The Leaky Noah’s Ark Tale

The Leaky Noah’s Ark Tale August 31, 2016

I discussed the logic (or lack of logic) in the Garden of Eden story in recent post. The story of Noah and the flood is another fascinating tale from this period and from the same sources.

Let me again address the question many are probably asking: given that this is just an ancient myth, why evaluate it as if it’s history (which I will be doing)? Because for 60 percent of Americans it is literally, word-for-word true. For Protestants, that figure is 73 percent. For Evangelicals, it’s 87 percent.

Prior flood stories

Robert Price in The Reason-Driven Life (pages 102–106) gives a summary of what came before.

[The Noah flood story] is a derivative version of demonstrably much older flood epics from the same area, including the Gilgamesh epic [Sumerian], the Atrahasis epic [Akkadian], the story of Xisuthros [Sumerian], and that of Deucalion and Pyrrha [Greek], all of whom survived the world-devastating flood by setting sail in a protective ark, most of them bringing the animals along for the ride. We find all the familiar details: The decision of the gods to flood the world for some offense committed by the human race, the stipulated dimensions of the ark, the provision for the animals, the onset of the rains, the number of days the flood lasted, the naming of the spot the ark came to rest, the sending forth of birds to find dry ground, the emergence of the refugees, their sacrifice, and the promise of the gods never to doom the world thusly ever again. It’s all there, at least most of it in most versions.

Yes, just because there were prior flood stories from that region doesn’t mean that the Noah story didn’t actually happen. And yes, just because the Sumerian cosmology both preceded Genesis and is the same as that described in Genesis—it water pours in from below and above (see Gen. 7:11)—doesn’t mean that the Genesis account was copied.

But in both cases, that’s certainly an enormous clue pointing to myth.

Contradictions

As with the two Genesis creation stories—six days vs. Garden of Eden—a flood story from the older J source (about 950 BCE) is combined with one from the P source (500 BCE) to make an unhappy compromise. (I discuss this Documentary Hypothesis and the Old Testament’s different sources here.)

The clumsy intermingling of the two stories can be seen, for example, in Genesis 8. The first five verses (the P account) tell about the water receding, the ark coming to rest on Ararat, and land becoming visible. The next seven verses (from J) make clear that land is not yet visible when Noah sent out birds to check for land, but “there was water over all the surface of the earth.”

The P source says that Noah brought just one pair of all animals (Gen. 6:19–20), while the J source says that he also brought seven pairs of all birds and kosher (“clean”) animals (7:2–3).

Why not keep pick one story to keep? According to Price, these two sources each had their partisans, so each had to be preserved. Better to merge them, however imprecisely, than to drop a beloved story element.

Story problems

It’s fun to compare the Noah story with science and history as we know it. Here are some of the problems that I’ve come across..

  • The ark was 137 meters long, making it the largest wooden ship ever built. It would’ve required tens of thousands of big trees. Where did the wood come from? Could four men (Noah and his sons) have built such a craft by hand in less than 100 years?
  • Consider how the square-cube law applies to the ark (discussed more thoroughly at Skeptoid). When you double the size of a ship, you double it in three dimensions. That’s also true for every piece of timber. Take a beam, 6 feet long, with a 4-inch-by-4-inch cross section. Now double it to 12’×8″×8″. The volume has gone up 8-fold, but the cross section has only increased by a factor of 4. It’s 8 times heavier but only 4 times stronger. This means that if you take a small boat and double every dimension, you have a much more fragile boat. To make it seaworthy, you’d have to use much thicker timber. How much cargo space would’ve been available given the massive beams the ark would’ve needed?
  • What did the carnivores eat? There were a few extra kosher animals and birds for sacrificing, but what’s left for the lions and tigers and bears? What’s left for Noah and his family?
  • What did the herbivores eat? Hay could store well, but what about the hummingbirds that drink nectar and bats that eat fruit? Flowers and fruit probably wouldn’t last for the many months of the journey. Did Noah’s sons collect fresh Chinese bamboo for the pandas?
  • What did the insects eat? Biologists today would probably be unable to provide the right kind of food and living environments to ensure 100% survival for all known insects, but we’re to imagine that Noah and his sons had no problem?
  • How did the fish survive? With the earth covered by a single body of water, which was likely turbulent and muddy in parts from the violent flow of water, the freshwater and the saltwater fish couldn’t have both been happy.
  • How did animals travel from far-away places and then get back home afterwards? How did the penguins and polar bears get to Mesopotamia and stay comfortably cool during the trip? How did the kangaroos and koalas get to Australia?
  • What did the carnivores eat after they were released from the Ark? Remember that eating even a single rabbit or zebra would’ve made that species extinct.
  • Could all of today’s plants have survived months of immersion in salt water to recolonize the land?
  • Some Bible literalists try to bypass the problem of finding space on the ark for millions of species by arguing that by “kinds,” the Bible isn’t referring to species but genera (the next-higher taxonomic level). Creationist Ken Ham seems to think that “kinds” were more like biological orders. But this forces them to imagine rapid speciation in the 6000 years after the flood, which is hard for the evolution deniers among them to do.

And let’s simply bypass the problem that geology tells us that there was no global flood.

Of course, God could’ve solved any of these problems with a miracle, but then why tell the story as if Noah and his family did everything? Why not just have God poof into existence a new world with everyone painlessly dead except Noah and his family? Because it’s just a story written with no concern about modern science.

Concluded in part 2.

If you pray for rain long enough, it eventually does fall. 
If you pray for floodwaters to abate, they eventually do. 
The same happens in the absence of prayers. 
— Steve Allen

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 7/2/13.)

Photo credit: Amazon

 

"Nothing wrong with having a worldview.There is something wrong if it limits your objectivity. Atheists, ..."

10 Commandments (for Atheists)
"Even Myers is making distinctions between the beliefs of atheists in the video. A Dictionary ..."

10 Commandments (for Atheists)
"NORAD even tracks Santa's progress on Christmas Eve:https://www.noradsanta.org/..."

Bad Atheist Arguments? Let’s Investigate 16 ..."
"Would repeating the same claim over and over again count as defending it? What about ..."

Bad Atheist Arguments? Let’s Investigate 16 ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Mark in Ohio

    I’ve always wondered what happened to all of the fishermen and seafaring merchants during the flood. Based on recent events (e.g. Cajun Navy), people used to working on the water fare pretty well during floods. I’d think that would have left a fairly large number of survivors.

    • Excellent point. And if they were out fishing, they’d have the equipment needed to catch fish for eating. As for fresh water, the flood didn’t kill the fresh water fish, so maybe magic happened to solve the water problem.

      • T-Paine

        That’s easy, you godless heathen! All the other boats weren’t made of golpher wood – the super duper godly wood tough enough to survive the global floods! And some of the salt water fish could easily turn into fresh water fish because micro-evolution is real unlike macro-evolution!

        GODLY LOGIC, MUHFUHKAHS!

    • Ignorant Amos

      They were all given some time off due to the inclement weather.

    • Thought2Much

      Ah, but don’t you see… none of the other people with boats were warned about the flood in advance… so they all neglected to bring citrus and other sources of vitamin C on their boats, so they all died of scurvy in the year it took for the waters to recede.

      Silly atheists. We Christians can make shit up about our stories just as quickly as you can poke holes in them.

      • Ignorant Amos

        Don’t be daft man…there was no such thing as scurvy back in those days…it was all daemons that did it…and no amount of citrus or source of vitamin C is going to solve that nonsense.

        • Thought2Much

          Damn. I hadn’t thought of that.

  • Dys

    Not to mention that all the supposedly unclean animals would go extinct, because you can’t sustain a population with only two members – the amount of inbreeding and resultant lack of genetic variance would doom them. There would be no point in bringing them onto the ark at all.

  • Tommykey69

    Then there’s the whole Rube Goldberg way that God supposedly went about it. He could have just as easily made all the wicked people spontaneously combust. Problem solved! With only 8 people on the Ark, there wasn’t enough manpower to handle feeding all the animals, cleaning up their waste, etc. The stench would have been overpowering, not to mention the nausea induced by seasickness. The passengers would have been too debilitated to do anything.

  • ThomasPaine1786

    Then there is the huge problem of history itself. We have reliable records of what was happening in civilized societies, e.g., Eqypt and China, during the time that supposedly everyone was wiped out. Awkward!

    • T-Paine

      You must be my other twin.

      • Greg G.

        I can’t tell which is the Paine in the neck and which is the Paine in the toe.

        • T-Paine

          Neither can I. But ever since 1794, Christianity has had a name for its Paine, and it is Thomas.

        • Myna A.

          Good one.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          He suggested that Christians were atheists. He was convinced they were insulting his God.

        • T-Paine

          And he was right.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          I disagree with his opinion on that. I was an atheist, but I now have belief in God and I am a Christian, which makes me a theist. An atheist is a person who lacks belief in a deity or deities, or claims a deity or deities do not exist.

        • T-Paine

          What convinced you to become a theist?

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          Long story. How do you think a person who believe in God can be an atheist? Is this like the Stephen Robert’s contention of going “one God further”?

        • T-Paine

          I would like to know what is it that convinced you to become a theist. It’s not a trick question.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          And I’m still interested in what we were originally discussing. No trick question from me, either.

        • T-Paine

          You replied to this comment on this thread. “We” weren’t discussing anything here. You just told me that you were an atheist but you now believe in God and are now a theist – specifically a Christian. So now I want to know what convinced you to become a theist.

          So again. What led you to become a theist?

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          I’m here for discussion. I asked you a question, too. If you don’t want to discuss, that’s fine. According to Mr Paine, I am an atheist. And you suggested you would agree with that. What I was saying is that in my opinion I can not be an atheist, because I do not lack a belief in God, nor do I believe that God does not exist.

        • T-Paine

          What question have you asked me? I’ve asked you two questions and so far you have avoided answering. The one who is reluctant for discussion is you because you refuse to answer why you became a theist and whether or not you’re convinced that Genesis is anti-Babylonian propaganda. You’ve said anything but answer my questions.

          So I am here for discussion. If you don’t want to discuss why you became a theist, then just say so.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          I’m fine discussing it. I was trying to get a little bit more information about you. If you honestly think I’m actually an atheist, I doubt we can get very far. I don’t have a problem with atheists, as I know and love many personally. Being called an atheist is not offensive to me, just not accurate. Do you think it is accurate. If I became a theist because of unconditional love, for example. Does that mean I might actually be an atheist?

        • T-Paine

          What Paine probably meant was Christians (you) are atheistic to Paine’s creator god just like I am atheistic towards the gods depicted in all the religions. So yes I agree with him on that.

          If I became a theist because of unconditional love, for example. Does that mean I might actually be an atheist?

          Did you become a theist for that reason? You’re second question is a non-sequitur.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          Ok. I’m not atheist. But I don’t believe in Paine’s God. I began to seek God for a variety of reasons. It began with a personal and honest search of myself and truth.

        • T-Paine

          So you were an atheist and then began to seek God. What led you to believe there was a theistic god – specifically the god of Christianity?

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          Yes. I am a seeker of God. I’m not sure what a theistic god or the god of Christianity means. I had some private events that caused me to doubt my preconceived notions about not only God, but also the purpose of life and my part in this world. In my time of need, I found good Christian examples who I wanted to pattern my life after. I wanted what they had.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          So, as usual, it wasn’t reason that brought you to religion, but emotion. That says to me your atheism was ill-founded and probably little more than anger at your supposed dawg.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          That is not a reasonable response from you. I think you are projecting your emotions onto me.

        • T-Paine

          I’m not sure what a theistic god or the god of Christianity means.

          A theistic god is a god depicted in theistic religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam etc. A theistic god is one who interacts in the world and with humanity (appearing to people in visions, revelations etc) The god of Christianity is the god depicted in the Bible and of the Christian religion.

          It seems that you became a theist – particularly a Christian due to personal emotional reasons.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          Well, I am an emotional being. That is in my nature, yes. But there is more to it than what you are telling me you imagine. Like I said, it is a long story. 🙂

        • T-Paine

          But there is more to it than what you are telling me you imagine.

          I’m not imagining anything. I’m going by on what you’re telling me.

          Like I said, it is a long story. 🙂

          To make a long story short, what was the best reason you became a Christian?

        • Carol Lynn

          Your conversion story sounds a lot more like a Chick tract or a Christian wish fulfillment fantasy than something that actually happened. Either that or you were well and truly conned by that ‘good Christian example’ who brought you into the fold. What *exactly* did they have that you wanted so desperately?

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          Hi Carol Lynn!

          I appreciate your story. Definitely not a Chick tract! LOL! Nor was it a wish fulfillment fantasy. And there was absolutely no con. What did they have? Decency, for starters.

        • Carol Lynn

          hmm… decent: 1 – conforming to the recognized standard of propriety, good taste, modesty, etc., as in behavior or speech.

          2. respectable; worthy:

          I’m decent. My mostly atheist family is certainly decent. I have a lot of atheist friends who are extremely decent people. I know decent people who are Christian, and Muslim, and Jewish, and Santarian, and Wiccan, and … well, I have many decent friends of many different religious affiliations. I could even add “kind, helpful, respectful, and loving” to the definition of decent and we would still all fall within the description. “Decency” has nothing to do with religious affiliation. Look around these blogs and you will find it is easy to see examples of Christians acting in a manner that is the opposite of ‘decent’ to their family and society.

          Your conversion story still sounds exactly like a script for a Chick tract or the wish fulfillment fantasy pushed by Fundagelical preachers: Witness for Jesus among the non-believers and people will be drawn to your Jesus-y wonderfulness and want to know more about the Bible!!! (That is, I assume, why you are here pushing your improbable and vague conversion story on us.) I suppose I cannot dismiss the possibility that you are the mythical convert who actually followed the implausible Christian script for converting non-believers, but it still sounds extremely unlikely.

          Have you considered that if you had met a ‘decent Muslim’ instead of a ‘decent Christian’ at that low point you’d be worshipping from a mosque right now? I find ‘decency’ everywhere. If ‘having decent people follow it’ is your criteria for chosing a belief system, it’s a pretty low bar.

          So, at an emotional nadir in your life you met a ‘decent person,’ who happened to be a Christian, and he impressed you with his unspecified ‘decency’ and attributed all his unspecified ‘decency’ to Jesus. Anything else?

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          I know a lot of atheists that are decent. Absolutely. In fact at my church I’ve only heard atheists mentioned a few times and it was positive mentions.

          Some theists and atheists are not very kind. Or are pushy. Or preach at me. I don’t care for that.

          Thanks for your 2 cents. I don’t agree with your conclusions. We don’t know each other well enough to make judgements like that, IMHO.

        • Carol Lynn

          Or are pushy. Or preach at me. I don’t care for that.

          So… why are you here being preachy and pushing Jesus on an atheist blog rather than engaging in the issues brought up in the OP? Atheists don’t care very much for it either. The issue at hand is whether or not Noah’s Ark is a myth. You brought up one objection (you asserted that the pyramids are just like the ark in that science can’t explain how either was built) that was outright *wrong* (the inherent properties of wood, gopher or not, make it impossible to build a working ark as described, while the inherent properties of stone and the fact that they are there – visitable by anyone believer or not – make pyramid building, obviously, possible. We *do* know *how* the pyramids were built but modern craftsmen don’t work on that scale with the kinds of tools that were used then and the kind of mass labor force that was available to the pyramid builders just isn’t there anymore.) and that was explained to you several times.

          See, this is why it looks like you are following the Christian script that says, “the Bible is always right, so go be Jesus-y at non-believers and they will see you being all Jesus-y and want to be like you and see how much they are missing”.

          You cannot win the Noah’s Ark argument. All the knowledge science has accumulated in several different disciplines is against you.

          Noah’s Ark is a myth.

          And for the other point you didn’t seem to understand: you are as much of an atheist as I am to any god besides the Christian one. (You do not believe in any other god besides the Christian one. That makes you an atheist to Thor and Jove and Odin and Mithra and Buddha and Quetzalcoatl and Krishna and all the others people have called gods. As the old saying goes, “Christians are as much of an atheist as I am; I just believe in one less god than they do.”)

          To give another old question: What would it take for you to believe in and worship a different god, say, Odin? Be honest with yourself. Is there something, anything, that would convince you to become an Odinist? Now, give me that same kind of evidence for the Christian god. If less than that level of evidence convinced you previously to become a Christian, maybe you should rethink your conviction.

          If any decent person coming up to you with a scripture in hand can convince you to convert to their religion and tithe to them: here are the Eddas, let me tell you about Odin… (No, I can’t do that. No truly decent person would push their religion that way if a tithe is involved, much less on a person going through an emotional nadir.)

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          I’m not pushing Jesus on an atheist blog. (I believe this is my first mention of Jesus on this blog, but I’m not positive about that.) I’m posting on Patheos, a blogging network that included a recommendation for this blog. You are blowing a comment I made out of proportion.

          I’ve actually never stated that I believe Noah’s Ark is supposed to be taken literally. It is a very, very short narrative and we are not even sure what dimensions and specifications of the boat were, anyway. My point, which didn’t harm anyone, is to say that ancient people had some pretty sophisticated building techniques.

