Your vote in the poll indicates otherwise. Not hold it against someone who disagrees? But name calling is OK?
Time to get introspective. I ask you, people who are OT literalists and are upset at people for ridiculing that, what do you think of the beliefs of tribal people who haven't accepted modern society. People who believe in all kinds of weird spirts and who knows what else. Do you think they are ass backwards? Do you think they are doomed to hell therefore need to be introduced to your beliefs and converted? For those of you who support missionaries going out an converting people, doesn't that inherently mean that you disrespect their beliefs even though those beliefs were taught to them the exact same way as yours, with stories being handed down through time? Or do you accept them for who they are? So I guess what I'm saying is that Mr. M is no different than a missionary going out trying to convert people.
You can't really argue scientific facts against faith. If God is omnipotent, then anything is possible for him to do or direct. All evidence that points to the contrary could just be seen as tests of faith. I tried to word that in a way that doesn't come off as condescending to literal interpretationists, sorry if either side is offended.
Let me ask the purpose for the story of Noah's Ark being included in the bible. 1.Was it in the bible to document the factual way that species survived a huge flood? 2. Was it in the bible to show that one person was righteous even when the majority of society around him gave in to vice, and destructive behavior. The man's righteousness was rewarded in the end, and the other so completely paid for their vengeance that even after huge storms the beauty of the rainbow can remind us the good that will always come again. Those who chose 1. would be the literalists, and those who chose two would be the others.
since much of what is in the bible are parables and allegories....logic dictates that when talking about a story with as many holes in it as the Noah story... you must choose the second explanation. It makes an association between living a good and proper life, and being rewarded by your Creator. Which when it comes down to it, isn't that mainly what the base message of the Bible is?
It all comes down to this: Those with faith need no "proof." Those without require it. Sad to say, those without faith (if an Ark was found on top of a Mountain) would still try to rationalize how it got there, and argue that it was totally logical and non-religious at all.
If the Ark is ever found on any mountain, I suspect Christian fundies will have put it there. God's will.
I find the story of Noah's Ark not more incredible than the creation of Adam and Eve. Adam was made of dirt and Eve out of Adam's rib. Think about it, that not only dictates which figuratively comes first, egg or chicken, but also transcends any imaginable "boundaries" between life and lifeless. Noah's Ark on Mount Ararat is only a distraction in the heated battle between literalists and others. The Great Flooding in a "biblical proportion" (my apology for cyclical reference but I have no other choice) is not impossible in all likelihood, consider what had occurred before it.
You are taking it a bit to an extreme, but you have to know that Catholics/Episcopalians will be less literal in their beliefs than say Baptists or Pentecostals. I make fun of one of my Catholic friends because she saw a documentary called Hell House about the fundamentalist haunted house and was shocked that there were protestants who believed that "crazy stuff". Somehow she had been insulated. Anyway, my point - a lot of Catholics think the far end Protestants are off their rocker. A lot of Protestants think Catholics are not Christians and are going to hell. You must know this so I don't see why you are on a crusade to prove Meowgi wrong on this one point.
Just a couple of quick biblical points some pointed out in your article, some not... There were 7 of the clean animals and 2 of the rest aboard. But according to the bible only animals and Noah's family with their family were aboard. ie. No mention of plants or insects etc. It rained and water poured from the ground for 40 days. The ark actually floated almost half a year and they were on the ark for a couple extra months after the ark came to rest. Only land creatures that breathed through nostrils died. I believe that the story is true. If you believe that God can create all this from nothing, can He not do this task? The animals could have all hybernated. There may have been more than 1 ark, but I believe it to be just one. He could have made the plants survive a long term submerssion. Other non-nostril creatures were miraculously spared.
Just out of curiousity, there are about 60% of people who voted no. Now I know that Christians, Jews, and Muslims all believe in this story. So what does the 60% of you compromise of? Atheists? I dont get it, given that more than half the worlds population is either one of those religions. Which religion do you belong to? maybe I should make a new thread. Many people I talk to nowadays dont even consider themselves as having a religion. Strange and different world than 10-15 years ago.
LOL, just because all religions have that story doesn't mean everybody believes it. In fact, as has been explained in this and the other thread, the vast majority of christians and jews don't take the bible literally, and teach that those who do are wrong.
actually i thought the jews read the Torah, and most religious people i have come across do take their books seriously
