Does God demand that ONLY adult animals go onto the Ark?

Author: Tradesecret ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 67
  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 719
    2
    2
    5
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    The story of Genesis indicates in its pages that within centuries of being created humanity as a whole became so evil they did not deserve to live.  God agreed with this position and so as the righteous judge properly and lawfully sentenced humanity to be annihilated. In respect of the rest of the creatures since God owned all of it by virtue of his creative rights, he determined that in order to properly sentence humanity, he would destroy all. So God destroyed everything, every person, every creature. 

    Yet God also provided a way forward for humanity. Hence he decided to demonstrate grace towards Noah, his family and either two or seven of every kind of creature, depending upon whether they were clean or unclean and in order for humanity to have a second chance. God knew that humanity did not deserve it. Yet, out of his kindness and mercy, he commanded Noah to build an Ark in which his family and all animals - could enter and be safe. Nowhere in any of the passages does it indicate he took fish into the Ark. 

    The question has been raised - how could Noah fit all of the world's animals in to the Ark? And most skepticism has arisen around the quantity and size of the animals. Not the only skepticism of course.  How big was the ark, how did they all get there? Etc. Yet this topic is only about size of the animals - nothing else. 

    The skepticism seems to arise that due to the very large size of some adult animals in the world, that this proves - ipso facto it could not have happened. Yet the contrary position that the animals or many of the animals or even some of the animals may be infants interestingly changes the dynamics of the skeptic's queries. And this obviously is something that most of them had even considered. I think that is what hurts most. The fact that it is so obvious and yet they still missed it. 

    Some suggest it defies logic to put infants into the ark. I say it defies logic not to consider the possibility. After all, you don't want adult man eaters in the ark. You don't want adult dangerous animals in the Ark.   You don't want adult animals that will clearly take up far too much room in the ark.  You want animals that are small, young, fit, and healthy, but not ferocious man eaters that will cause not only havoc for the humans but the other animals as well. Common sense would suggest young and infants would be the most likely candidates. 

    Now some skeptics suggest that this is preposterous. They suggest that animal infants without full grown mothers will lack proper child -rearing regiments.  Of course - there may be some truth to this.  It certainly would be ideal if all infants had mothers to mother them and train them.  Yet it certainly is not impossible that such infants would not survive without their mother, especially if they are being watched and cared for by others.  In fact, there are many stories of wild infants surviving into adult hood without ANY MOTHER whatsoever helping them.  But hey, let's not confuse ourselves with the facts.   

    As for the necessity to teach how to survive in the environment - the story is that after the flood - the world was a totally new environment. If all of the animals are young, then their most ferocious enemy is also going to be young. While the exact picture of what happened after the ark is unknown, if the skeptics are going to speculate, then those who are not so skeptical are also permitted to speculate.   

    The question remains however, does the bible command that only ADULT animals were permitted to go on the Ark? Or rather does it FORBID Noah taking infants onto the Ark?   And the answer for both of these questions is NO. It is therefore quite plausible and reasonable to speculate that such animals were indeed infants or at the worst - not full grown animals.  This of course exposes the skeptics as not doing their due diligence before attempting to refute the story.  It reveals a bias. 

    Those who wish to reply to this OP - need only address the particular aspects of whether the Bible forbids infants from entering the Ark or rather the Bible only commanding that adults are put into the Ark.   

  • Intelligence_06
    Intelligence_06 avatar
    Debates: 31
    Forum posts: 1,029
    3
    6
    11
    Intelligence_06 avatar
    Intelligence_06
    "All animals" Even ants and butterflies?
  • RoderickSpode
    RoderickSpode avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 819
    2
    1
    2
    RoderickSpode avatar
    RoderickSpode
    I'm not sure what the issue is with the animals being infants placed on the ark.

     a couple of things to consider:

    1. The animal kingdom is still not totally understood. We don't know why some creatures do certain things that from our observation shouldn't do, or be able to do. There are creatures that show remarkable intelligence that from our observation, should not be that intelligent. There are creatures that have abilities that seem to defy logic. So to say something like such and such an animal would not have survived, or could not have made it's way to such and such a location doesn't phase me.

