The Leaky Noah’s Ark Tale (2 of 2)

The Leaky Noah’s Ark Tale (2 of 2) September 2, 2016

Noah Ark Genesis Bible I’ve collected a few other ideas associated with the Noah story that were too good to pass up. I share them here for your amusement and edification. Part 1 of the critique is here.

Noah … or was it Enoch?

In The Reason-Driven Life (p. 103), Robert Price argues that the original flood story wasn’t about Noah at all.

First, a bit of background about the Old Testament prophet Elijah. Elijah may have initially been a sun god who gradually evolved into merely a great prophet as Judaism became monotheistic (more on Jewish polytheism here). Instead of dying, Elijah was taken into heaven on a fiery sun-like chariot. He was hairy, like the rays of the sun, while his disciple Elisha was bald, suggesting the moon.

There was only one other Old Testament figure taken into heaven without dying, and that was Enoch, great-grandfather to Noah and pictured above. Enoch also began as a sun god, and he lived 365 years (get it?). “Enoch walked with God, and then he disappeared because God took him away” (Genesis 5:24). Enoch made 365 circuits with God and then was taken up into heaven—sounds a bit like the sun.

Noah was originally just the bringer of wine, similar to the Greek Deucalion, who also survived a flood. Gen. 5:29 alludes to Noah’s discovery of wine bringing some comfort to the harsh life that God cursed humanity to. Perhaps the original story was about a sun god defeating a rain god’s flood, but the name of the protagonist was inadvertently switched (Noah instead of Enoch—the spelling is similar), giving us Noah as the hero.

What was going through God’s mind?

Here’s how God begins the project.

[Jehovah] regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. So [Jehovah] said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” (Gen. 6:6–7)

God regrets? God changes his mind? As an omniscient being, why didn’t he see this coming? Speaking of which, why would omniscient God allow Noah’s son Ham to survive the flood since he would be progenitor of the Canaanites (Gen. 10:6–20) who would cause the Israelites so much trouble? Far easier and far more humane than killing the Canaanites tribe by tribe would’ve been to kill Ham.

But in the early days, of course, God was merely powerful, not omniscient. And not particularly benevolent either.

Rick Warren imagines God saying this about Noah, “This guy brings me pleasure. He makes me smile. I’ll start over with his family.” And of course “start over” to this cheerful and genial God means to drown every human outside of Noah’s family—adults, children, and unborn. I wonder what the children could have done to deserve this slow death. Perhaps you can buy drowning people to go with the Noah action figure. Warren’s article is titled, “May God Smile On You,” but for the millions in the Noah story who die, it might as well be titled, “May God Smite You.”

Robert Price says that Warren takes the Bible literally but not seriously. Warren says that the Noah story literally happened, but he’s not about to take it seriously enough to worry about or even consider the consequences.

This reminds me of a Sherman’s Lagoon comic. A guy finds what he thinks is a piece of Noah’s Ark. He’s excited until his friend spots “Made in China” stamped on it. The guy is disappointed, but not because this is devastating counterevidence to his hypothesis. He’s just disappointed to discover that Noah outsourced construction. Like Rick Warren, he won’t let the facts get in the way of his happy hypothesis.

Other Christians aren’t caught in this trap, and they laugh at the Bible literalists. Of course the Noah story isn’t literally true, they’ll say, but it’s still true anyway. But then in what sense is it “true anyway” without being true a literal sense?

The beautiful, benign rainbow

At the end of the flood story, God says, “I will place my bow in the clouds, and it will become a guarantee of the covenant between me and the earth” (Gen. 9:13). Never again will God destroy all living things—by flood, anyway. The “bow in the clouds” is obviously a rainbow, but the word refers to the kind that shoots arrows. This explains why the rainbow looks like a war bow—God has hung up his bow and will no longer use it against mankind.

What started this off in the first place?

What got God so hot under the collar anyway? Why did he insist on drowning everyone and starting over? One pastor has it all figured out.