          I’m very, very, very familiar with what you are preaching in regards to me being an atheist to Odin. Not sure why you imagine I do not. It seems like a long time ago that Stephen F Roberts originally made a quote that reflects that claim. When was that? 1995? And then about 2004 Richard Dawkins repeated it and it became even more popular. And since then I’ve encountered many people repeating it. It is a nice and witty quote. I’ve used it before. 🙂

        • Myna A.

          I’m very, very, very familiar with what you are preaching in regards to me being an atheist to Odin.

          It’s become abundantly clear that each time you don’t like what someone offers as an argument, question or reflection, that individual is preaching or insulting. It’s a classic dodge, bypassing the actual points being made.

          It seems like a long time ago that Stephen F Roberts originally made a quote that reflects that claim. When was that? 1995? And then about 2004 Richard Dawkins repeated it and it became even more popular. And since then I’ve encountered many people repeating it. It is a nice and witty quote. I’ve used it before. 🙂

          Another classic maneuver. Dismiss the argument as superfluous and add a little smiley face to give it a bit of pedantic flair.

          If everyone in the room is a jerk except you, it’s a serious clue to look in the mirror.

        • Carol Lynn

          Possibly because you pretended to totally misunderstand the concept of being atheist towards any god but the Christian one up thread? Or did you just forget that you claimed that concept of ‘a god’ v ‘the god’ confused you?

          Yes, certainly, ancient peoples had some pretty sophisticated building techniques. However, you can’t just hand wave ‘sophistication’ as justification for everything. No amount of sophisticated techniques would able to change the fundamental properties of wood to be able to build that ark as described in the Bible.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          No. There have been some misunderstandings. No big deal.

        • Carol Lynn

          I don’t see any ‘misunderstandings’ – I quite clearly see a Christian being dishonest about his motivations and intentions. Typical.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          Yep. You know us Christians, all alike. All those broad and sweeping generalizations must be true.

        • Carol Lynn

          As usual you do not listen to what people are actually saying nor engage with the arguments they are making. I know I said up-thread that I have many decent, worthy, kind, loving, respectful Christian friends. That you seem to not be able to be any of those things here is only an indictment of you, who falls into the category of “people, often Christians, who feel they need to troll atheist blogs and not engage in honest discussions”, not of “Christians” in sweeping generalizations.

          You can still redeem yourself, at least here. Care to engage the “Noah’s Ark is a myth” arguments more fully?

        • Myna A.

          Certainly typical of the ones who’ve come here. There was one guy who stayed for a little while, though, an Edwin Woodruff Tait. I didn’t agree with his point of view, but I had respect for him. He could be a bit pretentious at times, and often couldn’t keep up, but he seemed a noble guy and I respected that in him.

        • Susan

          he seemed a noble guy

          Define “noble”. I found him pretentious and dishonest.

          That doesn’t mean he couldn’t be noble.

          Many liberal christians are “noble”. I know racists who on any other subject are “noble”. How many “noble” soldiers died for the cause of Nazi Germany?

          Noble is a trait. It’s a vague trait that has currency among humans.

          But he was not honest. He was certain no one had ever heard the crap that he devoted money and energy to.

          Honestly, I found him less “noble” than many theists I’ve encountered here.

          But “noble” is subjective unless we further define it. Even then, it’s subject to our definitions.

        • Myna A.

          I was imagining noble in a more quixotic sense (and should have been more clear by adding that), and he certainly held those negatives…pretentious and unable to be honest in looking at the core of his arguments. The religious blind spot, as it were. He frustrated the hell out of me, but after he disappeared, as they all do, I thought well, he wasn’t the worst I’ve seen and I didn’t see that he ever purposely baited people, so I respected that. Sometimes, he even seemed genuinely bewildered. I haven’t been here all that long, so he beat out the others I’ve seen in my own time on the forum.

          Maybe it all comes down to I somehow felt sorry for him. I don’t know. I have no real explanation.

        • Susan

          I was imagining noble in a more quixotic sense

          I know. I’m not picking on you. I hope you know that.

          I will say that I find classical theism ever so smug and no better supported than creationism.

          after he disappeared, as they all do, I thought well, he wasn’t the worst I’ve seen

          He was no better than a creationist. He just showed up with different, fuzzier arguments that were no better than creationist arguments. He also showed up here assuming (as they are instructed to assume) that we don’t get his arguments and neither do creationists.

          They aren’t any more structurally sound than creationist arguments.

          Maybe it all comes down to I somehow felt sorry for him.

          He’s fine. He lives in a world where he assumes his arguments are too sophisticated for anyone else to have considered.

          “Classical theism”. (Gasp!)

          He retreats back into that arrogance when he encounters people who have considered it and ask pertinent questions.

          He is part of the hive. The barbed wire at the permieter of the compound.

          No better in any demonstrable way than a creationist.

          But he thinks he is.

          Honestly, I feel much less sorry for him than I do for some of the others.

        • Myna A.

          No, no, I didn’t think you were picking on me at all. You asked an honest question, and I worried when I was walking the dog just a bit ago if I was so exasperated by M. Pinecone’s dismissive attitude toward Carol Lynn’s thoughtful reflections and inquiries, as well as those from others, that Edwin just came to mind as more noble, albeit quixotic, than the typical Christians and tone trolls who have come and gone during my time here. In a court of reason, I would find it impossible to counter-argue the points you have listed against him. I remember my own arguments against his terribly centric worldview.

          And who knows, with me even I can’t ever tell, it might have been the “Woodruff” part of his name that reminded me of the shade dwelling ground herb, and his quest merely one of the poetically insane. I just remember ultimately feeling sorry for him and having respect that he wasn’t a deliberate jerk.

          I worry, though, about my increasing impatience with these self-appointed Jesus defenders who can’t hear above the din of their own voices. I don’t want to fall to their level, and I think I have a few times.

        • MNb

          “I don’t want to descend to the level they often go to”
          Then quit a discussion as soon as you don’t enjoy it anymore. As I have written several times now: the variety of characters and attitudes is one of the things that make this blog so attractive. If you decide to ignore an apologist there are almost always others who will take over.
          Indeed I’d like you to remain who you are. I think your contributions valuable. You add substantially to that variety.

        • MR

          I think your contributions valuable.

          Hear, hear

        • MR

          He was no better than a creationist. He just showed up with different, fuzzier arguments that were no better than creationist arguments.

          Yes, this was a huge problem for me. If the Bible isn’t literally (a la creationist) true, suddenly the whole thing becomes fuzzy and there’s no way to discern the Truth of it (capital t). If the Architect of the Universe can’t make his message unfuzzy, how can we hope to know what his message Truly is….,

          Or, more likely, this simply isn’t the Architect’s message, and then who’s to say there even is an Architect?

        • Susan

          this simply isn’t the Architect’s message

          If it is, it’s so far completely indistinguishable from all the other nonsense humans believe.

          who’s to say there even is an Architect.

          Lots of people say there is. None of them seem to be able to show it.

          Lots of people know they saw ghosts too.

          We know ghosts are real because they are in the bible.

        • epeeist

          If the Bible isn’t literally (a la creationist) true, suddenly the whole thing becomes fuzzy and there’s no way to discern the Truth of it (capital t).

          An argument I have been having elsewhere.

          He claimed that the flood narrative was metaphor and not to be taken literally. But in a nice piece of bait and switch he also wanted to claim that the metaphor was somehow true.

          As an analogy he brought up a BBC TV programme Cathy Come Home, which he admitted was fiction but wanted to claim had an “element of truth” (is there such a thing as a “weasel words” fallacy?).

          It would seem to be SOP for those who aren’t bible literalists. While they are willing to accept that some bible stories are not literally true they are incapable of accepting they are false, they simply become “metaphorical” or “allegorical”.

          Oh, have you seen this cartoon by the way?

          http://www.jesusandmo.net/strips/2012-10-17.png

        • MR

          argumentum ad verbis weaselium?

          Hadn’t seen that one, thanks!

        • epeeist

          Hadn’t seen that one, thanks!

          No problems, my best invention (though I had help with the Latin) is argumentum ad cuniculos crinitos; fluffy bunnies exist, therefore god.

        • MR

          Well, I meant the comic, but the weasel words fallacy is a welcome addition, too. We’re long accustomed to weasel words around here, just ask Susan.

        • TheNuszAbides

          i promise to credit you (or at least your pseudonym) when i inevitably ‘borrow’ that.

        • Ignorant Amos

          (is there such a thing as a “weasel words” fallacy?).

          I do hope so, because I’ve cited it…

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOKWkL4v3Bo

          Empty words attached to statements that seem to give the statement credibility, but in fact are so vague or uninformative that they add no information to the statement.

          Derived from the way a weasel sucks the content out of an egg and leaves an empty shell that has the appearance of an intact egg.

          https://sites.google.com/site/skepticalmedicine//logical-fallacies#TOC-Weasel-Words-

        • MNb

          Not to me. He lied about what I wrote and lied about what he wrote himself. I think you must be honest to be noble.

        • Myna A.

          In the late hour, I was envisioning him more a quixotic defender of his religious view and looking at it now in the light of day, my use of the word noble really was a narrow definition that I really ought to have made more clear and see now, too far reaching. As I said earlier, I have no defense against the criticisms against him and certainly no argument that honesty is integral to nobility. Hell, I just used the wrong word, plain and simple.

        • Michael Neville

          I rather liked Tait. He was intelligent and knowledgeable. He wasn’t used to talking with atheists and could be extremely pompous and pretentious but he wasn’t condescending. My major complaint about him was that he tried to cover every contingency and so got very pedantic and long-winded. Sometimes even he lost the thread of his conversation.

        • Myna A.

          Yes, he did appear to become befuddled at times. I also think he was caught in the trap of truth-by-consensus. How could Aquinas & Co. be wrong, rather than merely misguided by the assumption of the era? Hence, the quixotic quest to keep it alive. I think you are spot on that he was in no way prepared to face the inquiry of opposition to his worldview. As educated as he was, he was extremely centric, and it was annoying. I didn’t regret his leaving, but had a soft-spot in terms of feeling sorry for him. He couldn’t find it in himself to see the larger landscape without the nagging Christian sword hanging over his head.

          But he didn’t come in either to be a jerk or to show off some jerky prowess. He certainly wasn’t a troll. M. Pinecone came in with what was apparently an agenda to block inquiry with his Christian jujitsu and steer the conversation and tone of it to his personal satisfaction. He used the tactic of dismissal, accusing others of what he was doing himself, an appeal to rules and others were to submit, be hatcheted or simply go away.

        • MR

          M. Pinecone came in with….

          Yup. He had to play by his rules instead of having a dialogue. Once he realized he had painted himself into a corner right off the bat, he deflected rather than explore just why he had painted himself into a corner.

          Mr. Paine was making an interesting point and it would have been instructive to all of us to see where that led, including Pine, but he had to throw a temper tantrum and lash out instead. It’s frustrating. Sheesh, just answer the question. You’re free to ask us questions, too, but if you’re just going to be a self-centered, passive-aggressive douche about it, expect some grief in return.

          But for me, there was a big takeaway that I got from it. A simple question. An innocuous yes-or-no question in response to his own comment which he simply refused to answer and pretended he wasn’t refusing to answer. You can almost smell the smoke from the crackling fire of cognitive dissonance. Like we couldn’t see his reluctance: “I don’t dare go down that road!” No, no you daren’t.

          This is the self-preservation of belief in action.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Stephen F Roberts said, “I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

          It is sort of a short version of the Outsider Test for Faith.

        • Ignorant Amos

          What Paine probably meant was Christians (you) are atheistic to Paine’s creator god just like I am atheistic towards the gods depicted in all the religions. So yes I agree with him on that.

          Which is how the term was used in antiquity.

          The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning “without god(s)”, used as a pejorative term applied to those thought to reject the gods worshiped by the larger society.

        • Myna A.

          because I do not lack a belief in God

          Just to chime in with a brief note, but wouldn’t it be more accurate to say, “…a belief in a God?” You’ve chosen the Christian one off the menu. Other people, other cultures across the planet view the menu differently. They’re often theists just as you are. An atheist may say there are no gods, and the theist inevitably argues there is one or several, but theirs is the true one or several.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          No, how I put it is appropriate for me. I would understand if they personally would phrase it differently.

        • Myna A.

          It’s appropriate for you as a Christian.

          But there is no God but Allah. Krishna said not to follow others lest you be misled. The Dalai Lama says that arguments about any gods are meaningless.

          See how it goes?

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          No kidding. Hence the reason why I said I would understand if they phrase it differently. They don’t need me telling them how to express themselves. Just like I don’t need you doing that.

        • Myna A.

          So, you’ve come here to an open discussion forum only to express yourself? All others who inquire over your statements are to be dismissed? It seems to be a common purpose among the Christians who come here. If that’s your purpose, why not simply blog your expressions and control the interaction?

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          I just disagreed with you. It isn’t as major as you are making it to be (at least to me).

        • Myna A.

          *shrugs*

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          Thanks for your comments. If I ever decide to choose a god off a menu I’ll come to you for advice. 🙂 That cracked me up! Peace.

        • Myna A.

          Manipulations don’t work with me. Not today. Enjoy the Christian soup. Shalom.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          You were the one preaching at me and dictating I have done something I have not. Talk about manipulation…

          ¯_(ツ)_/¯

        • Myna A.

          Again…enjoy the Christian soup.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Which means you’re wooly-headed.

          Atheism is merely the statement of disbelief in any deity claims, with a slightly stronger version being any supernatural claims.

        • Giauz Ragnarock

          I tried to get an answer from his god to see if their stories matched up. This comment is only here as is for an obvious reason.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          I doubt you were ever an atheist. I’m willing to believe you had doubts or ‘fell away’ from church culture, but lasting atheism is a result of examining the evidence and realizing that there’s no way it can all be true, and that none of the miracle claims have ANY evidence.

      • But which is the evil one?

        • T-Paine

          Good question.

      • ThomasPaine1786

        We are legion!

  • Aloha

    It was a miracle! Quit trying to understand. (sarc)

  • MNb

    I am totally willing to take the Noah’s Ark Tale seriously – as a reflection of what a bunch of jews thought about say 800 BCE.

    Where did all the water come from? Where did it go? Ask an apologist and enjoy the hat-crazy answers.

  • Brian Westley

    Why not just have God poof into existence a new world with everyone painlessly dead except Noah and his family?

    I like to “solve” this problem by suggesting Yahweh just had a large lump of water travel around the world drowning creatures selectively.

    • You have the makings of a god.

    • This actually makes more sense if you imagine Yahweh as his original intent – i.e., a Babylonian warrior god “growing” into his position. Yahweh is actually a much more sympathetic character (at least in the very beginning) if you imagine him to be like a child growing into an adult. All his tantrums in Genesis are him being a little kid.

      • Michael.Pinecone.V2

        Sometimes it shows the people throwing tantrums and acting like little children, and God forgiving and merciful.

        The end of Jonah, where he gets mad because God won’t destroy his enemies:

        God saw what they had done, that they had turned away from their evil lives. He did change his mind about them. What he said he would do to them he didn’t do.

        Jonah was furious. He lost his temper. He yelled at God, “God! I knew it—when I was back home, I knew this was going to happen! That’s why I ran off to Tarshish! I knew you were sheer grace and mercy, not easily angered, rich in love, and ready at the drop of a hat to turn your plans of punishment into a program of forgiveness!

        “So, God, if you won’t kill them, kill me! I’m better off dead!”

        • T-Paine

          Jonah’s mental state was probably exacerbated after being swallowed by a giant fish and spending three days inside of its belly – it’s a very cute story.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          He would have died at sea if it wasn’t for that big ol’ fish. They did have cute stories back then. So do we today.

        • T-Paine

          Except today cute stories are understood as just that – stories.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          I’m sure they had literalists back then that protested against talking snakes as not being logical enough for their tastes.

        • Joe

          There were probably fewer literalists back then, because people understood the purpose of these texts. It takes a special kind of determined idiocy to see these as literal.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          I see people, from atheists to theists, who try to read them literally. Are you saying they are all idiots?

        • Joe

          The atheists, no. They are responding to theistic claims.

          The theists, yes. Absolutely all of them.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          I would say it depends on the atheist and theist. Some have the same mindset that leads them to odd conclusions.

        • Joe

          Some have the same mindset that leads them to odd conclusions.

          I don’t know what to make of that unexplained little assertion. .

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          Not all atheists or theists are alike. I think you are making broad and sweeping generalizations. There are people who have rigid mindsets that lead them to be closed-minded. There is nothing inherent in theism or atheism that prevents this.

        • Joe

          No, but we’re talking about a very specific claim here. Not a general discussion on theology.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          We have been misunderstanding each other.

        • Michael Neville

          The problem that you’re either ignoring or don’t know about is that in places like this blog we mainly get the more fundamentalist theists. In the Movie Review: Ray Comfort’s “The Atheist Delusion” thread there’s a fundamentalist Christian named “Personal Responsibility” who is trying to convince us that his god exists because “look at the universe.” Arguing with this theist is distinctly odd.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          I’ve had theists and atheists suggest odd things to me. I understand.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          My bet is that the atheists are just saying that if you believe the xtian holy book, then there’s a lot of absurd stuff you believe.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Show me some evidence of this dawg of yours before you start making claims about it.

          Unless you’re treating the xtian book as fiction? In which case, carry on…

  • Uzza

    When you double the size of a boat you don’t double all the dimensions. You use more structural members. Canoes and kayaks are built of incredibly fragile looking little wood strips.