    2. Go to Youtube, scroll down all the suggested videos, and one will probably see a number of videos of humans interacting, and caring for as pets,  infant wild animals that would normally be uncontrollable as adults. Just about any infant animal can be somewhat domesticated at least up to a point. If we see for instance, a person playing with their pet tiger, most likely it will be an infant.
  • BrotherDThomas
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,135
    2
    3
    7
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    BrotherDThomas
    --> @RoderickSpode



    .
    RoderickSpode,


    YOUR QUESTIONABLE QUOTE: “I'm not sure what the issue is with the animals being infants placed on the ark. “

    The issue is that Jesus’ inspired words state that Noah’s Ark was only 450 long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high.  As you can see, thats not that large to hold all of the “kinds” of breathing life that Jesus created (Genesis 7:15) that was to be put upon Noah’s Ark.  Adam named all of them, and the birds, in one day of creation, what a smarty pants he was! (Genesis 1:20)  WAIT, I am at a loss, can you help?   Adam named the birds, but he didn't name the “kinds” of insects, fish, and dinosaurs that Jesus created and that had to be on Noah’s Ark as well since these “kinds” of life had breath? (Genesis 7:15)  While I'll await a cogent answer to this question from you, and without embarrassing and insidious apologetic spin, let me proceed.

    First you have to start with Genesis 7:2, where Jesus, as our serial killer Yahweh God incarnate, stated: "Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate,”  Therefore the simple math states that 8 pairs of each kind of living and breathing thing is to be loaded upon Noah’s Ark.   SIMPLY PUT, AND WHERE WE PROMISE NOT TO LAUGH FOR THE SAKE OF THIS DISCUSSION, LET US USE "DINOSAUR INFANTS" INSTEAD OF "ADULT DINOSAURS,"  and leave the thousands upon thousands upon thousands of other “kinds” of breathing life that had to be upon the crowding available space on the Ark for later, okay?  

    Therefore, there’re  approximately 700 different “kinds” of dinosaurs that have been found at this time, barring the fact that other “kinds” will more than likely found in the future. In using Genesis 7:2 and “Infant Dinosaurs,” we then have 8 pairs x 700 “kinds” which equals "5600 infant dinosaurs" that had to be loaded upon Noah’s Ark, which presents a big problem as shown below:

    1. How did the "5600 dinosaur infants,"  without their adult parents guidance and sustenance for days upon days without food, find Noah’s Ark to begin with since they walked upon the ark under their own volition?(Genesis 7:9)  Without these "5600 dinosaur infants" parents, how are they going to survive without their parents teaching them hunting skills?  

    2. Was Noah and family going to teach ALL of the living and breathing infant life upon the ark in how to  hunt and survive once dry land was found? 

    3. Where did the food come from for said "5600 infant dinosaurs" being on the waters for 371 days, and subsequent to any of them living to get off of the Ark,  where did they get their food since ALL plant life was destroyed with being under water for 371 days?   Again, this is barring thousands upon thousands upon thousand of other “kinds” of EVERY BREATHING THING (Genesis 7:15) X 8 PAIRS of every insect, bird, and fish that Jesus created in the creation narrative upon Noah’s Ark as well?

    When the "plethora" of  8 pairs of each living and breathing infant were on the water for 371 days, THEY GREW BIGGER, especially the “5600 dinosaur infants!”  Therefore, how do you explain these biblical axioms pertaining to the survival of the "5600 infant dinosaurs" AND thousands upon thousand, upon thousands of breathing life of other "kinds" survived when the living space was dwindling upon the Ark?  For the sake of me Bible Slapping you Silly®️, DO NOT use the insidious notion of “hibernation!” LOL


    RoderickSpode, I can hardly wait for your response to my questions in my post herein, where our continued discussion upon Noah’s Ark is going to be very revealing and fun, praise Jesus! I just hope you can help me in answering my questions above. 



    .

  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,669
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @Tradesecret
    Those who wish to reply to this OP - need only address the particular aspects of whether the Bible forbids infants from entering the Ark or rather the Bible only commanding that adults are put into the Ark.   
    I'll bet you don't want to talk about any other aspects.
  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 719
    2
    2
    5
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @secularmerlin
    Well as a matter of fact, I don't. And the reason for that is simple. This is a very discrete topic and issue. Opening it further than that only allows people to move the goalposts when they dislike the answers. And I would prefer it if we actually stayed on topic rather than exploring every little rabbit hole. 

    The story of Noah's Ark is straight forward and people want to complicate it.  And turn it into something which it is not. Well, let's tackle this discrete issue first and then once that is done - then we can begin to explore other topics in other new topics. 