The last straw for God before He brought the flood was when they started writing wedding songs to homosexual marriage and Jesus said that you’ll know the end times because it will be like the days of Noah. There’s never been a time in the history of the world since before the flood when homosexual marriage has been open and celebrated, and that’s another sign that I believe that we’re close to the end.

As you guessed, like most everything else bad in the world, it’s all the gays’ fault.

[God’s] not good at design, 
he’s not good at execution. 
He’d be out of business 
if there was any competition. 
— Sol Hadden in Carl Sagan’s Contact

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 7/4/13.)

Photo credit: Wikipedia

 

""Christians, on the other hand did just the opposite. They engaged in their culture with ..."

Silver-Bullet Argument #26: Jesus Was Wrong ..."
"You aren't reading bits of the NT (Rorschach Test) in context to get to DC's ..."

Silver-Bullet Argument #26: Jesus Was Wrong ..."
"Perfect.I often wondered where the phrase "caught bang to rights" came from..."

How Much Faith to Be an ..."
"We were always "welsh shouldered" by the grown ups.I don't know whether I have told ..."

How Much Faith to Be an ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • epicurus

    Rats, the link to the pastor has been taken off Youtube. Here is an audio version

    http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/lively-wedding-songs-homosexual-marriage-flood-end-times

  • busterggi

    Yes, just what did piss off Yahweh so much? As the bible doesn’t say what isn’t it inevitable that the same thing will happen?

    • MR

      Well, the Atrahasis (pre-Genesis) says it was because the people became too loud and disturbed the gods’s rest. The head of the block association, aka, Enlil, king of the gods, was, like, “Look what moved into the neighborhood, what are we gonna do about that? Flood, anyone?”

      • busterggi

        That was Enlil’s flood, I was talking about Yahweh’s flood. Every god has their own flood as none of them are good at sharing.

      • Jack Baynes

        Too loud and disturbing god’s rest? Were they constantly praying for God to rig football games for them?

        • Michael Neville

          Car keys, or in those days chariot keys, don’t get found all by themselves.

        • Jack Baynes

          Maybe they should have thought of that before they signed up for the God job.

    • Michael.Pinecone.V2

      “As far as God was concerned, the Earth had become a sewer; there was violence everywhere. God took one look and saw how bad it was, everyone corrupt and corrupting—life itself corrupt to the core.”

      Human violence, the text says. I imagine they were like ISIS x the Nazis x the Romans x the Communists x 100,000!

      • Greg G.

        Genesis 6:1-7 says that the daughters of humans were beautiful so the sons of God married them. That seems to be what made God decide humans were wicked. He was jealous of the beautiful women. The violence and corruption didn’t bother God at all until his sons married them. He must have used that as a rationalization to kill everybody, except that Noah fella who caught his eye.

        But if Genesis 6:2 & 4 say had sons, how could John 3:16 be true when it says Jesus was God’s only begotten son.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          Interesting theory.

          But the text also says:

          “God saw that human evil was out of control. People thought evil, imagined evil—evil, evil, evil from morning to night.”

          It sounds like they were on a path that would lead to not only their own destruction, but the destruction of what few good people were left.

        • adam

          But that was the best path that Perfect GodTM created for them.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          They had the choice and the capacity to do good, or not. It appears they chose to not and were extremely violent instead.

        • adam

          There were after all, only as good as Perfect GodTM made them.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          Or just as bad as their ownTM desires led them to be.

        • Greg G.

          Or just as bad as the desires God created them with.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          Yes. With the capacity to do great things, also comes the capacity to do horrid things.

          Reminds me of the Holocaust survivor Yehiel De-Nur’s quote. At the trial of one of his captors, De-Nur fainted. When later asked if he was overcome by fear or bad memories, he stated he was not.

          “I was afraid about myself. I saw that I am capable to do this. I am … exactly like he.”

        • adam

          Well THAT explains the monster in the bible called “God”

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          It shows what evil lurks in the hearts of human beings. De-Nur faced the reality that he is capable of being just as evil as those people who harmed him.

        • Greg G.

