we may need to ask if the expressions used to describe the limits of the Flood, can only ever mean “worldwide” as in “every square centimetre of land”. (That thought has already been mentioned in a former Post or two.) The answer to that question, may well determine the “original thinking” classification of MennoSota’s statements above.

Can anyone identify statements elsewhere in Scripture that seem to point to the whole world, the whole Earth, etc., sometimes referring to “the world known to Mankind” – i.e. that point to the extent of Mankind’s known colonisation? (Or to an even lesser extent?)

==============================================================================================

 

[Arsenios]

I always liked the question: "Were the fish drowned too?"


Arsenios

 

[Pedrito]

==============================================================================================

Post #37 (Arsenios):
I always liked the question: "Were the fish drowned too?"

On a scale of 1 to 10, where should we rate that comment?

Of course, someone could always try to tell a tail (tale), based on the question.

But I suspect that if someone did, it would make others who lack that ability, a little green around the gills. Maybe even to the gills.

I’ll leave it now for someone else who is swimming with ideas, to take over.

We should all be open to some schooling in this matter.

(As long as we don't drown in the responses.

That would really be the fin-ish.)

==============================================================================================

 

[MoreCoffee]

I always liked the question: "Were the fish drowned too?"


Arsenios

Fresh water fish would not survive a salt water sea. and salt water fish would not survive a fresh water sea. Some fish would die.

 

[MoreCoffee]

==============================================================================================

Post #11 (MoreCoffee):
What is your original thinking on the subject of Noah's ark?

Post #12 (MennoSota):
Noah built it. God brought the animals. God brought a worldwide flood. Noah and his family survived.
Just as scripture states.
Many tribal groups have a universal flood story. These stories give credibility to the Bible.

Post #13 (MoreCoffee):
So you think alluding to the bible is original thinking.

==============================================================================================

Well, one of two things is true.

If what MennoSota proposed is not entirely true, then he could have been exhibiting original thinking (unless he was parroting the thoughts of others).

-- OR --​

If what MennoSota proposed is entirely true, then I suspect that God’s original thinking takes precedence over any human thought.

==============================================================================================

Of course, we may need to ask if the expressions used to describe the limits of the Flood, can only ever mean “worldwide” as in “every square centimetre of land”. (That thought has already been mentioned in a former Post or two.) The answer to that question, may well determine the “original thinking” classification of MennoSota’s statements above.

Can anyone identify statements elsewhere in Scripture that seem to point to the whole world, the whole Earth, etc., sometimes referring to “the world known to Mankind” – i.e. that point to the extent of Mankind’s known colonisation? (Or to an even lesser extent?)

==============================================================================================

The reply is to the bold underlined green text in the post quoted above.

What MonnoSota offered appears to be allusions to biblical texts so we can dispose of the idea that it is original immediately.

Proceeding from there we may notice that the second choice suggests that

• God exists
• God thinks
• God communicated at least some of what he thinks in written form presumably in the bible
  
  given that MennoSota's ideas were drawn from his reading of the bible​
• so God communicated at least some of what he thinks in written form in the bible.

But the story of Noah's flood may not be one of the things that God thinks and communicated in written form because it could be a story handed down in a family group, tribe, or group of related tribes of people and included in the same "book" that contained some of what God thinks and communicated in written form.

And we were waiting for MennoSota to explain how his post was "original thinking" while mine allegedly was not. And so far that has not happened. So I am still waiting for MennoSota's explanation of why his post is original thinking and why mine is not.