  • RoderickSpode
    RoderickSpode avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 819
    2
    1
    2
    RoderickSpode avatar
    RoderickSpode
    --> @BrotherDThomas
    Since the topic of the thread is not about whether or not the account of Noah really happened, weighing the pros and cons, which would you consider more likely?

    Pro (in favor of infant animals) - According to your estimation, putting the biblical meaning of "kinds" aside, the ship was not large enough to house adult animals only. Therefore, the choosing of infant animal life on board the directionless voyage would have been more likely than not.

    Con - The absence of animal parental care would have done the infants in.

    Keeping in mind, the overloading of a ship is extremely dangerous. So we can assume that because we are given detail into the size of the ship, God would have taken overloading into consideration.

    So under this premise, which would be more likely? Infant or adult animals?
  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,669
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @Tradesecret
    Ok it does not specify the age of the animals. Now what? Do you think it is likely that they were infants? Does it even matter since there is no reason to think that the events in question are not completely fictitious?
  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 719
    2
    2
    5
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @secularmerlin
    Ok, I will take that as a concession.  For me whether the story is fictitious or not is irrelevant.  It is the immediate ridicule and scorn of persons attempting to destroy other person's beliefs without actually considering the impact that this will have on them.  And sorry I don't take the view that truth is a full defense.  And nor do our modern mental health professionals. It is no different in many respects to what the author of Harry Potter is doing in respect of disagreeing with the notion that she is genderless.  She may well be telling the truth that she is a female, but the damage she is causing is significant to those in the Trans movement.  You might take the view that ridiculing people's personal beliefs is a good thing, but if it causes significant emotional distress that is another thing.  If one person only gives up their belief in God and then goes out and kills themselves - would that be too many? 

    When I read the story of Noah, I have always just thought, infant animals or at least not fully grown animals. And I always roll my eyes when I see so called pictures with giraffe necks poking out through the roof of the Ark.  And the main reason is because it is not consistent with the way it is portrayed in Genesis. However I also accept to a degree the artist's privilege to express themselves as well.

    When the story of Noah is removed from the context of judgment and salvation it changes its meaning completely. So when people attempt to poke holes in the story to make it seem ridiculous, all that really achieves is to make the context a bit of a joke. And I suspect that probably is part of the agenda of those who do so.  After all, if we can poke holes in a so called infallible word from a so called God, he can't be very infallible, can he? And certainly no one to be worried about. I can probably count on one hand the amount of people who try to poke holes in this story in an attempt to find the truth.  It really is more about proving how stupid other people are and ergo how clever we are. 

    So yes it matters. 

    But thanks for conceding that the Bible does not specify the age of the animals and that it is therefore not totally implausible that such animals may well be infants or  indeed anywhere else between an infant and fully grown animal. And if the situation was that they were infants, then their smaller size makes a significant difference as to how much room would be taken up on the ark, and indeed how much food would need to be stored for them.  It does not prove the story correct, it simply provides an alternative perspective for those who do think whether it is fictional or not matters. And it also preserves, at least in this discrete issue, their dignity and ultimately their own mental health situation. 

    So unless you want to add more, why don't we move onto our next topic. 



     


  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,669
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @Tradesecret
    If your belief in the Yahweh hinges on the story of Noah's arc being literally true I may have some bad news for you. Also just to be clear ridiculing a person's beliefs is not analogous to ridiculing them. You are not being persecuted here. You are being reminded that there isn't a shred of geological, archeological or paleontological evidence and in fact that there is serious geological evidence against. Anyway I have a hunch that if you were somehow convinced that the story of Noah and the flood were not literally true you would just go on believing in the Yahweh. 
  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 719
    2
    2
    5
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @secularmerlin
     Also just to be clear ridiculing a person's beliefs is not analogous to ridiculing them.
    Sorry old chap, that might have been what rational and reasonable people thought in the past, but it is not how it is anymore.  Today the landscape has changed. When you attack a person's beliefs you are attacking that person.  This is what is called progress.  This is what the entire cancel generation is pushing. This is the new truth. 

    And people in this generation, when their beliefs are being attacked and ridiculed, are unable to separate themselves from the argument and their identity. Hence, why when Christians suggest that homosexuality is condemned by God as sin, that many gays and others are self-harming. And Christians when they pushback on this idea - are not listened too.  