          The God character of the story blamed the humans for being like he made them and killed them for it, including his grandchildren.

        • Michael Neville

          The propaganda usually depicts Ol’ Yahweh as a not too bright thug who kills people because they pissed him off.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          I find what Christine Hayes (who has excellent credentials) remarked about what you touch on:

          “The story of Noah and the flood, which occurs in Genesis 6 through 9 is simply an Israelite version of an older flood story that we have found copies of: a Mesopotamian story called the Epic of Atrahasis [and] a flood story that we also have incorporated in the Epic of Gilgamesh. Biblical traditions have roots that stretch deep into earlier times and out into surrounding lands and traditions, and the parallels between the biblical stories and Ancient Near Eastern stories that they parallel has been the subject of intense study.

          However, it isn’t just the similarity between the biblical materials and the Ancient Near Eastern sources that is important to us. In fact, in some ways it’s the dissimilarity that is remarkably important to us, the biblical transformation of a common Near Eastern heritage in light of its radically new conceptions of God and the world and humankind. We’ll be dealing with this in some depth, but I’ll give you one quick example. We have a Sumerian story about the third millennium BCE, going back 3000 — third millennium, 3000 BCE. It’s the story of Ziusudra, and it’s very similar to the Genesis flood story of Noah. In both of these stories, the Sumerian and the Israelite story, you have a flood that is the result of a deliberate divine decision; one individual is chosen to be rescued; that individual is given very specific instructions on building a boat; he is given instructions about who to bring on board; the flood comes and exterminates all living things; the boat comes to rest on a mountaintop; the hero sends out birds to reconnoiter the land; when he comes out of the ark he offers a sacrifice to the god — the same narrative elements are in these two stories. It’s just wonderful when you read them side by side. So what is of great significance though is not simply that the biblical writer is retelling a story that clearly went around everywhere in ancient Mesopotamia; they were transforming the story so that it became a vehicle for the expression of their own values and their own views. In the Mesopotamian stories, for example, the gods act capriciously, the gods act on a whim. In fact, in one of the stories, the gods say, “Oh, people, they’re so noisy, I can’t sleep, let’s wipe them all out.” That’s the rationale. There’s no moral scruple. They destroy these helpless but stoic humans who are chafing under their tyrannical and unjust and uncaring rule. In the biblical story, when the Israelites told the story, they modified it. It’s God’s uncompromising ethical standards that lead him to bring the flood in an act of divine justice. He’s punishing the evil corruption of human beings that he has so lovingly created and whose degradation he can’t bear to witness. So it’s saying something different. It’s providing a very different message.”

        • adam

          ” It’s God’s uncompromising ethical standards that lead him to bring the flood in an act of divine justice.”

          To himself for himself for that which he created?
          And you buy this?

          “He’s punishing the evil corruption of human beings that he has so
          lovingly created and whose degradation he can’t bear to witness.”

          So ‘He’ does all the creating, and is then disappointed with himself so he kills off all his creation, save a drunkard Noah and his incestuous family.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          I would suggest reading more about Hayes before leaping to those conclusions. I don’t agree with what you are suggesting. I might be wrong. But here specifically she is looking at the differences between the Hebrew stories and the stories of the other nations. We see new ideas begin to evolve out of this group.

        • Greg G.

          But here specifically she is looking at the differences between the Hebrew stories and the stories of the other nations. We see new ideas begin to evolve out of this group.

          All the variations of the story have new ideas evolving in each iteration.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          But there is a stark and dramatic difference from the Hebrews.

        • Greg G.

          SparklingMoon keeps touting the Quran’s stark and dramatic differences, too. Both of you read your Holy Book with a bias.

        • adam

          So your claim is that the bible represents something other that what it claims.

          I agree.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/403e943101a5f775f803d8828cdc3ae67ff347b8fa595f5c8e6918bd2bd55083.jpg

        • adam

          ” We see new ideas begin to evolve out of this group.”

          Yes, and the previous group and the next group.

          I understand what the bible is, and what it has become.