    What I wanna know is how Noah rounded up billions of microscopic creatures. How did he store them in their proper environments? Presuably he kept his Ebola virus isolated) but how did he feed nylonophages, who can only eat nylon, which didn’t exist until 1935?

  • MR

    Fast forward to Sodom and Gomorrah and notice the parallels in the stories: Evil population, one righteous man and his family only ones saved from annihilation by God, end up on a mountain, have to repopulate, patriarch gets drunk followed by awkward sexually charged scene. It’s the same plot. It’s just a story.

    • T-Paine

      Except one story is taught in Sunday school and the other is not taught in Sunday school. 😉

      • Ignorant Amos

        Except some of one story is taught in Sunday school and the other is not taught in Sunday school. 😉

        FTFY chum…the Sunday School version tends to leave out Noah’s Curse…

        http://www.bricktestament.com/genesis/noahs_curse/09_gn09_24.html

        What did the youngest son do to the drunken and naked Noah that deserved such a curse? I was never told that part of the yarn when I was at Sunday School. There’s more.

        • MR

          Exactly. And when you look at the parallel story of Lot where the drunken Lot is raped by his daughters, well, you can see why Noah was all butt-hurt about Ham.

  • Greg G.

    It would’ve required tens of thousands of big trees.

    One of his sons was the ancestor of Paul Bunyan.

  • Greg G.

    What did the carnivores eat after they were released from the Ark? Remember that eating even a single rabbit or zebra would’ve made that species extinct.

    They took baby dinosaurs on the ark. They fed a lot of carnivores. That is why they are extinct.

  • Michael Neville

    The ark was 137 meters long,

    In 1860 the Royal Navy completed the largest wooden warship ever built, HMS Victoria. She was 79.2 meters (260 ft) long, had a beam of18.3 meters (60 ft), and a mean draft (draught) of 8.4 meters (27.5 ft). While the hull was wood the framing was iron. She was not a successful ship, suffering from hogging (the bow and stern curved down, due to the middle of the ship being more buoyant than the narrower bow and stern). Victoria was paid off in 1867 (most wooden ships lasted in commission between 20 and 30 years) and was scrapped in 1893 without having been used in active service again.

    If a wooden ship with iron framing wasn’t successful due to hogging, it’s unlikely that another wooden ship with wooden framing and 58 meters longer would work any better..

    • T-Paine

      I don’t know about a 137 meter long wooden ship with iron framing sailing perfectly well in a body of water, but our favorite creationist Ken Ham has managed to build such a vessel that sails perfectly well right next to a body water, though!

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/27c8d6b4f09d33fd09030d82fe5ecae250b9e360e45dd3c5a2294cc0b374f6ca.jpg

      • Myna A.

        Google: “AiG officials said the final cost of the park at its opening exceeded $100 million, including $62 million from the Williamstown bond offering and $36 million from individual donations.”

        Imagine how many sturdy homes might have been built in Kentucky’s poorest regions, how many children’s teeth could be fixed, how many food banks could be stuffed, for the price of a Noah’s Ark building-block game played by one crazy adult.

        • Greg G.

          Children won’t need teeth in heaven but teeth will be provided in hell so they will have something to gnash.

        • Myna A.

          Oh my, ’tis true, that. I neglected to think of this most crucial angle. And hey, if Jesus won’t fix those poor children’s teeth, why should Ken Ham worry himself about it? He’s got an Ark Park to maintain! Praise Jesus and god bless us everyone.

        • Pofarmer

          It seems that alphabet soup Brown here https://disqus.com/by/LHRMSCBrown/ is basically arguing that God is constrained by the Universe, which would seem to be a problem. Maybe I’m reading it wrong though. The guy is pretty close to Gibberish.

        • Jack Baynes

          Nope, it is FAR better to spend that money in the off chance that somebody might see a fake boat and realize that the flood must have been true all along! That $100 million might “save” one or two people’s souls. Isn’t that a better use of money than saving mere bodies?

        • Myna A.

          You’ve got a point, there. A legitimate argument, to be sure. I wonder if Ham’s ark tour comes replete with musical accompaniment? “The Unicorn Song” by the Irish Rovers comes to mind. Whether 8 or 80, it’s bound to bring tears to your eyes.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QFvKsvmnfM

        • Jack Baynes

          I personally don’t count saving souls as more important than lives, but then I’m not Christian any more. But even then, this seems like an extremely inefficient way to go about converting people to the right flavor of Christianity (Especially since I can’t imagine a God who cares much about whether Christians believe the Flood was real)

        • Myna A.

          Ken Ham is insane. Functionally insane, but insane just the same.

    • Michael.Pinecone.V2

      There have also been failed attempts to make ancient structures like the Egyptian Pyramids.

      • T-Paine

        Irrelevant.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          Your opinion has been noted.

      • Joe

        Not in Egypt, there weren’t.

        They’re surprisingly flood resistant too.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          When did that happen?

        • Joe

          What, the pyramids, or the nonexistant flood?

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          I think you misunderstood my initial statement. Ancient man made sophisticated structures like the Egyptian Pyramids. I have heard some experts say modern man has failed to duplicate what they managed to do.

        • Joe

          Why would we? The ancient people built pyramids because it was the most stable way to build a large structure at the time. Still, they must have been possible becasue they exist.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          That isn’t what I was commenting on. I replied to a person who said modern man can’t build a ship that would have been required in Genesis. I’m saying that ancient man built some pretty remarkable structures.

        • Joe

          Structures that were not only physcally possible, but were the best way of building using those materials. The Ark is neither.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          And some experts suggest modern man has not been able to duplicate what ancient man did in building those amazing structures.

        • Joe

          Some suggest they have been able to. Because they have.

          So, because I can build a Lego set, a real Death Star is possible and plausible?

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          I asked your for an example above. But you misunderstood what I said.

          Experts have remarked on how precise some of the buildings are:

          “The passages inside the pyramid are all extremely straight and precise,
          such that the longest of them, referred to as the descending passage,
          which is 350′ 0.25″ long deviates from being truly straight by less than
          0.25 inches, while one of the shorter passages with a length of just
          over 150 feet deviates from being truly straight by a mere 0.020 inches.
          These and the above statistics prove the pyramid to be literally the
          most accurately constructed building on the face of the earth despite
          having been created several millennia ago. All theories which
          sufficiently allow for this level of accuracy assume a level of
          technology approximately equal to or exceeding current technology, at
          least in the area of tool making and construction.”

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pyramid_of_Giza#Construction_theories

        • Joe

          There’s a difference between ‘precise’ and ‘impossible’.

          While the builders failed to duplicate the precise jointing created by the ancient Egyptians, Hopkins was confident this could have been achieved with more practice.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_pyramid_construction_techniques#NOVA_pyramid_building_experiment

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          There is a difference. Absolutely.

        • Joe

          There is also a very large difference between stone and wood. So this entire conversation has been a big red-herring.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          We are 2 anonymous guys/gals sharing our opinions. Thanks for your 2 cents.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          So? That just means they knew how to dress stone and make straight lines.

          They probably used astronomy to keep things in line, too.

          Still not difficult.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          I was taught that they were amazing wonders by secular society. Damn them liars!

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Tasks are only easy when one already knows how to do them.

          I encounter this every day in my professional career: being seen as a miracle worker because I know my trade and study it.

          And there’s no advantage to making a story boring if you want people to watch it.

        • Susan

          I was taught that they were amazing wonders

          What on earth does this have to do with Noah’s Ark?

          Pyramids exist.

          They obey the laws of physics.

          Noah’s Ark didn’t and doesn’t.

          If I’m missing your point, please clarify.

        • evodevo
        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          Awesome theories! Thanks.

        • Pofarmer

          “deviates from being truly straight by less than
          0.25 inches,”

          You never heard of a string?

        • MR

          Some suggest they have been able to. Because they have.

          Love it!

          So much of that pyramid bullshit is from the aliens-must-have-built-the-pyramids crowd. Humans were working with massive stones over 5,000 years before the pyramids. They couldn’t have figured out how to stack them one atop the other in a basic geometrical figure over the course of five millennia? Awesome feat! Way cool, I agree; but, look, they did it.

          Then to imply that it is some kind of feat that can’t be surpassed…? (Looks at the mind-boggling architecture around the world…) Yeah, I call bullshit again.

        • Michael Neville

          Who are these “experts” and why do they make this very odd claim?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Dude, you’re either lying or shilling for those who are.

          If you pour a bunch of sand on the ground, slowly, in a stream, the result will be remarkably close to a pyramid shape. So that’s not difficult.

          IF we had the building blocks, AND somebody had the money and incentive, a pyramid could be built in a year and a half, easily. It’s pure building block engineering.

        • Donalbain

          Which experts?

        • Michael Neville

          I know something about naval architecture. I can assure you that nobody, ancient or modern, could have made a 137 meter long wooden ship that would stay seaworthy for over a year. Ken Ham’s ark is primarily built of reinforced concrete and only sheathed with wood plus it’s on land, not floating in water. Johan Huibers’ ark is built on 27 steel barges. The Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment refused to issue a certificate of seaworthiness on this ark.

          If you can provide evidence that shipwrights of several thousand years ago would build a seaworthy 137 meter ship then I’ll reconsider. Until then I’m saying you’re wrong when you claim they could have made such a thing.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          I’m agnostic about it, actually. You are right? Ok. Congrats.

        • Michael Neville

          It’s not so much that I’m right as in you are making completely nonsensical claims. You’re the one claiming that the ancients could do things that modern people can’t. I want you to show some (here’s the word you theists absolutely hate) evidence to support your silliness. Or admit that you’re talking out of your rectum.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          There are theists and atheists who hate evidence, sure.

          I might be wrong, and it may be due to my poor choice in a secular university, but I do recall learning about how modern man is puzzled about some of the amazing structures built by ancient man.

          I’m not talking out of my rectum. 🙂

        • Michael Neville

          You are not only wrong but you’re talking about something you know absolutely nothing about and which I do know something about. Your pretense that ancient man could build wooden ships better than modern men (or even 19th Century men) is not only wrong, it’s stupidly wrong.

          One reason why wood was used for shipbuilding is that wood is fairly flexible. It moves with the motion of the sea, which lets wooden ships ride heavy seas more easily and comfortably. However as so often happens too much of a good thing becomes a fault. Wooden ships greater than about 220 feet (67 feet) long suffer from hogging, which can cause a ship to break its keel (known as breaking its back) which results in the ship sinking. A 137 meter long ship would sink in the first severe storm it encountered. The ark is an impossibility.

          When you’re ignorant about something and try to argue with an expert, don’t be surprised when you’re told you’re talking out of your rectum. Because, fool, you were.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          If I made a mistake, so be it. That is how I learn. Appreciate you sharing your understanding with me. Don’t care about your personal issues. That’s your business.

        • Michael Neville

          You really are an asshole if you think that correcting a stupid error is a “personal issue”. You’re the one with issues, saying some obvious bullshit about ancient knowledge vs. modern knowledge and, after being corrected, still trying to push your bullshit.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          You are over-reacting. There is no need for the personal insults.

        • Michael Neville

          I see, it’s my fault that you’re a stupid asshole talking shit about things you know nothing about.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          Or you are over-reacting by making personal insults that are in violation of Disqus and Patheos policies. You are responsible for those actions. You can do better.

        • Myna A.

          I see you are as patronizing as you are manipulative, making veiled threats and, “you can do better,” big daddy talk. Your bloated self-conceit is very unrefined and redundant as hell. Boring as well.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          Yes. I would say we are both guilty of that. We have things we need to work on.

        • Myna A.

          It doesn’t work, as I’ve said.

          And you are here because….?

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          We can always work on getting better. I was on Patheos while killing time as I travel. Mr Seidensticker’s article was recommended so I read it and a few others. I decided to leave some comments, like I saw many other people doing. You engaged me and I have given you replies. No big deal. If you don’t care for me, there is always the blocking feature. I’ve had to use it on some who were not being reasonable.

        • Myna A.

          I’ve had to use it on some who were not being reasonable.

          You might want to examine that statement very carefully. It reeks of self-conceit.

          It’s not a matter of not liking or disliking. You’ll amuse yourself until you tire, so what the hey.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          As do a lot of other comments on here. Seems to be our human nature at play.

        • Michael Neville

          No I can’t do better. I can only react to you. And since you’re a silly, ignorant asshole, all I can do is tell you how and why you’re a silly, ignorant asshole. If you don’t like me calling you a silly, ignorant asshole there’s a simple fix. Stop being a silly, ignorant assshole and I won’t call you one. Even a silly, ignorant asshole like yourself should be able to figure that out, given enough hints.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          You are responsible for your own actions.

        • Michael Neville

          Wow, did you think that up all by yourself or did your mommy help you with it?

          You fail to understand something. I’m trying, obviously in vain, to teach something to your silly, ignorant mind. Of course that requires you have an interest in learning, which is where I think my failure to get you to understand that your silly, ignorant idea that ancient people could do things that modern people can’t is both silly and ignorant.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          You are letting your emotions get the best of you, Michael Neville.

        • Michael Neville

          You’re probably right. I have strong prejudices against stupid, ignorant, arrogant assholes and you punch all those buttons.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          Well, Michael Neville, congrats on being an intelligent, humble and fully compassionate human being. Us assholes you look down on must deserve all the derogatory name calling you dish out. We need more people like you on this blogging network dedicated to discussions about faith to gently and respectfully teach their unpretentious and wise ways of life.

        • Michael Neville

          You do like to prove that you’re an asshole. Relax your sphincter, there is no doubt about your assholishness. The stupid, ignorant and arrogant tributes are amply shown as well.

        • Myna A.

          Is that guy what is known as a tone troll? A self-appointed monitor of political correctness here on Cross Examined or what?

          Quoth he: “…this blogging network dedicated to discussions about faith to gently and respectfully teach their unpretentious and wise ways of life.”

          This from one who jumped in with acts of pretension from the onset.

        • Greg
        • MNb

          A good opportunity to thank you. I used to think that the Chinese had build ships that were 300 m long; because of you I googled it and either my memory failed me again (I had read it a few decennia ago) or the source was simply wrong.
          Huibers btw used technology not availaible about 4000 years ago.

        • Michael Neville

          You’re welcome.

          The Chinese built some quite impressive ocean-going ships but none of them were near 300 meters long. While Louise Levathes, in her book When China Ruled the Seas, estimated that some of the Ming Dynasty (15th Century) junks were 119–124 meters long, Sally Church and Ptak Hrsg, in their book The Colossal Ships of Zheng He, estimated those ships to be 61 to 70 meters long. I’m inclined to accept Church and Ptak’s numbers.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I watched an interesting documentary a while back in which a team tried to replicate an ark like vessel using techniques and materials that would have been used in ancient times. They only built a scaled model. It still showed that the story and reality are poles apart. A big boat as described in ancient texts is an engineering impossibility.

          In 1948, a British pilot serving in Iraq acquired a clay tablet with an intriguing, 3,700 year-old inscription. The ancient writing tells the story of how the god Enki warns a Sumerian king named Atra-Hasis of a future flood that will destroy mankind; Enki gives him instructions for building a boat to save his family and livestock. If that sounds like a familiar tale, it’s because this was one of several ancient flood traditions that, centuries later, would inspire the biblical story of Noah. But the tablet’s inscription describes a boat very different from the traditional image of the Ark—it’s said to be circular and made of reeds. Is this nothing more than a fanciful myth? Or could such a reed boat have carried Atra-Hasis’ family of more than one hundred and his many animals? Join NOVA as a team of historians and expert boat builders investigates this fascinating flood legend and sets out to rebuild a tantalizing, ancient forerunner of the Ark.

          http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/secrets-noahs-ark.html

      • Tommykey69

        Except that the pyramids actually exist, whereas the ark is only described in an ancient book. Furthermore, the pyramids at Giza were only possible because the Egyptians had been building pyramids for centuries. We can see the evolution in the building techniques and the increasing sophistication over time from the earliest pyramids to the latest.

    • Thought2Much

      Ah, but the HMS Victoria wasn’t made out of gopherwood, now was it? See, if gopherwood trees hadn’t all been killed in the Flood, we would still have it to build large wooden ships with.

  • Barfly98210

    How did all the animals get from Mt. Ararat to their current habitats? How did the koala end up only in Australia? How did the Emperor penguin end up in Antarctica? Llamas? Madagascan lemurs? So Many Questions!

    • Rudy R

      God has a magic wand, that’s how.

  • Barfly98210

    These points only scratch the surface:

    https://ncse.com/cej/4/1/impossible-voyage-noahs-ark

    Of course the Christian will say “All things are possible with God!”
    No point in arguing with someone who wants to remain willfully ignorant.

    • I was going to also share that document. It’s a-mazing.

    • thehawkfam8889

      Willfully ignorant? So you believes what people within the last few hundred years say happened millions or billions of years ago instead of what people 2000 years ago said happened 2000 years ago? Interesting sir. I’m curious if you just accept what you hear as fact or actually look at the other side? It’s crazy because I see evolutionists and atheists out debated all the time. For instance Silverman vs White. You don’t really care to learn what the other side says or to present them accurately. From your comments it doesn’t seem like you care about truly seeking truth, consistency, or accuracy. So where is the logic, common sense, and wisdom and that? It’s crazy that evolutionist continue to have to change dates and move things around to try to even hold up that theory. They can’t even agree among themselves. The only thing that comes from nothing is nothing. I’m curious if you have even looked into the big bang and all the unexplained things that trip up evolutionists. I hope you will consider to seek truth and represent the other side accurately.