    But it works both ways.  It is not just a one way street.  
  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,669
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @Tradesecret
    I disagree with that especially in the context of a debate site. I can appreciate that some people are exceptionally sensitive. This is the wrong hobby for them.
  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,669
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @Tradesecret
    when Christians suggest that homosexuality is condemned by God as sin, that many gays and others are self-harming.
    Ridiculing someone's sexual orientation is not at all analogous with ridiculing their arguments especially those with clear and identifiable logical flaws.
  • lady3keys
    lady3keys avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 114
    0
    2
    6
    lady3keys avatar
    lady3keys
    --> @Tradesecret
    Those who wish to reply to this OP - need only address the particular aspects of whether the Bible forbids infants from entering the Ark or rather the Bible only commanding that adults are put into the Ark.   

    There are currently estimated to be about 8.7 million species in the world.  I have no idea how many there were in Noah's time.  But adult or infants, they just wouldn't fit. 

    Also, lions alone start eating meat at 3 months.  Noah's Ark was at sea at least 5 months before "God remembered Noah . . . " and the waters started to recede. 

    Today the landscape has changed. When you attack a person's beliefs you are attacking that person.  This is what is called progress.
    There are bullies here.  There is no question.  But the whole point of informal debate is about the "subject", not the "person".  If someone resorts to such tactics, simply refuse to engage.  If you do engage though, you cannot then become offended with their interactions.
  • Castin
    Castin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,936
    2
    2
    6
    Castin avatar
    Castin
    --> @Tradesecret
    Sorry old chap, that might have been what rational and reasonable people thought in the past, but it is not how it is anymore.  Today the landscape has changed. When you attack a person's beliefs you are attacking that person.  This is what is called progress.  This is what the entire cancel generation is pushing. This is the new truth. 

    And people in this generation, when their beliefs are being attacked and ridiculed, are unable to separate themselves from the argument and their identity. Hence, why when Christians suggest that homosexuality is condemned by God as sin, that many gays and others are self-harming. And Christians when they pushback on this idea - are not listened too.  

    But it works both ways.  It is not just a one way street.  
    On the contrary, I do not consider an attack on my opinions or arguments an attack on my person, and I do not consider it progress to think that way, particularly in a debate environment.

    You, however, seem to be having difficulty differentiating between an attack on your beliefs and an attack on your identity - probably because that difficulty is not unique to my generation at all. It is as old as humanity.
  • lady3keys
    lady3keys avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 114
    0
    2
    6
    lady3keys avatar
    lady3keys
    --> @Tradesecret
    When the story of Noah is removed from the context of judgment and salvation it changes its meaning completely. So when people attempt to poke holes in the story to make it seem ridiculous, all that really achieves is to make the context a bit of a joke. And I suspect that probably is part of the agenda of those who do so.  After all, if we can poke holes in a so called infallible word from a so called God, he can't be very infallible, can he? And certainly no one to be worried about. I can probably count on one hand the amount of people who try to poke holes in this story in an attempt to find the truth.  It really is more about proving how stupid other people are and ergo how clever we are. 
    The story doesn't have to be literal to have meaning.  Even when I was a Christian (as a child), I did not think of Noah's Ark as literal.  There are a thousand interpretations both religious and non-religious.  I believe in stories.  I believe they all have significance because they come from us; and biblical stories come from people who really believed in these stories.  But that doesn't make them literal.  I also believe in the stories of the Greek Gods.   They teach us quite a bit about pettiness and ego.  But I do not believe they are literal.

    . When you attack a person's beliefs you are attacking that person
    I'm not making fun of religion.  I understand it.  I used to believe in it.  But science and reason taught me otherwise.  I like you.  I can tell you are sincere!  But I do NOT believe in your religious arguments.  I can, however, quite easily separate you from your arguments <smile>.
  • RoderickSpode
    RoderickSpode avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 819
    2
    1
    2
    RoderickSpode avatar
    RoderickSpode
    --> @lady3keys

    There are currently estimated to be about 8.7 million species in the world.  I have no idea how many there were in Noah's time.  But adult or infants, they just wouldn't fit.
    If you have no idea how many species there were in Noah's time, how would you know they wouldn't fit....adults or infants?


    Also, lions alone start eating meat at 3 months.  Noah's Ark was at sea at least 5 months before "God remembered Noah . . . " and the waters started to recede. 
    One of the problems with this topic in general, when discussing it with non-Christians, we get stuck into this idea that we have to avoid the supernatural.

