Noah's Ark an engineering masterpiece!

[Cmass]

What assumptions must be made. Part 1:

What scientific and engineering assumptions must we make about the story of Noah's Ark that would render the story a true fact?
* Can we make assumptions that are based soundly in science that could render the story plausible?
* What gaps in the story must we fill in?
* Christians, what assumptions have you made about the flood story that has kept it alive for you over the years?

We could discuss the science of the flood - but I think it would help to concentrate on one thing at a time: In this case the ship itself and it's ability to contain all the animals 2 by 2 and deal with waves and being shipwrecked on a mountain etc...

[anu]

I guess, instead of me questioning the engineering/technical/logistical circumstances of the Ark, I will ask why God would have gone that route. He could have used His magic wand and made all living things disappear and create another ones to His liking. Instead of giving Noah a lot of work.

Sure, but it wouldn't make for a very memorable story now would it? Most of the vivid tales written in our various holy books can be analysed in the same way -- just the right blend of reality and fantasy to keep people fascinated. But to imagine that the architect of this universe would be interested in such triviality is to place him only just above the level of a bronze-age philosopher.

To make it memorable, right blend of reality and fantasy. Yeah, put some drama. Like, 6 days of creations instead of just a second - all at once. Then, nobody will question the sequence of events. Like create a few human beings instead of millions of unrelated people all at once then no one will question how they populated the earth. When I was a kid, I was fascinated by these stories, too. My problem is, people tend to be fascinated too much that they cannot agree on many things written.

[Cmass]

This IS the face of God.
I am thinking of putting together a Christian picture book that depicts the reality of flood disasters and discusses in detail the agonizing deaths of the children and others who suffered God's temper tantrums. The stench of global death and rotting corpses would have been unimaginable. The site of mangled babies floating by and the sound of them smashing up against the Ark in God's waves of anger...it must have been emotionally devastating for the Ark passengers. No?

Christians should OWN their stories and stop sanitizing them. This is what disasters really look like and this is what your freakin' deity claims responsibility for. This IS the face of your God.

[Chimp]

Cmass,

Is the purpose of that post food for thought? If so, I'm sure there are less distasteful
ways to present your idea.

It does appear to be more of a flamebait type post.

[Cathar1950]

This IS the face of God.
I am thinking of putting together a Christian picture book that depicts the reality of flood disasters and discusses in detail the agonizing deaths of the children and others who suffered God's temper tantrums. The stench of global death and rotting corpses would have been unimaginable. The site of mangled babies floating by and the sound of them smashing up against the Ark in God's waves of anger...it must have been emotionally devastating for the Ark passengers. No?

Christians should OWN their stories and stop sanitizing them. This is what disasters really look like and this is what your freakin' deity claims responsibility for. This IS the face of your God.

Lunch anyone?
Is that my favorite shirt there? I wondered what happened to it.
Maybe all the socks that are missing have shown up.

[anu]

Christians should OWN their stories and stop sanitizing them. This is what disasters really look like and this is what your freakin' deity claims responsibility for. This IS the face of your God.

Exactly. I'm amazed that people, and there are millions of them, who are oblivious to the fact that the biblical God was being portrayed as a mass murderer. Though I do not blame those who never touched a Bible.

[Cmass]

Cmass,

Is the purpose of that post food for thought? If so, I'm sure there are less distasteful ways to present your idea.
It does appear to be more of a flamebait type post.

You find God's handiwork offensive?

If you find this offensive or distasteful then you MUST find the flood tale even more offensive and distasteful because it would have made this scene look tame in comparison.

Presentations of a flood tale and other supposed God-induced disasters are DISHONEST if they do not include scenes like this. Sanitizing a disaster with drawings of a nice, clean Noah on a nice, clean Ark surveying a beautiful landscape is the height of dishonesty. Claiming a God was willing to wipe out and entire planet except for a few chosen people is disgusting at best. People who cannot deal with this disgust or dishonesty need to divest themselves from these tales.
This picture was taken after the Tsunami in 2004. Many Christians and Christian leaders - especially in the U.S. (including Pat Robertson) claim it was the work of God as punishment on human kind for various sins - just like The Flood. They have made similar claims about AIDS and famines. If they really think what they are teaching is correct then they must OWN those claims. LOOK at God's work. DEAL with the emotions that it invokes. THIS is how God deals with his anger. I am only presenting a photograph of God's work. If you are offended by what you see then you are offended by God and I suggest taking it up with Him.