  • Paul D.

    Your dates are much too conservative. Hebrew wasn’t even a written language in 950 BCE, much less could there have existed an early version of the Pentateuch.

    More recent scholarship tends to put the Deuteronomist first (during the exile) and then J and P after.

    • Pofarmer

      It’s like the whole thing was made up by the Babylonians………

      • Michael.Pinecone.V2

        IMHO, Genesis reads like a protest to Babylonian beliefs.

        • T-Paine

          Why?

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          It points to all the idols that they worshiped and declares them products of nature, not gods to be worshiped.

        • T-Paine

          So are you convinced that Genesis is anti-Babylonian propaganda?

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          I did not say that. But it points to things the Babylonians worshiped and said they were created.

        • T-Paine

          So are you or are you not convinced that Genesis is anti-Babylonian propaganda?

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          I told you I read it, specifically one of the origin stories, as a protest against Babylonian idolatry.

        • T-Paine

          So yes, you are convinced or no you are not convinced? I asked you a simple question.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          And what I said was sufficient.

        • T-Paine

          You did not answer my question.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          I wouldn’t say “I’m convinced that Genesis is anti-Babylonian propaganda.” What I originally said reflects what I meant.

        • T-Paine

          So would it be accurate to say you are not convinced?

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          It was not really the argument I was making. Are you convinced of what you asked? Or not?

        • T-Paine

          It was not really the argument I was making.

          So what. You can’t even answer a simple question.

          Are you convinced of what you asked? Or not?

          Meaningless question. You’re playing games.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          You failed to answer a simple question yourself. Why are you so concerned about what I’m convinced about? I told you it was my humble opinion.

        • T-Paine

          You failed to answer a simple question yourself.

          It was nonsensical and another obvious dodge of yours.

          Why are you so concerned about what I’m convinced about?

          I’m not. Yet you seem so concerned about not answering a simple yes or no question that you repeatedly dodge it like the plague.

          I told you it was my humble opinion.

          That you believe that Genesis was a protest against Babylonian beliefs because the book points to all the idols that they worshiped and declares them products of nature, not gods to be worshiped. I then asked you whether or not you were convinced that Genesis is anti-Babylonian propaganda and that’s when you started to choke – and you’ve never stopped choking since.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          Choking? Dodging? 🙂 Come on, dude.

          I didn’t understand your question. I tried to share my understanding. I really have no clue who you are or what your point is.

          Relax a bit. You are an anonymous message board poster. You’ve shared very little about yourself while dictating to me what you imagine about me.

        • T-Paine

          Choking? Dodging?

          That’s right.

          I didn’t understand your question.

          You never stated or hinted that.

          I really have no clue who you are or what your point is.

          I say the same about you. You are no less anonymous.

          You are an anonymous message board poster.

          As are you.

          You’ve shared very little about yourself

          As have you – with all that ducking and weaving.

          …while dictating to me what you imagine about me.

          What do I imagine about you?

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          You imagine I’m choking and dodging. But that is empirically false. 😉 Anyway, have a great night and good luck to you!

        • T-Paine

          You imagine I’m choking and dodging.

          So I do.

          But that is empirically false. 😉

          So you imagine.

          Anyway, have a great night and good luck to you!

          Keep your good luck. I imagine you need it more than I do.

        • MR

          You imagine I’m choking and dodging.

          So I do.

          So do I.

          “Why are most believers so reluctant to specify the meaning of the religious propositions they cherish? There are at least three reasons. First, there is security in obscurity. Precision invites refutation….”

          –Walter Kaufmann’s Critique of Religion and Philosophy

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          But the fact is I was not choking or dodging. I was just unclear by what he meant and did the best I could to try and clear up any misunderstandings. Not sure what all the insults are supposed to prove.

        • MR

          Have you answered the question?

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          I tried to clarify my point as best I could. If that is not good enough for you, feel free to keep making insults at me. I’m a man of reason. I won’t lose sleep over anonymous message board rants. 😉

        • T-Paine

          Still duckin’. Still weavin’. Still dodgin’. Still chokin’.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          Good insults!

        • T-Paine

          So you imagine.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          It is easy to insult others online. Especially behind a veil of anonymity. It is harder to be respectful and decent. I find good examples, both from atheists and theists, to emulate. And other examples that remind me of how I can be, which I want to avoid.

        • Myna A.

          Ace manipulation again there Michael.Pinecone.V2!

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          Honestly trying to do the best I can. Not good enough? Eh, oh well! Can’t please ’em all.

        • MNb

          By now I quite doubt that “honestly”. You have posted too many comments on one single topic that has nothing to do with criticizing christianity or criticizing that criticism.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          I’m doing something similar to what you are doing right now. And there are other people guilty of what you accuse me of, too. But you aren’t bothered when they do it, possibly because the are of your ilk? Anyway, it is a message board. Notify a moderator if I’m violating a rule. I’ve read the Patheos Terms of Service. A few posting at me are violating the network rules. I don’t think I have.

        • MNb

          I just expressed my doubt regarding your honesty. The fact that that makes you feel the need to refer to the rules confirms it. The fact that you explicitly recommend me to notify the moderator (there is only one on this blog) as if I’m too stupid to think that up myself confirms it once more.
          Finally nobody here has written as much on the topic of insults on this page as you. You not admitting that but calling it an accusation, while it’s nothing but an observation takes away my last doubts.
          You’re simply dishonest.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          🙂 I’ve noted your concerns!

        • MR

          And I find that when you answer questions honestly and openly you get respect in return, and when you dodge, weave and vacillate, you start to lost that respect.

        • Michael Neville

          Now you’re just tone trolling, whining about imagined “insults” and complaining about the lack of respect your choking and dodging have engendered.

        • MNb

          “It is easy to insult others online.”
          Depends on the lengths of their toes.
          Duckin’, weavin’, dodgin’, chokin’ wouldn’t insult me. Neither would asshole. I have been called worse and still wasn’t insulted. Sure I was insulted a couple of times, but not like this.
          You are though. And you like to whine about insults. So you have grown yourself ten very, very long toes. And as most of your ilk do you whine about anonymity too. Before you become the gazillionth one to accuse me like that: I’m not anonymous. My name and address can be found on internet. If you’re too lazy and/or don’t believe I’ll tell you myself.

          “how I can be, which I want to avoid.”
          Why would we care what a whiner like can be and wants to avoid? Personally (and I think quite a few here feel the same) think your whining a demonstration of smug arrogance worse than any insult you have received.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          I’ve had to deal with 2 groups of people like this: Creationists and fanatical atheists. Us theists and atheists that deal with difficult people like you and your associates do not get insulted when you men and women try to insult us. But we recognize you are trying to insult us. The internet is full of folks trying hard to do that. I agree with your reasoning; it says more abut them than us.

        • Myna A.

          Whoops! Spoke too soon. Last Word Larry has returned to play the last word…again.

        • MNb

          If you agree with my reasoning apparently I’m not a difficult person. You are contradicting yourself.
          For someone who claims not to be insulted you spend an awfully high percentage of you comments on the subject of insults. Apparently other topics don’t interest you nearly as much.
          Plus of course I recognize how you try to insult me – you have called me difficult and equated me with creationists. As such you already have turned into what you claim to want to avoid. So not only are you smug and arrogance, also you are a hypocrite. How unsurprising. I have learned a long time ago that those who write so many comments on the subject of insults and other perceived improper language always are. There are people who genuinely dislike language like MN and I use. They simply neglect us or quit. You don’t. And that tells us a lot about you.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          I’m really not that insulted. But when somebody calls me derogatory names, it appears they are trying to insult me. I’m making an observation, just like others on here tell me they are doing. I can be smug, arrogant and hypocritical. So true. It is part of my human nature. I don’t know much about you, but you are the one who told me you are not like the atheists and theists I identify with.

        • MNb

          The combination of “I’m really not …..” with you repeating it over and over again strongly suggests that you rather need to convince yourself than us.

          “you are the one who told me you are not like the atheists and theists I identify with.”
          So what? That doesn’t make me a difficult person. Ah, forget it, you’re not even trying anymore to write coherent comments.
          You are just a whining narcissist who loves to stroke his spiritual dick by pointing out over and over again how insulting other people are. That’s why you can’t quit.

        • Myna A.

          Hopefully, Last Word Larry has blessed us with his departure. The whining was simply another tactic to manipulate the conversation away from a tone that upset his balance and inquiries that frustrated his self-admiration. Projection and manipulation are his only defense. It’s a toxic combination.

        • MR

          Such drama. It pains him so, but he just can’t stay away!

        • TheNuszAbides

          So you have grown yourself ten very, very long toes.

          well put!

        • MR

          Nice dodge!

        • Greg G.

          Thanks. It’s a ’72 Barracuda… Oh, sorry, thought you were talking to me.

        • MR

          I tried to clarify my point as best I could.

          But you couldn’t simply answer the question. Have you considered why not?

          I won’t lose sleep….

          No, but you keep coming back to take great pains to not answer the question.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          I answered it. And the man and I furthered I discussion. You really didn’t add anything to it.

        • MR

          If you did answer the question–and I don’t see that you did–that doesn’t change the fact that you were choking and dodging post after post. If I never got to add anything to the discussion, it’s because your dodging never advanced the conversation to allow it.

          Besides, it wasn’t my discussion, but I am still very interested in seeing you answer the question (not that I think you have any inclination to do so). Should that discussion advance, you might actually see me participate. In the meantime, all I can do is point out that you all you’ve manage to do is evade real conversation and whine about your treatment. As I said, you yourself eroded the respect you feel you deserve. Try participating.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          I have noted your claims. Thank your for your participation!

        • MR

          Isn’t dodge ball fun!

        • MR

          They only feel like insults because of the sting of their underlying truth. You are choking and dodging like a five-year old caught between not wanting to lie and not wanting to tell the truth. The most benign of questions and you can’t answer yes or no. No one here would have a problem answering the question and following through, but you have gone to great pains to avoid it.

          No, it’s not an insult; it’s an observation.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          They are a weak attempt at insulting me. I already explained I’m not insulted. If a person calls you an “asshole” or any other derogatory name, that suggests strongly that they are attempting to insult you. One can making many observations of you and those who share in your bias. I’ve already shared the thread with others, including atheists. Let me just say I will trust what these reasonable atheists are telling me over what you are preaching at me. 🙂

        • MR

          If someone called you an asshole, they probably felt that you were being an asshole. Have you considered that you just might be?

          I’m not really sure what your other cryptic gibberish means because you haven’t provided any meaningful discussion in the first place. So far this has been tone trolling and pretending you didn’t dodge answering a simple question.

          I haven’t preached anything at you. I haven’t seen anyone else preaching at you either, but then I haven’t seen every response to you. What I have seen is people trying to draw you into a discussion and finally getting frustrated because you keep dodging and then keep coming back to whine about it.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          I have atheists who disagree with what you are telling me.

          Why should I trust what you are telling me over what they have told me? You’ve told me a lot about myself, and very little about yourself. This question I ask is genuine and is your chance to demonstrate to me how well you can discuss. So, if you can, tell me what makes you more credible. Why should I trust what you are telling me, which conflicts what others are telling me? Enough about how much you dislike what I do. Tell me why I should believe what you are insisting.

        • MR

          Eh? You haven’t participated enough for me to have told you anything.

        • Myna A.

          The Artful Dodger has written in response:

          I’ve already shared the thread with others, including atheists.

          And oh my, are we not just so contrite! He’s shared this thread with others! Now aren’t we duly ashamed of ourselves?

        • MR

          Jesus! I hope he didn’t complain to the author of this blog; I hear that guy’s a real asshole!

          Hopefully the people he shared it with will point out to him how his own behavior led to people reacting the way they did.

        • MNb

          I am ashamed as you are.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          There is no shame in seeking outside opinions. Sometimes our biases cloud our judgements. And we also seek out people who will confirm our biases. I’m not worried about the personal insults. Just wondered if others saw it the way a handful of people on here told me they believe.

          I brought up what I did to see if the person could explain why I should trust what he was telling over what other people (who had access to better evidence) were telling me.

        • Myna A.

          You’re a tone troll, plain and simple.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          Ok, Myna A. Got it.

        • Myna A.

          Good.

        • T-Paine

          True dat.

        • adam

          I am saving THAT, thanks!

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          It wasn’t really a religious proposition I cherish though. It was just an opinion about the meaning of one part of a text that I found helpful. I’m open to others sharing their beliefs about it.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          If you ever get interested in the scholarly work about what I shared, here is a good beginning:

          “In the light of this historical context it becomes clearer what Genesis 1 is undertaking and accomplishing: a radical and sweeping affirmation of monotheism vis-à-vis polytheism, syncretism and idolatry. Each day of creation takes on two principal categories of divinity in the pantheons of the day, and declares that these are not gods at all, but creatures — creations of the one true God who is the only one, without a second or third. Each day dismisses an additional cluster of deities, arranged in a cosmological and symmetrical order.

          On the first day the gods of light and darkness are dismissed. On the second day, the gods of sky and sea. On the third day, earth gods and gods of vegetation. On the fourth day sun, moon, and star gods. The fifth and sixth days take away any associations with divinity from the animal kingdom. And finally human existence, too, is emptied of any intrinsic divinity — while at the same time all human beings, from the greatest to the least, and not just pharaohs, kings and heroes, are granted a divine likeness and mediation.

          On each day of creation another set of idols is smashed. These, O Israel, are no gods at all — even the great gods and rulers of conquering superpowers. They are the creations of that transcendent One who is not to be confused with any piece of the furniture of the universe of creaturely habitation. The creation is good, it is very good, but it is not divine. ”

          – Prof. Conrad Hyers

        • T-Paine

          Why do you accept this theologian’s interpretation of Genesis – especially since none of the events described in the first chapter ever happened and thus cannot be true?

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          The author described the events as if they were refutations of what the pagans worshiped. He doesn’t describe them as a literal accounting of what took place. What the author of Genesis describes can be true, especially given by what this scholar theorizes.

        • T-Paine

          The author described the events as if they were refutations of what the
          pagans worshiped. He doesn’t describe them as a literal accounting of
          what took place.

          According to this Prof. Hyers the author of Genesis doesn’t describe a literal account of what took place and describes events as if they were refutations of what pagans worshiped. Many, many, many Christians I would “imagine” would say different.

          Again, why do you accept Hyers’ interpretation of Genesis?

          What the author of Genesis describes can be true, especially given by what this scholar theorizes.

          Again, why do you accept the “theories” of this scholar?

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          I know a lot of Christians who would have no problem with what that scholar suggests. I have, on more than 1 occasion, listened to a pastor talk about it in front of a congregation. And I’ve heard other scholars, including secular ones, describe it. I find it compelling. It interests me. That is why I brought it up. 🙂 Pretty simple.

        • T-Paine

          I know a lot of Christians who would have no problem with what that scholar suggests.

          And I know a lot of Christians who would have a problem with what that scholar suggests.

          I have, on more than 1 occasion, listened to a pastor talk about it in front of a congregation.

          That’s nice.

          And I’ve heard other scholars, including secular ones, describe it.

          Like who?

          I find it compelling. It interests me.

          Is that why you accept this interpretation?

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          Like I said, I find it intriguing. I try to approach the subject with an open mind and appreciation of the context of the text.
          Are you familiar with Christian Hayes? She has an online Yale Old Testament course that I would highly recommend. It was one of my best and dearest friends, who happens to be an atheist, who turned me on to her.

        • T-Paine

          Like I said, I find it intriguing.

          So since you accept Hayes’ interpretation, would it be accurate to say you don’t take the first chapter of Genesis as historical, then?

          Are you familiar with Christian Hayes?

          No, but I’m familiar with Isaac Hayes RIP.

          She has an online Yale Old Testament course that I would highly recommend.

          Not interested.

          It was one of my best and dearest friends, who happens to be an atheist, who turned me on to her.

          That’s cool.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          Hayes is my secular source you asked about. I would agree with her and others that it doesn’t appear that the author of Genesis intention was to describe a literal accounting of a historical event. I think it is revealing deeper truths about us and our relationship to this world and our creation.

        • T-Paine

          Do also take the 2nd and 3rd chapter (Adam and Eve, Garden of Eden, the talking serpent, the Fall) of Genesis as a non-historical account?

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          I do not believe it is supposed to be read as a literal, historical account. It uses metaphors to illustrate points.

        • T-Paine

          And what are those metaphors and those points?

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          There is a lot of info on this here:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis

          I’ll have to get back with you to give my understanding. I would take a couple pages to write out.

        • MR

          The ultimate dodge–out the door!

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          🙂 Good one!

        • MR
  • epeeist

    Why not just have God poof into existence a new world with everyone painlessly dead except Noah and his family?

    Indeed, why does god choose a method of killing people that when simulated is classed as torture.

    • Pofarmer

      That would go against the logic of the Christian Metanarrative and mean that God could do logically impossible things. I dunno, it’s complicated. God poured out his love by drowning everyone.

  • Rudy R

    And this killing everything except Noah & Company solved what? What an epic failure.