    My God sent his angel, and he shut the mouths of the lions. They have not hurt me, because I was found innocent in his sight. Nor have I ever done any wrong before you, Your Majesty."


    Creation of the universe is supernatural, whether the creator is Yahweh, or an impersonal god of the deists. So there's no real reason for anyone to completely dismiss God's supernatural intervention in either taming animals, or bringing them to the ark.

    3 “Leave here, turn eastward and hide in the Kerith Ravine, east of the Jordan. 4 You will drink from the brook, and I have directed the ravens to supply you with food there.”


  • Castin
    Castin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,936
    2
    2
    6
    Castin avatar
    Castin
    --> @RoderickSpode
    Then why propose they were infant animals at all? Why not say "God simply took away the animals' need for food and the predators' instinct to predate, and made the ark bigger on the inside like the TARDIS so all adult animals could easily fit"? To me the suggestion that they were infant animals seems to presuppose a few natural limitations in the first place, so it seems appropriate to counter with some more natural limitations.
  • lady3keys
    lady3keys avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 114
    0
    2
    6
    lady3keys avatar
    lady3keys
    --> @RoderickSpode
    One of the problems with this topic in general, when discussing it with non-Christians, we get stuck into this idea that we have to avoid the supernatural.
    You're right.  I do EXCLUDE the supernatural.  But I don't just discount it with the God of Noah; I also discount it with the Greek god Zeus or the Norse gods Odin and Thor.   I am just teasing a little.  Honestly, I was merely referencing TradeSecret's OP about the "literal" possibility of  adult or infant animals on the Ark.  If the argument had included the "supernatural" ability of God to keep the animals from eating, then it would not have mattered if they were adults or infants.
  • RoderickSpode
    RoderickSpode avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 819
    2
    1
    2
    RoderickSpode avatar
    RoderickSpode
    --> @Castin
    Then why propose they were infant animals at all? Why not say "God simply took away the animals' need for food and the predators' instinct to predate, and made the ark bigger on the inside like the TARDIS so all adult animals could easily fit"? To me the suggestion that they were infant animals seems to presuppose a few natural limitations in the first place, so it seems appropriate to counter with some more natural limitations.
    Very good question.

    The same question could be asked about the ravens that fed Elijah. Why didn't God just make food materialize in front him? Or drop manna from heaven as with the children of Israel?

    One of the apparent traits of God we see in the bible is that He partners with his children. So it puzzles people why He for instance confers with Moses. Or, why do Christians need to pray?

    When the chosen disciples/apostles of Jesus were instructed to go out, God promised guidance, protection, provision, etc. These are supernatural provisions by definition, but  not necessarily visible to outsiders. When God divinely instructed Jonah to go to Nineveh for
    instance, to anyone it would look like only someone taking a ship there. Nothing visibly supernatural about someone embarking on a ship to Nineveh. However, when the children of Israel had there back against the wall, the only escape option was through the Red Sea. And since they had no ship, and couldn't swim that far, the only option was for the sea to open up for them to cross.

    There could be multiple reasons why God (or Noah) would choose infant animals besides the issue of space. It could be as simple as many large animals may just be too terrifying for some of the younger crew members.

    The tardis idea probably wouldn't fly because God was specific about the overall construction of the craft, including it's shape and size. So it would appear that God had a specific idea as to the quantity of it's crew members.

    The very high profile visibly obvious supernatural acts seemed to occur when absolutely needed. Like the parting of the Red Sea.
  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 719
    2
    2
    5
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @Castin
    On the contrary, I do not consider an attack on my opinions or arguments an attack on my person, and I do not consider it progress to think that way, particularly in a debate environment.

    You, however, seem to be having difficulty differentiating between an attack on your beliefs and an attack on your identity - probably because that difficulty is not unique to my generation at all. It is as old as humanity.

    Such assumptions.  [email protected] you.  I have never suggested that I cannot distinguish between the two. Don't forget I noted that things used to be understood in a different way. This is actually accepting that there is a difference - but also acknowledging that the world has changed as well. Now we are no longer permitted in society to distinguish the two. When I say I disagree with the BLM - I am labeled a racist. This is me being accused of attacking the person. And in response it is permittable to call me a racist and to cancel me.  