It is dehumanizing, dangerous, offensive and disgusting to sanitize war by eliminating the people and their suffering from the picture. Doing so makes war into a video game or form of entertainment. The same goes for the vile actions of a God throwing a temper tantrum creating natural disasters such as a flood. If you claim the story, then OWN the story. Don't sanitize it to make it more palatable to sell Bibles. Doing so is dishonest, disgusting and offensive.

Many, many people in this country - people who vote and make decisions on war and school curricula - actually believe creation stories and flood stories. It is critical they OWN these stories if they are going to tell them. I do not trust anyone who sanitizes these stories for they are fooling themselves and trying to fool others.

OWN it, Chimp.

- Chris

[Cathar1950]

claim it was the work of God as punishment on human kind for various sins - just like The Flood.

Many ancients thought the same way.
You will find this view in the Bible but like all useful human works it also gives us opposing positions.
The book of Job and obvious fiction was meant as a satire about just such attitudes towards suffering and sins or blame.while some think it is God telling us to mind our own business. Jesus as depicted in at least one of the gospels ask who fault that a wall fell on a bunch of people and they were killed.
Sometimes things just happen in an uncontrollable world and nature and maybe it has the possibility to bring people together with compassion and sympathy which is often lacking for those that need a scapegoat.

[Cmass]

Many ancients thought the same way.
You will find this view in the Bible but like all useful human works it also gives us opposing positions.

Nonetheless, it is the responsibility of those who present the Bible as a work of historical fact to describe the reality surrounding those stories. Cleaning it up to make it more consumable to the masses is a profound lie.

[Chimp]

I don't subscribe to the literal interpretation of the Bible.

it is the responsibility of those who present the Bible as a work of historical fact

This is a more satisfactory qualification, than to assert that this is the belief of
Christians as a whole.

When I read someone's preamble and it includes some generalization of a group
that doesn't apply it tends to make their understanding of their own position seem
questionable. It may not be the case, but that is the initial perception. Obviously,
this may be my own bias, but, it happens on either side of an argument...
eg. Darwinists, Liberals, Fundamentalists, Atheists, Republicans etc...

Now, to your point of "owning it". I should own it because you posted a picture
of a truly horrible event to further what in the context of the deaths of 100,000
people seems pretty trite? Really? Explain to me how this is appropriate?

It is dehumanizing, dangerous, offensive and disgusting to sanitize war by eliminating the people and their suffering

So is adding what amounts to a "humour" caption to a disaster photo.

All that aside...I imagine the diffusion of bodies wouldn't have created a scene like
the one pictured. That is to say, it wouldn't diminish the horror of such an event,
but that's a huge volume/surface to spread out all those bodies. I do get your point,
but I think you could have presented it in a manner that was more poignant, which
could have made your point powerful, instead of snide.

[Beto]

All that aside...I imagine the diffusion of bodies wouldn't have created a scene like the one pictured. That is to say, it wouldn't diminish the horror of such an event, but that's a huge volume/surface to spread out all those bodies. I do get your point, but I think you could have presented it in a manner that was more poignant, which could have made your point powerful, instead of snide.

Actually, the best way to present the point, would be, if possible, to have someone that subscribes to the literal interpretation of the Bible (I'm glad you don't, but some folks here do) stand on top of a mountain made by the rotting, piled up dead, that would result of a global flood. I'm sure you meant to say: "it shouldn't diminish the horror of such an event", but the truth is... it does. I wonder if said person would have the temerity of saying: "Yes, I believe in a God of Love, Forgiveness, and Compassion, and I believe God was right in doing this."