    • Joe

      Just like Jesus’s crucifixion was supposed to erase all sin. I bet people were sinning less than 5 minutes after. Assuming it happened, which it probably didn’t.

      • Myna A.

        Well, whether it happened to the Jesus come down from legend or not, crucifixion, by legal writ or no, is a heinous and murderous thing. I’d say the stitch of the “sin” thread was going without interruption. The only thing erased, apparently, was the guilt of Christian bullies and torturers for the next two millennia.

    • You’re forgetting that after the flood, everyone was good, and there was no need for religion because everyone just got it.

      Or something.

    • MNb

      So he send Jesus to take all the punishment.
      Hm, as the same apologists seem to think things are going down anyway that apparently didn’t work either.

      Oops. Joe and Myna beat me underneath.

    • Greg

      It explains rainbows, duh.

  • SparklingMoon,

    Because for 60 percent of Americans it (Bible) is literally, word-for-word true. For Protestants, that figure is 73 percent. For Evangelicals, it’s 87 percent.
    ——————————————————————–
    No doubt, all the three peoples-Jews, Christians and Muslims, agree that God spoke to the Prophets of the Old Testament. But external and internal evidence no longer support the view, that the record of the Old Testament as we possess it today constitutes the word of God as it was first revealed. There have crept many human statements in it. It seems impossible to attribute actions reported in these statements either to God or His Prophets. For Example we read in Genesis (9:20-22): ”And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard : And he drank of the wine, and was drunken ; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without”.

    This account presents prophet Noah in a most unbecoming manner. According to it Noah planted a vineyard, drank the wine, was undressed in his tent, his son Ham saw him naked and told his brothers about it. The account is wholly uncomplimentary to prophet Noah, and yet of Noah we read in Genesis (6: 9): “Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.”

    It is inconceivable that such a man would commit the indecency of becoming undressed before his own children. Then it offends our moral judgement to think that the indecency should be committed by Noah but curses should be heaped
    upon Ham. Ham’s fault, even according to the Biblical account, was to see his father undressed and yet he hardly could do otherwise. When he found his father drunken and naked, he could not possibly avoid seeing him as such and yet according to the Bible Noah said, “Cursed be Canaan” (Genesis 9:25) .

    Actually Canaan is not to blame at all. Canaan was the son of Ham who committed the unavoidable indecency of seeing his naked father. Yet Noah had not a word to say in condemnation of Ham. He curses Canaan, who is not to blame at all. Is it because Ham was his son and Canaan his grandson ! Such conduct offends our moral consciousness and cannot be attributed to a Prophet. To attribute it to a Prophet is a matter of shame for one who makes the attempt.

    We can well understand, however, that these things were not revealed to Moses
    by God, nor did Moses have them written down in his book. Jewish scholars who describe Prophets as thieves and robbers must have entered these things into the Book of Moses as a cover for their own sins. Their unholy interference with a
    Book of God made it necessary that God should reveal another book; the Quran, which should be free from the absurdities and falsehoods which had crept into the old revelation.

    • Mister Two

      I wondered where you were going with that! I must say I was quite surprised at your ending. And here I thought that God used Joseph Smith to restore the Bible.

      • Mark Dowd

        I know, right? I love a twist ending like that, keeps you on you toes.

      • SparklingMoon,

        God Almighty has restored the real teachings of the Bible in the form of the Quran .Jesus had informed his followers about it in following words that are in John chapter 16:

        ”Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged….Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth….He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you….

        In Luke chapter 14 (Jesus is reported to have said:) ” Verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord”.

        In these verses the sentence: ‘I shall send him to you’, clearly indicate that the soul of Jesus will be moved for his advent; and the phrase ‘The Father will send him in my name’, indicates that he who would come would comprehend the whole spirituality of Jesus and, by virtue of one branch of his qualities, would be the Messiah, just as by virtue of another branch he would be Moses (as).

        The Holy Prophet (sa) has said: ‘I have a strong resemblance to Jesus; my being is joined to his being.’ This Hadith confirms the statement of Jesus that the Prophet whose advent he prophesied would come in his name. So it happened that when our Messiah (sa) came, he completed all the incomplete works of Jesus of Nazareth, and bore witness to his truth and cleared him of the calumnies which the Jews and the Christians had heaped upon him, and thus provided comfort for the soul of Jesus. This was the first agitation of the soul of Jesus of Nazareth which achieved its purpose in the advent of prophet of Islam.

        • MNb

          “God Almighty has restored the real teachings of the Bible in the form of the Quran.”
          Nope. Mohammed revised those teachings. There is no god, including yours. You never even tried to demonstrate your god and that again is why we can dismiss 99% of what you write without even reading.

        • SparklingMoon,

          It should be borne in mind that all the teachings of Islam lead us to the single objective which is inherent in the word ‘Islam’, and, to this end, the Holy Quran endeavors to inculcate Divine love in our hearts. It reveals to us not only His beauty and glory, but also reminds us of His countless favors, for it is only through beauty and kindness that love finds its way into a person’s heart. The Holy Quran teaches us that, by virtue of all His excellencies, God is One and has no partner. He suffers from no shortcoming. He comprehends all perfect attributes and manifests all holy powers. He is the Originator of all creation and Source of all grace. He is the Lord of reward and punishment, and everything returns to Him. He is near despite being far, and is distant despite His proximity. He is above everything, but we cannot say that there is anyone below Him. He is the most Hidden, but it cannot be said that anything is more manifest than He is. He is Self- Existent and everything subsists because of Him. He sustains everything but nothing sustains Him. Nothing has come into being or sustains itself without Him. He encompasses everything, but we do not know in what way. He is the Light of everything in heaven and earth. Every light shines through Him and every light is a reflection of His Being. He is the Lord of the universe, there is not a soul that is not sustained by Him, and not a soul that exists by itself. No soul possesses any power that has not granted by Him.

          His favors are of two kinds:(1) Favors that are granted without any effort on the part of anyone. These have always been in existence, e.g., the heavens, the earth, the sun, the moon, the planets, water, fire, air, and all the particles of the universe that have been created for our sustenance. He provided for our sustenance even before we had come into existence, or had done anything to deserve them. Can one say that the sun or the earth was created on account of one’s deeds? These favours came into existence before man was created and have not resulted from any of his actions. (2) Favors that are bestowed as a result of people’s actions.

          The HolyQuran says that God is free from all defects and is not subject to failure or shortcoming,and it is His desire that man,too,should free himself of his weaknesses by following His commandments.He says: (17:73)”he who has no ‘sight’ in this world and is unable to behold the Peerless One, shall also be blind in the Hereafter, and darkness shall not leave him.” This will happen because the faculties that enable man to behold God are given to him in this world, and he who does not possess them and does not take them with him [to the Hereafter], will not be able to behold Him in that world either.In this verse GodAlmighty has clearly defined the progress He expects from man, and the heights he can attain by following His commandments (Ruhanikhazain)

        • MNb

          “It should be borne in mind ….”
          Why? Why not “It should be borne in mind that all the teachings of islam lead us to suicide bombs?” That’s what some folks claim who read the same Holy Book as you do.
          As for me I prefer “It should be borne in mind that all the teachings of islam are about as silly as all the teachings of judaism, christianity, hinduism, buddhism etc. as long as they are not founded in science or secular morals.”

        • SparklingMoon,

          It should be borne in mind that all the teachings of islam lead us to suicide bombs?”
          ——————————————————————

          One cannot deny that on many occasions some Muslims are found involved in suicide bombing and other terrorist activities but on the other side equally, other groups and people of other religions also involve in terrorist activities throughout the world? Would you call their terrorist activities also the practice of their religions? Actually Terrorism is a global problem and needs to be studied in its larger perspective. Almost every form of communal violence in the world today, is political in nature. Religion is also exploited by internal or external political interests. These inhuman activities of terrorism or suicide bombing have no relation to the teachings of Islam nor to any other religion.

          The right answer of your objection is in the pages of our history of some previous decades. These pages confirm that these suicide bombers are product of barbaric politics of some particular nations,who in the name of Supper Powers, imposed many wars on their people (as these Supper Powers determined at the cost of human blood to redeem their honor and to restore their self respect and pride and their image as the World’s Great Military Powers).

          These suicide bombers are result of those hidden plans that had been made in closed rooms of Supper Powers, to change the maps of the world to fulfill their personal selfish intentions and interests. It is a common tradition to start a campaign two three decades before through media against the nations (who are going to be victim of their inhuman activities) to reduce the common human reaction of other nations against their planed barbaric activities. There are hundreds examples to prove it but only one from Iraq to find reality .

          In the war of Iraq six million children(out of thirty million’s population) lost one or both of their parents. Iraq,30 years ago, was one of the best country with all facilities of life in Middle East but this imposed war has turned it into one of the worst place for children.”The Occupying powers bear full responsibility for the violations of these provisions and Conventions related to children. They should be held fully accountable for the harm they have inflicted upon the Iraqi children. They have deliberately changed the social fabric of the country, used ethnic cleansing to break up the unity of the country, destroyed water purification systems, health and educational facilities and indiscriminately bombed dense populated areas, leaving the children extremely vulnerable on all levels. Living in a country at war also causes mental disturbance to virtually all children,and acute anxiety and depression if not psychosis in a considerable number.(Crimes against Humanity BRussells Tribunal and Global Research 7 May 2012)

          What a person can expect from these orphan, poor, homeless children (who entered in their youth without parents, food, medicines, education) except to be devoid of morality and normality? Dear! It is not Islam but Revenge that has made many of them terrorist and some of them suicide bombers against the nations who had destroyed their all and a better choice to get rid of their burdened lives.

          In this day and age when the world has literally shrunk to a global village, the nations have to change their attitudes and have to base politics on justice and equality of humanity instead of ‘Might is Right’. There is a message of Promised Messiah for universal peace: ”The earth created by God provides a common floor for all people alike, and His sun and moon and many stars are a source of radiance and provide many other benefits to all alike. Likewise, all peoples benefit from the elements created by Him, such as air, water, fire and earth, and similarly from other products created by Him like grain, fruit, and healing agents, etc. These attributes of God teach us the lesson that we, too, should behave magnanimously and kindly towards our fellow human beings and should not be petty of heart and illiberal.

        • MNb

          Thanks for not answering my question. I’m happy to repeat it:.
          Why “it should be borne in mind that all the teachings of Islam lead us to the single objective which is inherent in the word ‘Islam’?

          Why not “It should be borne in mind that all the teachings of islam lead us to suicide bombs?”

          Not that I expect an answer; I just want to demonstrate that you apologetics is as dishonest as all other apologetics. And you nicely cooperate.

          “but on the other side”
          That’s called a Tu Quoque.

          http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

          You try to evade addressing my question by suggesting that I’m a hypocrite for not asking the same question to say christians. Well, you’re flat out wrong.

          “Would you call their terrorist activities also the practice of their religions?”
          Yes. And not only religions; also political ideologies.
          Apparently you cannot and don’t want to answer my question. Instead you start a discussion about terrorism that’s totally irrelevant for the question. That once again shows that reading past the first two sentences of your comments is unnecessary. You’re wasting your time.

        • SparklingMoon,

          “Would you call their terrorist activities also the practice of their religions?”
          ————————————————-
          What do you think about this claim of President Bush: God told me to invade Iraq” and about horrible activities of that war either they will be called Christian terror on work (as President Bush is a Christian and claims a follower of Jesus)? According to a report ”…. Line up the bodies of the children, the thousands of children —the infants, the toddlers, the school kids— whose bodies were torn to pieces, burned alive or riddled with bullets during the American invasion and occupation of Iraq. Line them up in the desert sand, walk past them, mile after mile, all those twisted corpses, those scraps of torn flesh and seeping viscera, those blank faces,.. those staring eyes fixed forever on nothingness This is the reality of what happened in Iraq; there is no other reality….” (War Without End,The Reality of America’s Aggression Against Iraq)

          Secondly, As far as religion Islam is concerned, it categorically rejects and condemns every form of terrorism. It does not provide any cover or justification for any act of violence, be it committed by an individual, a group or a government. What is going on in Muslim world today, is not the practice of the teachings of the Quran but political ideologies of some selfish leaders who misrepresent the message of religion to use religious feelings of ignorant Muslims for their own interests. Otherwise the Quran has warned its followers: ” Persecution is more grievous than slaying”. (2:191) Islam in the light of its teachings is as closely related to terrorism as light is to darkness or life is to death or peace is to war. If you examine so-called ‘Islamic terror activities’, you will discover political forces working behind Islamic facade.

          Secondly, no doubt great powers roundly condemns that is going on in Muslim world, but on the other side they themselves responsible for a constant supply of arms to these Muslim countries. After all, warplanes, rockets, missiles, cannons, tanks, other artillery vehicles and destructive weapons which are freely used by these warring factions are not manufactured on their own soils. The fire of destruction and terror is fueled by the oil which is produced in Muslim countries and converted into weapons by Western and Eastern non-Muslim powers. Overtly and covertly, Middle Eastern oil and Western weapons always change hands and this is not a bad bargain at all—Middle Eastern oil is bought in exchange for obsolete or relatively old weapons. What more advantageous bargain can be envisaged than this?.

          And as a result; Muslims kill Muslims, the oil of the Muslim world is used to burn and destroy the economy of the Muslim world, the painstaking economic achievements of the previous decades is nullified. As far as progress and prosperity is concerned, instead of moving forwards Muslim countries start to travel backwards in time.

          And on the other hand Islam is condemned in media as a barbaric religion which upholds terrorism, preaches hatred and intolerance and divides adherents into opposing camps of bloodthirsty foes. This is not surprising because the benefits are obtained by those who design, plot, implement and provide the instruments of destruction to unfortunate warring factions of Muslims.

        • Greg G.

          What do you think about this claim of President Bush: God told me to invade Iraq” and about horrible activities of that war either they will be called Christian terror on work (as President Bush is a Christian and claims a follower of Jesus)?

          I thought that was one of the most idiotic things I ever heard. I was against invading Iraq.

          Sam Harris said about Bush: “The President of the United States has claimed, on more than one occasion, to be in dialogue with God. If he said he was talking to God through his hairdryer, this would precipitate to a national emergency. I fail to see how the addition of a hairdryer makes the claim more ludicrous or more offensive.”

          The same should be said about any religious person, including your prophets.

        • SparklingMoon,

          I do not consider that President Bush means by this saying that he personally had any revelation. I think he has used the name of God to reference his religious teachings that guided him to attack Iraq . The same case is with misguided Muslims who use the name of Islam to justify their cruelty.

          Secondly, I do not consider that it is impossible for President Bush or any other person to receive revelation of God Almighty as it is open to all human beings to use their God gifted abilities to achieve a certain level of morality and spirituality and have favor of their God. I deny only that revelation of God ever instructs a person to kill innocent civilian.

        • Kodie

          Your major disconnect here is that people who use the name of any god to justify killing are using the same emotional indications you use to reveal to them that god wants them to kill.

          I mean of course the revelation of god never instructs a person to kill, because no gods exist and therefore can’t reveal its feelings to humans. Belief is an emotional trance, not a revelation of any kind, for any purpose. You believe god only tells people to do good things, and anyone who claims god told them to do nutty violent things is full of shit, but you’re all full of the same kind of shit. I know you think your beliefs are different than George Bush, but they’re exactly the same.

        • Ignorant Amos

          . I deny only that revelation of God ever instructs a person to kill innocent civilian.

          I love the caveat “innocent civilian”…what ta fuck does that mean? How do you know? Who decides? Can’t you even recognise the bullshit when it’s smeared under your own fuckin’ nose ffs?

          So everyone can receive revelation, but if it doesn’t fit your idea of revelation, it’s false? Retarded thinking. Read that book I gave you to see innocent killings because of devine revelation and stop being an ignorant dickhead.

        • MNb

          “The same case is with misguided Muslims”
          Then islam is as weak as christianity.
          Btw I also opposed the invasion of Iraq from the very beginning.

          “I deny only that revelation of God ever instructs a person to kill innocent civilian.”
          That’s you and that makes you a good guy. However I don’t close my eyes, no matter how inconvenient for you, for the fact that too many muslims flat out say that revelation of god indeed does instruct them to kill innocent civilians. Again, I appreciate that you’re not one of them (like all the muslims I personally know), but I simply don’t see why you should be right and those suicide terrorists should be wrong.
          And yes, the very same applies to many other belief systems.

        • Ignorant Amos

          As far as religion Islam is concerned, it categorically rejects and condemns every form of terrorism. It does not provide any cover or justification for any act of violence, be it committed by an individual, a group or a government. What is going on in Muslim world today, is not the practice of the teachings of the Quran but political ideologies of some selfish leaders who misrepresent the message of religion to use religious feelings of ignorant Muslims for their own interests. Otherwise the Quran has warned its followers: ” Persecution is more grievous than slaying”. (2:191) Islam in the light of its teachings is as closely related to terrorism as light is to darkness or life is to death or peace is to war. If you examine so-called ‘Islamic terror activities’, you will discover political forces working behind Islamic facade.

          That’s the problem with ambiguity and interpretation of holy scriptures, there are plenty of Muslim scholars, Imams and clerics who declare the opposite and they can point to the same scripture in support. Of course you will claim that they are not true Muslims, and you could be right. They’ll say it is you that is not the true Muslim and they claim they’re right.