    Attack someone's ideology and you are attacking that person.   Attack some's identity and you attack them. Attack their belief and you are attacking them.  You might distinguish the two and I say "good for you". Nevertheless, that makes you unique and at odds with the current cultural paradigm. 
  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 719
    2
    2
    5
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @secularmerlin
    Ridiculing someone's sexual orientation is not at all analogous with ridiculing their arguments especially those with clear and identifiable logical flaws.
    Absolutely it is. And in any event - for the record, labeling someone's alleged sexual orientation sinful is not ridiculing it. I call pedophilia sinful - I am not ridiculing it. I am saying it is wrong.  

    But as for being analogous, it clearly is the case.  The Noah's Ark story does not have clear and identifiable logical flaws.  Just saying it - does not make it so.  If we applied that test to the big bang fairy tale I suggest it would also fall fatally to logic.  It after all is not subject to testability, It is not repeatable - it is unable to be put under a microscope. We are told it is true - and 99.999999999999999999999999% of the people in the world would be unable to explain it satisfactorily - such that simple logic would call it into question. 
  • RoderickSpode
    RoderickSpode avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 819
    2
    1
    2
    RoderickSpode avatar
    RoderickSpode
    --> @lady3keys
    You're right.  I do EXCLUDE the supernatural.  But I don't just discount it with the God of Noah; I also discount it with the Greek god Zeus or the Norse gods Odin and Thor.   I am just teasing a little.  Honestly, I was merely referencing TradeSecret's OP about the "literal" possibility of  adult or infant animals on the Ark.  If the argument had included the "supernatural" ability of God to keep the animals from eating, then it would not have mattered if they were adults or infants.
    I mentioned in a prior post, that the supernatural acts of God are at times partnered with his children (believers/Christians). For instance, God appointed Adam to name the animals, even though they had nothing to do with their creation.

    He gave specific details on how to build the ship, but Noah had to still build it himself. and probably take charge in choosing at least some of the specific individual animals from each kind.

    If I was Noah, I would probably choose infants.
  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,669
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @Tradesecret
    I call pedophilia sinful
    Are you seriously comparing homosexual behavior between consenting adults with paedophilia?
  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 719
    2
    2
    5
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @lady3keys
    When the story of Noah is removed from the context of judgment and salvation it changes its meaning completely. So when people attempt to poke holes in the story to make it seem ridiculous, all that really achieves is to make the context a bit of a joke. And I suspect that probably is part of the agenda of those who do so.  After all, if we can poke holes in a so called infallible word from a so called God, he can't be very infallible, can he? And certainly no one to be worried about. I can probably count on one hand the amount of people who try to poke holes in this story in an attempt to find the truth.  It really is more about proving how stupid other people are and ergo how clever we are. 
    The story doesn't have to be literal to have meaning.  Even when I was a Christian (as a child), I did not think of Noah's Ark as literal.  There are a thousand interpretations both religious and non-religious.  I believe in stories.  I believe they all have significance because they come from us; and biblical stories come from people who really believed in these stories.  But that doesn't make them literal.  I also believe in the stories of the Greek Gods.   They teach us quite a bit about pettiness and ego.  But I do not believe they are literal.
    Hi lady3keys.  I never said the story had to be literal to have meaning. I said when we remove it from its context - we change its meaning. Just because there are lots of different makes of cars, does not mean there was not a real and original car in the first place. A copy cat - or copy generally means it had an original. When the author wrote the story of Noah, he or she has a specific meaning. I think that is the one which is important to know.  I don't care about your interpretation or mine for that matter.  What is important is to understand the context - and to use that as a means of determining as best we can what he was trying to convey. 


    . When you attack a person's beliefs you are attacking that person
    I'm not making fun of religion.  I understand it.  I used to believe in it.  But science and reason taught me otherwise.  I like you.  I can tell you are sincere!  But I do NOT believe in your religious arguments.  I can, however, quite easily separate you from your arguments <smile>.
    Science and reason are not opposed to religion.  In fact both science and logic are things that I am attracted to because of religion. Take away religion and I would not and could not be bothered with science or reason.  Religion for me provides purpose for life.  Science might well explain life. And reason might well help me understand the processes of life - but neither provide purpose.  And without purpose - not much really matters.  

    Interestingly, I don't think I have actually used a religious argument. So when you say you don't believe my religious arguments - which ones are you referring too?