          So, what to do? Look to the example of the prophet Mo? You are going to be in deep do-do if ya take that route.

        • MNb

          “As far as religion Islam is concerned, it categorically rejects and condemns every form of terrorism.”
          Then you are wasting your time. Travel to Syria and Iraq and go tell your fellow muslims. As soon as you guys have reached some kind of consensus we’ll pay attention.

          “What is going on in Muslim world today, is not the practice of the teachings of the Quran but political ideologies of some selfish leaders who misrepresent the message of religion to use religious feelings of ignorant Muslims for their own interests.”
          Christians say exactly the same about violence inspired by christianity.
          Jews say exactly the same about violence inspired by judaism.

          “they (great powers) themselves responsible for a constant supply of arms to these Muslim countries”
          No doubt about it, but this fact actually puts islam in a negative light. Apparently this belief system is not strong enough to prevent its adherents from accepting those arms to use it against their cobelievers.
          So islam is a very feeble belief.

          “on the other hand Islam is condemned in western media”
          Irrelevant for me. My information is first hand. My female counterpart is a practicing muslima; she has been member of the board of her mosque. I accompany her every year when celebrating Id ul Fitr.
          What I wanted to know from you is how your perfect Holy Book can inspire suicide terrorism. The muslims I personally know are honest enough to tell me that they don’t know. Your answer implied that islam is feeble. I appreciate it.

        • SparklingMoon,

          This book exists since 1400 years and it never inspired Muslims for suicide terrorism or to kill the people of other religions. In Muslim countries the people of all religions live together and work together for their country without a conflict. It is totally wrong that God Almighty has suggested in the Quran for suicide terrorism. I have already written enough reasons that motivate this suicide terrorism.

          Secondly, the name of Islam on media is purposely connoted with evil practices of a Muslim.Why do we not hear on media of a Christian suicide terrorism or a Jewish terror, a Hindu terror? It is strange that with the possibility of referring to thousands of other ‘religions’, the Western media has chosen only religion Islam to relate it with evil practices.

          Any act of terror in a Muslim country is perceived in the West as the extension of ‘Islamic terrorism’ but in any other country such an act is seen as a political dispute. Why must such dual standards of justice prevail in this day and age? One really begins to wonder if there is an undercurrent of hatred for Islam beneath the apparently calm surface of Christian civilization.

          The political activities of Muslim governments should be judged according to the prevailing principles of politics and international relations and not on the basis of religion.

        • MNb

          “it never inspired Muslims for suicide terrorism or to kill the people of other religions.”
          You are a liar for Mohammed. As such you have lost all credibility you had.

          “Any act of terror in a Muslim country is perceived in the West as the extension of ‘Islamic terrorism’ but in any other country such an act is seen as a political dispute.”
          A lie never comes alone. This is another one. All atheists recognize attacks on abortion clinics as inspired by christianity. According to an FBI report there is more jewish extremist terrorism in the USA than Islamic.

          http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/not-all-terrorists-are-muslims

          Congratulations. You just have insulted an atheist who has been resisting islamophobia since at least 15 years – a potential ally. No worries though – the fact that your religion has morally depraved you doesn’t mean that I think my loved one (a practicing muslima) is.

          “the Western media has chosen”
          I am no more responsible for western media than you for IS. But you being a liar don’t know better than pulling off this dishonest trick on me. Fact: I deliberately avoid western media who have made that choice and read an online paper from Flanders (my native country is The Netherlands) that has not made that choice.

          “the apparently calm surface of Christian civilization.”
          I am not a christian, stupid liar. I don’t even live in a country with a culture build on christian civilization.

          “The political activities of Muslim governments should be judged according to the prevailing principles of politics and international relations and not on the basis of religion.”
          The last lie and this one comes straight from the christian civilization you just rejected. All organized religion is politics by definition. That applies as much to IS as to American Tea Party. A classical example is the schism between sunnites and shiites.
          Just like christians demand christian privilege you are now demanding muslim privilege. Forget it. Not on this blog.

          The Holy Bible inspired the terrorism of the Crusades, of Timothy McVeigh and of the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda.
          The Holy Bible inspires the pacifism of Jehovah Witnesses.
          The Holy Quran inspires your pacifism.
          The Holy Quran inspires the terrorism of IS, Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

          Both inspire apologetic lies like yours.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You are so mindbogglingly ignorant and naive.

          The Holy Quran exists since 1400 years and it never inspired Muslims for suicide terrorism or to kill the people of other religions.

          ‘…one must go on Jihad at least once a year… One may use a catapult against them when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire on them and/or drown them.’
          — Imam al-Ghazzali, the second greatest scholar of Islam after Muhammad

          You are conflating what you call “suicide terrorism” with what many Muslims call “jihad” aka “holy war” and this is a major issue. Moderate liberal Muslims try to redefine the term “jihad” to mean something it doesn’t and while I’m really okay with their new definition, unfortunately a great many Muslims are not, that is a mega problem.

          It is worth noting beforehand that, in putting Allah’s doctrine of Jihad into practice at the birth of Islam, Prophet Muhammad had established three major models of Jihadi actions:
          1. Use of violence for the propagation of Islam,
          2. Islamic imperialism,
          3. Islamic slavery

          The Quran has only existed in written form twenty years after Mo’s death. There were bits and pieces written done on palm fronds and pottery and such stuff, but most of it was relayed in an oral tradition. That means there are loads of problematic issues with its proclaimed inerrancy. Apparently, like the other two Abrahamic texts, no one thought it was important to get it scribbled down in full for posterity. At least Joseph Smith gets a bit of credit to have had the wit to get someone to write down the bullshit he was peddling while he was around.

          Although Muhammad had written down God’s verses in bits and pieces and also had them memorized by a number of his disciples, he did not bother to compile them into a book. The Quran that we know today was assembled during the reign of the third caliph, Othman (r. 644–656). Likewise, although Allah repeatedly tells Muslims to follow the Prophet, Muhammad neglected to write down (or have it written down by others) his biography, detailing his actions and deeds, for Muslims to follow until the end of the world. Obviously, the Islamic God had also forgotten to remind Muhammad to assemble His verses into a book (i.e., the Quran) or to write down his autobiography (i.e., the Sunnah)—the two foundational components of the Islamic creed that Muslims must follow strictly at all time.

          After Prophet Muhammad’s death, some intelligent Muslims made up for these shortcomings of Allah and His Prophet. They realized that systematic organization of the divine verses and the Sunnah would be essential for the survival of the Islamic creed in the uncorrupted, pristine form. Hence, in order to avoid the same kind of corruptions that occurred in Allah’s earlier scriptures—the Gospel and the Torah, they first assembled the Quran about two decades after Muhammad’s death.

          http://www.islam-watch.org/books/islamic-jihad-legacy-of-forced-conversion-imperialism-slavery.pdf

          It’s my understanding that all Muslims are going to Hell for a time before being allowed into Paradise. The time spent in Hell depends on how close one lived their life to that of Mo. Obviously no one ever lives their life with such perfection, ergo al will go to Hell first. One of the exceptions to this nonsense is the idea of martyrdom through jihad. Those that get martyred get a fast track to Paradise avoiding any time in Hell. So if a person is gullible enough to believe the system, then jihad is quite an attractive option.

          In Muslim countries the people of all religions live together and work together for their country without a conflict.

          Not all Muslim countries though and only by abiding by very strict rules in many. Something a lot of Muslims have difficulty with when they sttle in non Muslim countries. But that is a non sequitur> in any case.

          It is totally wrong that God Almighty has suggested in the Quran for suicide terrorism.

          There ya go again. Is it totally wrong that “God Almighty” has suggested “jihad” in the the Quran? All Islamic violence is not suicide terrorism by the way.

          I have already written enough reasons that motivate this suicide terrorism.

          And by what authority do you write? You can give as many reasons as you like, when you leave out the elephant in the room as one of them, the main one in the eyes of many, including Islamic scholars, you are being stupid.

        • SparklingMoon,

          Prophet Muhammad had established three major models of Jihadi actions:
          1. Use of violence for the propagation of Islam,
          2. Islamic imperialism,
          3. Islamic slavery
          ———————————————————
          There is no conception in the Quran to make other human beings slaves. In Arab before Islam people have slaves to fulfill the duties of a servant servant . The teachings of the Quran brought the slave and master onto the same plane of psychological awareness. Thus, it opened up ways for achieving freedom and enabled the slave to protect that freedom once attaining it.

          It states in the Quran: “Have We not created for man two eyes, and a tongue and two lips, and have We not shown him the two great ways of evil and virtue? But he attempts not the high mountain road. And what should make thee know what the high mountain road is? It is the setting free of a slave, or the feeding in a day of hunger an orphan who is of kin or a poor man cleaving to the dust.”

          The simplicity and excellence of the teachings of Islam, combined with this special injunction about slaves, made a deep impression upon the slaves of Arabia who began to call upon the Holy Prophet as a deliverer. The new religion spread rapidly among the slave population and the proportion of slaves was extraordinarily large among the early converts. Even in the earliest days of Islam, slaves were not treated with contempt in Muslim society.

          Abu Zarra, a companion of the Holy Prophet (sa) relates that the Prophet used to say: “Your slaves are your brethren. So if any one of you happens to have a slave, give him the same food that he himself eats, and the same clothing that he him self wears. And do not give them such work as is beyond their power to perform, and if you ever happen to give them such work, you should help them in doing it.” The words, “you should help them in doing it,” means the work given to the slaves should be of such a nature that if the masters had to perform it, he would not find it disgraceful. Greater than this, however, Islam aimed at the total emancipation of slaves and visualized the day when slavery would be extinct.

          A prime example is Hadrat Bilalra, a black slave from Ethiopia who converted to Islam. One of the most trusted and loyal companions of the Holy Prophetsaw, Hadhrat Bilalra has a fascinating story: When Bilal Ibn Rabahra was sold to Master Umayyah ibn Khalaf, he was only a small boy. His master would always remind him, “I am your owner, and you are my slave, you must obey me because your god has been made from wood and mine is from gold. This is the god’s will.” … One day he [Bilal] overheard his master talking about a man claiming that there is only one God. [His master said,] “Do you know what this means? It means that I, Umayyah ibn Khalaf, the noble person of Makkah and Bilal al-Habashira, the ignorant black slave, must have the same God… Is that possible?” … Bilal Ibn Rabahra was inspired by the idea of one God, [and] … decided to meet Prophet Muhammadsaw .

          Upon seeing the Holy Prophet (sa), Bilal Ibn Rabahra had discovered the truth and immediately accepted the religion of Islam. … When Umayyah ibn Khalaf discovered what his own “slave” had done, he tortured him. He physically abused him in many ways, yet Hadrat Bilalra simply said “ absolute oneness…absolute oneness” throughout all the pain. As was the common case for so many former slaves in the early Islamic period, Hadhrat Bilal (ra) was eventually bought and freed by Hadhrat Abu Bakrra. Thus, Hadhrat Bilal’s story is only one of myriad examples of the torture that slaves endured prior to Islam, and the great respect, freedom, and love they enjoyed after accepting Islam.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Yeah, Christians say the same about the bible. I cited my source already. You are too stupid and ignorant to read it and understand. Adios knobrot.

        • SparklingMoon,

          what you call “suicide terrorism” with what many Muslims call “jihad” aka “holy war” and this is a major issue.
          ——————————————————–

          Although ignorant Muslim clergies have instructed the ordinary public in plunder and killing by calling these actions jihad, Christian clerics have also done something similar. The second cause of this criminal bloodshed, which is carried out in the hopes of becoming a Ghazi (who will attain Paradise immediately after death) among Muslims is the preaching of Christian priests who have widely publicized the claim that jihad is compulsory in Islam. They claim that killing people of other faiths is a matter of great Islamic virtue. Christian priests use excessively harsh language in Journals, newspapers and books and repeatedly draw attention towards the subject of jihad. Even if we assume that the Muslim clergies are largely responsible for instigating the public to jihad, our sense of fairness compels us to point out that the literature of the priests, which offers almost daily insults to Muslims, also plays a part.(Ruhanikhazain)

        • Ignorant Amos

          Blah, blah, blah, gargle, gargle, Kool-aid, gargle, gargle, blah, blah, blah, gullible shite…got it.

        • SparklingMoon,

          Muhammad had established three major models of Jihadi actions: 1. Use of violence for the propagation of Islam,
          ———————————————–

          Holy Prophet of Islam (sa) suffered great persecution at the hands of the disbelievers at Mecca and thereafter. The thirteen years which he spent at Mecca were years of great affliction and suffering of many kinds but he did not raise the sword against his enemies, nor did he reply to their abuse, until many of his Companions and dear friends were mercilessly murdered; and until he himself was subjected to sufferings of various kinds, such as being poisoned many a time; and until many an unsuccessful plan to murder him had been laid. When, however, God’s vengeance came, it so happened that the elders of Mecca and the chiefs of the tribes unanimously decided that this man should in any case be put to death. At that time, God, who is the Supporter of His loved ones and of the truthful and righteous, informed him that there was now nothing left in that town except evil, that the townspeople were bent upon murdering him and that he should therefore quit it at once. Then it was that, in accordance with the divine command, he migrated to Medina, but even then his enemies did not leave him alone; they pursued him there, and tried to destroy Islam in all possible ways.

          When their excesses went to an extreme, and when they had rendered themselves deserving of punishment by the murder of many an innocent person, permission to fight with them in self-defense, to fight with a view to warding off their attack, was given. And those people and their helpers had rendered themselves deserving of such treatment because of their having killed many an innocent person whom they had murdered not in any fight or battle but simply out of wanton mischief and whom they had robbed of their property. But, in spite of all this, when Mecca was taken Holy Prophet (sa) pardoned them all. It is, therefore, utterly wrong and unjust to suppose that the Holy Prophet (sa) or his Companions ever fought for spreading the Faith, or that they ever coerced anyone to join the fold of Islam. (Ruhanikhazain)

        • epeeist

          Reported for unattributed copy-paste, in other words for possible breach of copyright and for presenting other’s ideas as your own.

        • Ignorant Amos

          That is par for the course with Sparkly. It was only after my complaining that (Ruhanikhazain) has been added to the end of comments.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Yeah, I believe that you believe the hogwash you are being bombarded with, unfortunately it is unfounded fuckwittery.

          You are snorting coke or something even stronger.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_expeditions_of_Muhammad

          Muhammad named his monotheistic God Allah—the name of the chief Pagan deity of Arabia, which was also in general use in the region to denote God. For the first three years, Muhammad preached his alleged divine messages secretly to his close associates, friends and family members before going public about his divine mission. His messages demanded that the Ka’ba, considered the House of God in the local Pagan tradition, was an exclusive sanctuary of his own God. He claimed that the Ka’ba was founded by the Jewish patriarch Abraham and his son Ishmael, both considered highly respected prophets in Islam. He called his new creed the Religion of Abraham and urged the Meccan Polytheists to abandon their idolatry and follow his creed. Here is how Muhammad demanded that the Pagans of Mecca follow his creed and claimed that the Ka’ba belonged to his own God:

          “And whoever shall invent a falsehood after that concerning Allah, such will be wrong-doers. Say: Allah speaketh truth. So follow the religion of Abraham, the upright. He was not of the idolaters. Lo! the first Sanctuary (Ka’ba) appointed for mankind was that at Becca (Mecca) a blessed place, a guidance to the peoples; Wherein are plain memorials (of Allah’s guidance); the place where Abraham stood up to pray; and whosoever entereth it is safe. And pilgrimage to the
          House is a duty unto Allah for mankind, for him who can find a way thither. As for him who disbelieveth, (let him know that) lo! Allah is Independent of (all) creatures. [Quran 3:94–97]”

          This naturally had caused unhappiness among the pious Quraysh of Mecca. The majority of them adamantly rejected Muhammad’s religion. Neither did they hand over the custodianship of the Ka’ba to him. After about thirteen years of preaching in Mecca, Muhammad could only obtain a handful of converts, 100 to 150 in all, before he was allegedly driven out by the Quraysh and he took refuge in Medina in June 622. After securing himself in Medina, he undertook a ruthless mission to destroy the livelihood and religion of the Quraysh over the next eight years. In 630, he conquered Mecca, took possession of the Ka’ba, despoiled the idols therein, and eventually, forced the Idolaters of Mecca to accept Islam on the pain of death.
          Before proceeding further, let us first examine a few popular stories prevalent in Muslim societies about Muhammad’s departure from Mecca and about the cruelty and intolerance of the Quraysh.

          http://www.islam-watch.org/books/islamic-jihad-legacy-of-forced-conversion-imperialism-slavery.pdf

          Was Muhammad driven out of Mecca?

          Muslims indisputably believe that the Quraysh drove Muhammad and his followers out of Mecca, forcing them to relocate to Medina in 622—a journey, famously known as the Hijra or Hijrat.

          Although the Quraysh’s attempt to assassinate Muhammad remains a popular story in Islamic literatures and an incontestable belief amongst Muslims, there is little credible evidence to substantiate this claim for a number of reasons.

          If you are interested in those reasons, they start at page 13… http://www.islam-watch.org/books/islamic-jihad-legacy-of-forced-conversion-imperialism-slavery.pdf

        • SparklingMoon,

          Muhammad named his monotheistic God Allah—the name of the chief Pagan deity of Arabia,
          —————————————————————-
          The God of Islam is the same One who, before Islam, in different parts of the world had send prophets and reformers for human guidance. Before the revelation of the Quran,the guidance revealed through each prophet was designed to cater for the specific needs of the time and location; hence they were essentially temporary in nature. With the advancement and maturity of mankind God sent advanced and matured teachings suitable to their time. God Almighty has addressed mankind from the time of Adam and continued to address mankind through a number of messengers, to warn people that their happiness lay in worshiping Him and in submitting themselves to His Will, and to tell them of the consequences of His disobedience. God’s guidance for human race commenced through Adam and reached the zenith through Prophet of Islam. As God declares in the book of Quran: (5:4) “This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed my favor upon you and have chosen for you Islam as religion.”

          ”The religions which have spread and are firmly established in the world through Prophets, holding sway over a part of the world and achieving survival and long life, none was false in its origin. Nor was any of those Prophets false, because it is the eternal practice of God that a false prophet who lies against God —who is not from God, but dares to forge things from himself— never prospers. Therefore this principle is an ultimate truth and endless blessing, and withal lays the foundation for conciliation, in that we affirm the truthfulness of all prophets whose religion has been well established, has survived for a long time period and has had millions enter its fold.(Ruhanikhazain)

        • Ignorant Amos

          Sparkly, we know that this is what you believe. Stop posting screeds of nonsense. What we want from you is some evidence that the god you are ranting about exists. Not a lot of theological pish, stuff and nonsense.

          You need to show us why we should take any of this bollocks with anything more than a pinch of salt by showing evidence of this gods existence. By evidence, I don’t mean the rantings of yet another religious fuckwit. That ain’t evidence. All that means is that there are even bigger halfwits out there than you.

          Now…got evidence?

        • Ignorant Amos

          By 628, Muhammad had either evicted or annihilated all the powerful Jewish tribes of Medina and brought many small tribes of surrounding regions to submission through threats or attacks. He had now become powerful enough to vie for the capture of his ancestral city of Mecca and the Ka’ba therein—on which, he had laid a claim very early in his prophetic mission. Furthermore, it was the Ka’ba toward which his community in Medina had been turning for years whilst saying prayers. The Ka’ba had thus become the most sacred symbol of his religious mission and the biggest prize to be captured. The Ka’ba also had a big economic significance (as it is to the Saudis today), because, as the centre of pilgrimage—namely the Omra and Hajj— for the people of Arabia, it was a coveted revenue-generating venture. Moreover, Allah had dedicated so much effort and space in the Quran for fighting and defeating the Quraysh. Bringing Mecca to submission had therefore become the central mission of Muhammad’s prophetic career.

          Muhammad throws away the treaty and attacks Mecca: In two years after the signing of the Hudaybiya Treaty, Muhammad’s army had become strong enough to overrun the Quraysh. Therefore, he altogether threw away the ten-year treaty and ordered preparations for attacking Mecca. He wanted to take the Quraysh by surprise. As preparations went on, he kept praying to Allah: ‘‘O Allah, take eyes and ears from the Quraysh so that we may take them by surprise in their land.’’54 In January 630, he marched toward Mecca at the head of a 10,000-strong army.

        • SparklingMoon,

          Muhammad throws away the treaty and attacks Mecca: In two years after the signing of the Hudaybiya Treaty, Muhammad’s army had become strong enough to overrun the Quraysh. Therefore, he altogether threw away the ten-year treaty and ordered preparations for attacking Mecca.
          —————————————————–
          No, it was not prophet of Islam but his opponants ; the people of Mecca, who had broken the conditions of Hudaybiya Treaty.

          There are some detail about the reason of this march of prophet of Islam(sa) for Mecca. Actually, in March 628, at Hudaibiya, a pivotal charter of peace took place between Muhammad (representing the state of Medina) and the Quraish tribe of Mecca that Arab tribes should be allowed to join the Meccans as well as the Prophet of Islam. It was also agreed that for ten years the parties would not go to war against each other unless one party should violate the pact by attacking the other.

          Under this agreement,the people of Banu Bakr joined the Meccans, while the people of Khuza’a entered into an alliance with Muslims. It so happened that the Banu Bakr and the Khuza’a had some outstanding differences. The Banu Bakr consulted the Meccans about settling their old scores with the Khuza’a. They argued that the Hudaibiya treaty had been signed. The Khuzl’a felt secure because of their pact with the Prophet. Now, therefore, was the time for them to attack the Khuza’a. The Meccans agreed. They and the Banu Bakr, accordingly, joined in a night attack on the Khuza’a and put to death many of their men.

          The Khuza’a sent forty of their men to Medina to report this breach of agreement to the Prophet. They said it was up to Muslims now to march on Mecca to avenge this attack.The delegation met the Prophet and the Prophet told them unambiguously that he regarded their misfortunes as his own according to the promise of the treaty. The Prophet had sent word to all the tribes. Assured that they were ready and on the march, he asked the Muslims of Medina to prepare. On the 1st January, the Muslim army set out on its march. At different points on their way, they were joined by other Muslim tribes. Only a few days’ journey had been covered, when the army entered the wilderness of Faran. Its number-exactly as the Prophet Solomon had foretold in the Bible long before-had now swelled to ten thousand.

          A Meccan (Hakim bin Hizam) who accepted Islam on this occasion, asked the Prophet of Islam(sa) if the Muslims would destroy their own kith and kin.

          “These people,” said the Prophet of Islam, “have been very cruel. They have gone back on the peace they signed at Hudaibiya and attacked the Khuza’a savagely. ”

          “It is quite true, O Prophet of God,our people have done I exactly as you say, but instead of marching upon Mecca you should have attacked the people of Hawazin,” suggested Hakim.

          “The Hawazin also have been cruel and savage. I hope God will enable me to realize all the three ends : the conquest of Mecca,the ascendancy of Islam and the defeat of the Hawazin.”

          Abu Sufyan (a Meccan) asked the Prophet of Islam: “If the Meccans draw not the sword, will they have peace ?”

          “Yes,” replied the Prophet of Islam, “everyone who stays indoors will have peace. “Whoever enters the Sacred Mosque will have peace. Those who lay down their arms will have peace. Those who close their doors and stay in will have peace”.

          Saying this,prophet of Islam called Abu Ruwaiha and handed over to him the standard of Islam. Abu Ruwaiha had entered into a pact of brotherhood with Bilal( the negro slave of Umayyah ibn Khalaf who converted to Islam.) Handing over the standard, the Prophet said, “Whoever stands under this standard will have peace.” He ordered Bilal to march in front of Abu Ruwaiha and announce to all concerned that there was peace under the standard held by Abu Ruwaiha.

          The arrangement was full of wisdom. When Muslims were persecuted in Mecca, Bilal, one of their targets, was dragged about the streets by ropes tied to his legs by his Master Umayyah ibn Khalaf. Mecca gave no peace to Bilal, but only physical pain, and disgrace. How revengeful Bilal must have felt on this day of his deliverance. To let him avenge the savage cruelties suffered by him in Mecca was necessary, but it had to be within the limits laid down by Islam. Accordingly, the Prophet of Islam (sa) did not let Bilal draw the sword and smite the necks of his former persecutors. That would have been un-Islamic. Instead, the Prophet handed to Bilal’s brother the standard of Islam, and charged Bilal with the duty of offering peace to all his former persecutors under the standard borne by his brother. There was beauty and appeal in this revenge.

          The Prophet(sa) asked the Meccans: ” Now tell me what punishment you should have for the cruelties and enormities you committed against Muslims.” To this the Meccans replied, “We expect you to treat us as Joseph treated his erring brothers.” By significant coincidence,the Meccans used in their plea for forgiveness the very words which God had used in the Sura Yusuf, ten years before the conquest of Mecca that Prophet would treat his Meccan persecutors as Joseph had treated his brothers. Hearing the Meccans’ plea, the Prophet declared at once : “By God, you will have no punishment today and no reproof” (Book of history ”Hisham”).

          God’s glorious command was carried out to the utmost (Quran41:35,36)

        • Ignorant Amos

          Who truly breached the Hudaybiya Treaty?

          Daniel Pipes, who is hated by Muslims for his objective views on Islam, claims that Muhammad did not breach the treaty, but technically the Quraysh did. He writes, ‘Muhammad was technically within his rights to abrogate the treaty, for the Quraysh, or at least their allies, had broken the terms.’ His views fit well with the standard Islamic position that it was the Meccans who broke the treaty. This alleged breach of the treaty by the Quraysh relates to an ongoing feud between two third-party tribes: Banu Bakr and Banu Khuza’a. Banu Bakr was an ally of the Quraysh, while Banu Khuza’a was of Muhammad.

          According to Al-Tabari, prior to Muhammad’s coming to the scene, a merchant named Malik bin Abbad of Banu Bakr on his trade-journey was attacked by some people of Banu Khuza’a, who killed him and took his property. In retaliation, Banu Bakr killed a man from Banu Khuza’a. In their second turn of attack, Banu Khuza’a killed three brothers—Salma, Kulthum and Dhu’ayb—the leading men of Banu Bakr. In the counter retaliation, Banu Bakr killed a Banu Khuza’a man, named Munabbih, in which a few Quraysh had allegedly assisted Banu Bakr in the darkness of night.

          This time, Banu Khuza’a had become Muhammad’s Mawla (confederate). Hence, the Quraysh, according to scholars like Pipes, breached the Hudaybiya Treaty and Muhammad was legally justified in attacking Mecca.

          The first thing ignored here is that the Khuza’a tribe was the instigator of the feud with Banu Bakr. Khuza’a had attacked Banu Bakr twice and killed four men. Prior to the latest attack, Banu Bakr had attacked Banu Khuza’a only once, killing one man. Even after the latest attack, Khuza’a had killed four Banu Bakr men, while the latter had killed only two of their opponents. uhammad’s confederates had a surplus of killing two extra men.

          The next thing ignored here is that, in the first place, Muhammad had no right to make an attempt to capture Mecca or seek access into the idol-shrine of Ka’ba, which led to the signing of the Hudaybiya Treaty. And Pipes is totally oblivious to the fact that Muhammad had broken the terms of the treaty at the earliest opportunity and repeatedly— amongst other breaches, by killing a number of the Quraysh and plundering their trade-caravans. It also makes little sense that Muhammad would attack the Quraysh, instead of attacking Banu Bakr, who were directly involved in killing the men of Banu Khuza’a. Muhammad, at best, could come to the assistance to Banu Khuza’a’s attack on Mecca, not for his own capture of the city under any logic or reason.

          http://www.islam-watch.org/books/islamic-jihad-legacy-of-forced-conversion-imperialism-slavery.pdf

        • MNb

          Daniel Pipes’ views on islam are not exactly objective.

          http://www.loonwatch.com/2013/12/is-russia-turning-muslim/

        • Ignorant Amos

          I guess you’ll need to take that up with the author who makes that claim based on reading Pipes, (Pipes D (2002) Militant Islam Comes to America, WW Norton & Company, New York,) and Muslim opinion.

          Were Pipes views more objective when the book I cite was written, 7 years ago? I don’t know. Is it relevant to the point either way? Not sure if it is.

          I took the point that in citing Pipes, even though he upsets a lot of Muslims with his writing, nevertheless, on the issue of breaking the treaty, he is in agreement and technically Muslims are right in their assertion that Mohammed was justified in his actions, because the Meccan’s drew first blood. M.A. Kahn is pointing out that Pipe, like the history as viewed by Islam, is wrong on this issue.

        • MNb

          I take it up with you because you use that quote to support your view. Indeed I realize that Piper being an islamophobe doesn’t mean that he’s wrong on this particular topic; I know exactly zilch about it.

        • Ignorant Amos

          In that case I don’t know why an ex-Muslim scholar would claim that Pipes had an objective view of Islam, maybe…

          Pipes has written, “It’s a mistake to blame Islam, a religion 14 centuries old, for the evil that should be ascribed to militant Islam, a totalitarian ideology less than a century old. Militant Islam is the problem, but moderate Islam is the solution.” Pipes believes that moderate Muslims “constitute a very small movement”, but a “brave” one, which the U.S. government should “give priority to locating, meeting with, funding, forwarding, empowering, and celebrating”.

          Pipes has praised Mustafa Kemal Atatürk in Turkey and the Sudanese thinker Mahmoud Mohamed Taha. In a September 2008 interview by Peter Robinson, Pipes stated that Muslims can be divided into three categories: “traditional Islam”, which he sees as pragmatic and non-violent, “Islamism”, which he sees as dangerous and militant, and “moderate Islam”, which he sees as underground and not yet codified into a popular movement. He elaborated that he did not have the “theological background” to determine what group follows the Koran the closest and is truest to its intent.

          Tashbih Sayyed, former editor of the Muslim World Today and the Pakistan Times (not the Pakistani newspaper of the same name), stated about Pipes, “He must be listened to. If there is no Daniel Pipes, there is no source for America to learn to recognize the evil which threatens it… Muslims in America that are like Samson; they have come into the temple to pull down the pillars, even if it means destroying themselves.” Similarly, Ahmed Subhy Mansour, a former visiting fellow at Harvard Law School, writes, “We Muslims need a thinker like Dr. Pipes, who can criticize the terrorist culture within Islam.”

          Daniel C. Peterson, professor of Islamic Studies and Arabic, thinks positively of Daniel Pipes’ works, that he is “a legitimate, well-trained scholar, and very bright.” Peterson also worries about what he thinks is a campaign to blacken and marginalize Daniel Pipes, because “if he’s wrong, that should be demonstrated with evidence and analysis, not by name-calling.”

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Pipes

          Pipes objectivity seems to be somewhat subjective in the eyes of his audience.

          But no matter, it is irrelevant to the argument, especially as Pipes takes the contrary position to M.A. Kahn and Kahn is citing Pipes as such and explaining his reasoning and evidence why Pipes who supports Muslim claims on this occasion, are wrong.

          So I suppose a shrug is in order.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Your refusal to read the source I cite means that unless I copy & paste the whole bloody thing into comment boxes, which I’m not prepared to do, then you will just have to live with you ignorance and lies spreading. So I will leave you to stew in lack of knowledge with this last citation.

          Muhammad’s capture of Mecca, nonetheless, was not bloodless either. Khalid ibn Walid had brutally slaughtered those who sought to put up a meek resistance. Muhammad had also ordered execution of ten or twelve Meccan citizens who had earlier abandoned Islam, or had criticized or ridiculed him and his creed. Some of the proscribed persons belonging to influential families, lobbied by their family members, were spared. Eventually, four persons were executed. Amongst them were two singing girls, who had composed songs ridiculing Muhammad. Given the kind of rather humane treatment Muhammad had received from the Meccans against the sort of torment, insults, troubles, bloodshed and hardships he had caused them, no Meccan citizens deserved capital punishment in any sort of sensible justice—especially when, they had unconditionally surrendered their homeland to Muhammad’s rule.

          Further cruelty of barbaric nature was yet to follow upon Muhammad’s conquest of Mecca. After
          destroying the Ka’ba, Muhammad sent Khalid ibn Walid to bring the neighboring tribes into submission.
          Khalid reached the Jazima (Jadhima) tribe and ordered them to lay down their arms. Ibn Ishaq records: ‘As
          soon as they had laid down their arms, Khalid ordered their hands to be tied behind their backs and put them
          to the sword, killing a number of them.’ The tribe had already offered submission to Muhammad. On this
          ground, a few Medina citizens and refugees in Khalid’s party intervened, saving the lives of the rest. Moreover, the Jazima tribesmen had never caused any trouble to Muhammad or his community. This cruelty on them, therefore, was nothing less than barbaric. Upon Muhammad’s conquest of Mecca, the way he
          mercilessly destroyed the idol-gods of the Quraysh, put his critics to death, Khalid slaughtered those Meccan
          citizens who had shown a meek resistance and the heartless way Khalid slaughtered the Jazima tribesmen and so on, it represents an occasion of cruel atrocity on his part, not of forgiveness, kindness and generosity of any kind.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Secondly, the name of Islam on media is purposely connoted with evil practices of a Muslim.

          Ballix. There are Muslims carrying out evil practices in the name of Islam…that’s a fact. That’s what the media are reporting.

          Why do we not hear on media of a Christian suicide terrorism or a Jewish terror, a Hindu terror?

          Is there much Christian suicide terrorism to report? I’m not all that convinced that Christian suicide terrorism is a problem at all. Now I’m well aware that there is a lot of Christian terrorism going on. I live in a wee spot in Europe where Christian terrorism has been rife for decades and it was well reported in the worldwide media.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bombings_during_the_Northern_Ireland_Troubles_and_peace_process

          That list is not conclusive and only goes to 2001, it only represents some of the bomb attacks, there have been subsequent attacks.

          http://in.reuters.com/article/nireland-blast-idINL5N16N3QR

          http://www.reuters.com/article/us-irish-killing-idUSBRE8A015X20121101

          Now there are those that will say that the attacks I cite are political and that is true, but they are politically defined along sectarian Christian lines, Protestants v Catholics. And there is no doubt that Islamic ideology is also very much political.

          And if you have never heard of Anders Brevik then you really must be walking around with your head up your arsehole.

          Brevik was at first described by many in the media as a Christian fundamentalist, Christian terrorist, nationalist.

          “We have no more information than… what has been found on [his] own websites, which is that it goes towards the right and that it is, so to speak, Christian fundamentalist.”

          http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14259356

          So stop lying.

          It is strange that with the possibility of referring to thousands of other ‘religions’, the Western media has chosen only religion Islam to relate it with evil practices.

          Go and learn something and stop propagating the garbage you are getting force fed. |You are either lying through your backside, or you are one very ignorant human being. Either way, fix it.

        • SparklingMoon,

          I’m not all that convinced that Christian suicide terrorism is a problem at all.
          —————————————————–
          Terrorism exists in Christian countries and policies of Christians also responsible to spread terrorism in other parts of the world but these all activities are not called Christian terrorism.

          It is not easy to close one’s eyes to various brands of terrorism which unfortunately flourish all over the world. Would not it be fitting to label all brands of terrorism by using the same principle which gave birth to the term ‘Islamic terrorism’ creating a list of Sikh terrorism, Hindu terrorism, Christian terrorism, Jewish terrorism, atheist terrorism, Buddhist terrorism, Animist terrorism and pagan terrorism?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Give me a list of Christian suicide bombers that screamed “Jesus is great!” Before blowing up a market place full of women and children.

          You are practising the fine art of whataboutery, something I’ve not seen in this form for a while. It is a form of defence by pointing to the failure of others.

          So, if I grant you that Sikh terrorism, Hindu terrorism, Christian terrorism, Jewish terrorism, atheist terrorism, Buddhist terrorism, Animist terrorism and pagan terrorism are all bona fide are all justifiable assertions. You’ll accept Islamic terrorism with no quarrel? Is that your beef? You know that makes you one low life scum sucking piece of shite, don’t ya?

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sikh_terrorism

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hindu_terrorism

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_religious_terrorism

          I struck out on atheist terrorism, who would of thought?

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence

          Now when I Google searched for “animist terrorism” guess what I found ya plagiarising cunt….

          Are there not equally, other groups involved in terrorism and subversion throughout the world? Would it be fitting to label all brands of terrorism by using the same principle which gave birth to the term ‘Islamic terrorism’ creating a list of Sikh terrorism, Hindu terrorism, Christian terrorism, Jewish terrorism, atheist terrorism, Buddhist terrorism, Animist terrorism and pagan terrorism?

          https://www.alislam.org/library/books/mna/chapter_9.html

          Some piece of work you are Sparkly, a lying, conniving, robot.

          I also struck out on pagan terrorism too, but by the time I’d got to the siye you did your quote mining from and read the piece, I had lost the will to find those news avoiding pagan terrorists causing whatever ta fuck your simple amoeba sized mind imagined they were up to.

          You are a piece of shite trying to defend the indefensible, now fuck off.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Any act of terror in a Muslim country is perceived in the West as the extension of ‘Islamic terrorism’ but in any other country such an act is seen as a political dispute. Why must such dual standards of justice prevail in this day and age? One really begins to wonder if there is an undercurrent of hatred for Islam beneath the apparently calm surface of Christian civilization.

          So, tell me again which Muslim country Daesh represent again?

        • SparklingMoon,

          Daesh represent the countries who constantly supply them warplanes, rockets, missiles, cannons, tanks, other artillery vehicles and destructive weapons which are freely used by them. The fire of destruction and terror is fueled by their supply.

          The responsibility for whatever atrocities Daesh commit against each other and occasionally against other countries must be shared by those who are responsible for the supply of arms and ammunition to them.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Don’t talk shite.

          You are now just a fully fledged ignorant fuckwit deserving of no more acknowledgement.

        • Ignorant Amos

          The political activities of Muslim governments should be judged according to the prevailing principles of politics and international relations and not on the basis of religion.

          There is a slight problem with that approach.

          ‘In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the (Muslim) mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.’
          — Ibn Khaldun, The Muqaddimah, New York, p. 473

          Sharia laws cover all spheres of Muslim life: spiritual, social, financial and political. There is no separation between the spiritual (religious) and the mundane in Islam. Islam is an all-in-one solution to the worldly problems for humankind. Therefore Islam, affirms Turkish scholar Dr Sedat Laçiner, is ‘not only a religion but also the name of a political, economic and cultural system.’ Prof. M Umaruddin (Aligarh Muslim University, India) sees the relationship between Islam and politics as inseparable. He asserts that ‘Islam is not a religion in the usual sense of the word. The view that religion has to do only with the inner conscience of man, with no logical relations with social conduct, is completely foreign, rather abhorrent to Islam.’ Emphasizing that the theological precepts of Islam cover all aspects of human life, he adds: ‘It is an all-embracing system, a complete code of life, bearing on and including every phase of human activity and every aspect of human conducts.’

          In sum, the Quran and the Sunnah are the primary constitutions of Islam. The Sharia laws are derived
          from these two primary sources. The Quran, the Sunnah and the Sharia together constitute the complete
          foundation of the Islamic creed. They are the indispensable complete guide to the Muslim life and society for all times and places.

          So there it is. Your myopic view is probably why your wishy-washy flavour of Islam is deemed heretical by the more hardcore others I suspect. To a great many Muslims Islam is much more than just a religion. Therein lies the problem.

        • SparklingMoon,

          ‘In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the (Muslim) mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.’
          ———————————————————————–
          All views of different scholars you have referenced has zero value as they are totally against the message of the Quran. There is no conception in the revelation of the Quran to convert others by force as adoption of a religion or faith by force can not create change in human heart. The use of in the matter of faith is against the scheme of God Almighty for He has created human beings.

          The universe created by God Almighty is divided into two portions. A large portion does that which it is commanded by God Almighty to do, and thus carries out the will of God. The other portion has been given the choice to carry out God’s behest or to ignore it. This second portion is man upon whom God Almighty has conferred freedom of action. Everything besides man carries out that which God Almighty desires it to do. For instance, the Holy Quran says concerning the angels: They do that which they are commanded ( 66: 7). From this point of view everything besides man is an angel, as it does that which it is commanded to do.

          Islam is the religion of nature. So far as man is concerned the notion of compulsion in human life is inconsistent with the divine project of the universe, inasmuch as if God Almighty had imposed His will upon man there would have been no difference between man and an animal, or a tree or a stone. Islam being in accord with human nature sets forth a teaching, concerning the freedom of conscience and the freedom of belief, which establishes an ideal for the world. It is not only certain religions that have permitted compulsion in matters of faith, but several philosophic conceptions are also opposed to freedom of conscience and regard compulsion as permissible.

          Islam does not permit anything of the kind. Islam has established an ideal standard in respect of freedom of conscience. God Almighty has said in effect: This is the religion of nature which comprises perfect guidance. A perfect Book has been revealed. No other teaching fulfills human needs to a greater degree, nor provides greater beneficence for man, nor discloses to man more clearly the ways that bring man nearer to God. It is Islam alone which has thrown open to man all the gates of approach to God. It imposes no compulsion nor does it permit any. In Islam God says: I account compulsion as evil. I proclaim freedom of conscience and guarantee freedom of belief. Reflection upon the Holy Quran reveals several aspects of this teaching. For instance, it is said: Proclaim, O Prophet, O mankind the Truth has indeed come to you from your Lord. Then whoso follows the guidance, follows it only for the good of his own self, and whoso errs does so only to his own detriment. I am not appointed a keeper over you (10: 109).

          Here the Holy Prophet, peace be on him, has been commanded to proclaim to mankind that perfect truth has been presented to them in the Holy Quran in the form of the teachings of Islam. He who accepts it does so only to his own good” and he who goes astray does so only to his own loss. The Holy Prophet is commanded to proclaim that he is not responsible for the people. They themselves have to provide for their own good, or to earn the wrath of God Almighty. This is not his business. Every soul must bear this responsibility for itself.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Nothing in that lament refutes what I said.

          Look, I’m an infidel, so don’t take my word for any of this, go find out for yourself. There are Muslim scholars and ex Muslim scholars a galore that say different to your musings. What makes what you say any more believable than those others? You clearly belong to a minority group who has one interpretation of the nonsense. I prefer to look at what we know, or think we know, and take from there, not what some ignorant preachy heretic on a forum asserts without evidence, claims.

        • TheNuszAbides

          Yes. And not only religions; also political ideologies.

          it’s depressing how many atheists can’t grasp that particular bigger picture, or dismiss it as some sort of annoyance/pedantry.

  • Sophia Sadek

    A literal interpretation of the Deluge does not just require ignoring science, it also requires ignoring the metaphorical interpretation that existed hundreds of years before Jesus.

  • SparklingMoon,

    It’s fun to compare the Noah story with science and history as we know it.
    —————————————————————————————–

    The early descriptions of Old Testament are amalgamation of the revelation of Prophet Moses and human narration and explanation of its later coming followers. It seems the writers of the Bible has mixed and confused two different accounts of the revelation of Moses that have descriptions about Noah.

    One account of revelation that was about a prophet Noah who was appointed in a small mountain valley to reform a group of people and they all objected and rejected Noah except few righteous of them. Those righteous with Noah followed the ways of God and also prepared an ark that saved them from heavy deluge of water but other all disbelievers drowned. These survived beleivers became the forefathers of next coming generation in that area.

    The name of Noah is also described many times in the Quran and according to its descriptions prophet Noah lived in a valley at the foot of a mountain.It states, in reference of his son, in the Quran:

    [11:43] And it (boat) moved along with them on waves like mountains. And Noah cried unto his son, while he was keeping apart, ‘O my son, embark with us and be not with the disbelievers.’ [11:44] He replied, ‘I shall soon betake myself to a mountain which will shelter me from the water.’ He said, ‘There is no shelter for anyone this day, from the decree of Allah, excepting those to whom He shows mercy.’ And the wave came in between the two; so he was among the drowned.

    The verses shows that the’ place where Noah lived was surrounded by mountains. This is why his son said that he would take shelter in a mountain. The Arabic word (a mountain) used as a common noun points to the fact that there was a chain of mountains on one of which Noah’s son wished to take shelter. In fact, the place appears to have been a valley with mountains rising on all sides. That such a place should become quickly flooded with heavy rain is not extraordinary.

    It states further in the Quran: ”And it was said, ‘O earth, swallow thy water, and O sky, cease raining.’ And the water was made to subside and the matter was ended. And the Ark came to rest on Al-Judi. And it was said, ‘Cursed be the wrongdoing people.’'[Quran11:45] The verse makes it clear that water not only came out from the” fountains of the earth” (Quran.11:41) but it also fell from the sky (i.e.the clouds) and thus both combined to deluge the land.

    According to the verse of the Quran the mountains where Ark came to rest was AlJudi and according to Sale, “AlJudi is one of those mountains which divide Armenia on the south from Mesopotamia and that part of Assyria which is inhabited by the Curds, from whom the mountain took the name of Cardu or Gardu, but the Greeks turned it into Gordyaei. The tradition which affirms the ark to have rested on these mountains must have been very ancient, since it is the tradition of the Chaldeans themselves (Berosus, apud Joseph. Antiq.). To confirm it, we are told that the remainders of the ark were to be seen on the Gordyaean mountains. Berosus and Abydenus both declare that there was such a report in their time………… .. .. .. .. ..The relics of the ark were also to be seen here in the time of Epiphanius…… and we are told the Emperor Heraclius went from the town of Thamanin up to the mountain aI-Jodi and saw the place of the ark. There was also formerly a famous monastery, called the monastery of the ark, upon some of these mountains where the Nestorians used to celebrate a feast-day on the spot where they supposed the ark rested; but in 776 A.D. that monastery was destroyed by lightning” (Sale, pp. 179, 180).

    The second account of the revelation of Moses in the Bible about worldwide deluge shows that the name and story of Noah is symbolically used to describe the fate of another people who also like the people of Noah had total destruction because of their deny and few believers among them survived. It is a tradition of God Almighty to use the name of a previous prophet for a next coming prophet to hint the existence of same previous sins in human society and need of their removal through His messenger. For Example the name Son of Marry and Messiah and names of other prophets like Noah Abraham Moses also has been given to the reformer of this time; Mirza Ghuam Ahmad by God Almighty in His revelation.
    .
    The Flood of Noah is such an incident that is recognized by the all people of the world and it would be hard to find a part where the people of the world are ignorant of it. This worldwide flood must happened at a time when people of the earth had strong sources of communication and after its happening the rest generations used to described it to their next coming generations as it was an important incident (of the destruction of high civilization that was achieved by their forefathers).

    If the people who were in the time of Noah (or in the time of a person who was named Noah) had worldwide destruction then the message of that prophet must had worldwide approach (as we have sources at this time). It is a holy tradition of God Almighty that He does not punish a person or a nation until sends a prophet first to warn them about their sins and evils. This worldwide destruction confirms that this prophet who also named Noah must appeared at a time when people had enough sources of communication and his voice of guidance could reach at the corners of the world to reform those people but most of them like the people of Noah denied his message except a few people as compare to their numbers.

    It is nonsense to consider that Prophet Noah had delivered his message to few people of his valley and God Almighty had destroyed the whole people of earth because the few people of a small valley had denied to accept the message of His messenger.

    • Ignorant Amos

      And Harry Potter was a child wizard, Robin Hood wore Lincoln green tights and your head is away with the feckin’ fairies.

      • epeeist

        your head is away with the feckin’ fairies

        Almost certainly a former poster on the Guardian, and yes of exactly the same kind of posts.

    • epeeist

      It seems the writers of the Bible has mixed and confused two different accounts of the revelation of Moses that have descriptions about Noah.

      It seems that the writers of both the writers of the bible and the Quran were plagiarists who didn’t acknowledge their sources. The Noah story was lifted wholesale from the Epic of Gilgamesh.

      • Ignorant Amos

        Sparkly insists Mo was unlettered, meaning illiterate. He could not have gained his knowledge from Hebrew or Christian texts which he also insists were not to be found in the Arab speaking world at the time. That the story was lifted straight out of Sumerian mythology, by the Hebrews, most likely during the Babylonian exile, makes little difference to Sparkly. The only way Mo could’ve known about it according to him, is through the divine revelation of Allah, which can only mean one thing, that Islam is the true faith.

        Even after I cited scholarship pointing out that his assertion is erroneous, he refuses to let go. Typical apologist.

        • epeeist

          Even after I cited scholarship pointing out that his assertion is erroneous, he refuses to let go.

          Well that’s the problem of having a one book library isn’t it.

        • Greg G.

          He also has a collection of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s works in an electronic medium which he copy & pastes from regularly.

        • Ignorant Amos
        • SparklingMoon,

          In this page, you have referenced, are books of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad but most of them are in Urdu and persion language. Here ” http://www.alislam.org/books/ English translation of his some books and writings is available and I mostly take extracts of his writings from here.

        • Ignorant Amos

          So the same site full of rubbish, just a different translation of that rubbish…Gotcha.

          So glad you cleared that glaring error up for me. Ta very much.

          Now, what difference does it make to my point?

        • SparklingMoon,

          Mirza Ghulam Ahmad has written:I have publicly announced, having been informed of it by God through revelation, that the real and true Promised Messiah who is also the real Mahdi, tidings of whose appearance are to be found in the Bible and the Quran and whose coming is promised also in the Hadith, is myself; who is, however, not provided with any sword or gun. I have been commanded by God to invite people with humility and gentleness to God, Who is the true God, Eternal and Unchangeable, Who has perfect Holiness, perfect Knowledge, perfect Mercy, and perfect Justice.

          I am the light of this dark age; he who follows me will be saved from falling into the pit prepared by the Devil for those who walk in darkness. I have been sent by God to lead the people of the world to the true God through peace and humility. God has provided me with heavenly signs, for the satisfaction of seekers after truth. He has done wonderful things in my support; He has disclosed to me secrets of the unseen and of the future which, according to the holy books, is the sign of a true claimant to divine office, and He has vouchsafed to me holy and pure Knowledge. Therefore, the souls which hate truth and are pleased with darkness, have turned against me. But I have decided to be sympathetic towards mankind – as far as I can. So, in this age the greatest sympathy for the Christians is that their attention should be called to the true God, Who is free from such defects as being born and having to suffer death and undergo suffering. The greatest sympathy towards Muslims is that they should be reformed morally and that an effort should be made to dispel the false hopes which they entertain in connection with the appearance of a bloody Mahdi and Messiah, which are entirely against the Islamic teachings. Some Muslim scholars of this day that there will appear a Mahdi who will spread Islam at the point of the sword, are all opposed to the Quranic teachings and are the result of greed and selfishness. For a right-minded and truth-loving Muslim to forsake such beliefs or ideas, it should be enough to study carefully the Quran, and to pause, consider and see that the Holy Word of God is quite against holding out a threat of murder to force anyone into the fold of Islam.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Mirza Ghulam Ahmad has written:..yap, yap, yap, yap, yap….blurb.

          Most folk here give zero fucks what fuckwittery some snake oil charlatan writes to any gullible moonbeam that will read or listen to the crap.

          There are any gods amounts of cult leaders selling their crap, trust me, yours is no different to those others that you also would consider selling people a pup.

  • King Dave

    Meanwhile, many atheists believe in the existence of extra terrestrial earth visitors. However there is no such thing as little green men, or Moses’s wives would have gathered a few of them for boarding upon his rickety old ark!