          Postulating a deity out of it is a masochistic endevour.

        • Greg G.

          Yes, that is very interesting.

          In the Mesopotamian stories, for example, the gods act capriciously, the gods act on a whim.

          I think she missed that God in Genesis also acted capriciously and he came to regret it.

          But they modified a lot of stories. Archaeology shows that the culture remained the same when the Bible says the Canaanites were being wiped out by the marauding Hebrews. The archaeological sites shows that the cultures were very similar except that some sites had pig bones and some did not. The Hebrew tradition just grew out of the Canaanite culture.

          They have diligently searched for evidence of the Exodus and found none. There is no evidence that the Jews were ever in Egypt in large numbers. There was no Moses and no Abraham.

          Enoch was probably a sun god. He lived 365 years. See what they did there? Elijah was probably a sun god, being hairy like the sun’s rays. That would make bald Elisha the moon god.

          Samson was another sun god with the hair that gave him power, how he would rise up every morning no matter how Delilah had him bound. I have read that “Samson” is similar to the Hebrew word for “sun” while “Delilah” is similar to the word for “night”. So the story was about how night tried to keep the sun from rising. Some have suggested that there was a solar eclipse (his eyes put out) in the day so everyone ran to the temple to pray and perhaps went to the roof of the temple to watch. About the time the rays of the sun (his hair) were growing on the other side of the moon, the roof collapsed and killed many. The legend of Samson and Delilah came from that.

          That kind of makes you wonder if the talking snake and the talking donkey were true stories, doesn’t it?

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          You should check out her class, recordings of it are available on YouTube.

          “I would point out that the Bible was formulated and assembled and edited and modified and censored and transmitted first orally and then in writing by human beings. The Bible itself doesn’t claim to have been written by God. That belief is a religious doctrine of a much later age. And even then one wonders how literally it was meant — it’s interesting to go back and look at some of the earliest claims about the origin of the biblical text. Similarly, the so-called five books of Moses — Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, the first five books we call the Pentateuch of Moses — nowhere claim to have been written in their entirety by Moses. That’s not something they say themselves. Some laws in Exodus, you know, the Book of the Covenant, a few things — yes, it says Moses wrote those down, but not the whole five books that tradition later will ascribe to him. The Bible clearly had many contributors over many centuries, and the individual styles and concerns of those writers, their political and religious motivations, betray themselves frequently.

          I leave aside here the question of divine inspiration, which is an article of faith in many biblical religions. It’s no doubt an article of faith for people in this very room. But there is no basic incompatibility between believing on faith in the divine inspiration of the Bible and acknowledging the role that human beings have played in the actual formulation and editing and transmission and preservation of that same Bible. And since this is a university course and not perhaps a theological course or within a theological setting, it’s really only the latter, the demonstrably human component, that will concern us.”

          And like she said earlier, it is the dissimilarities that are the most intriguing for her. And me.

        • Greg G.

          Thanks, that sounds interesting, too. Do you have the link? You can paste links here, unlike Ed Brayton’s blog where it gets moderated.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          Yes. And I wasn’t sure what the rules were about links/video. Thanks.

          https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLh9mgdi4rNeyuvTEbD-Ei0JdMUujXfyWi

        • Greg G.

          I had a problem posting once with several links to Amazon book reviews. I assumed Disqus thought it might have been spam for an associate program. But BobS is cool with links.

        • Cygnus

          “I would point out that the Bible was formulated and assembled and edited and modified and censored and transmitted first orally and then in writing by human beings. ”
          ===
          That’s a total nonsensical blabber. The bible was, is and continues to be hallucinogenic interpretation of claims about the existence of God.
          Nobody has a “correct” bible or a “perfect” translation, just “perfect” interpretations made by delusional people or by those who want to control, manipulate or terrorize people.

        • Kingasaurus

          Esau being hairy and Jacob not-so (and them being in conflict) is another example of what you’re talking about.

        • adam

          yes, and from the bible we understand where that capability comes from

          Isaiah 45 7

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          What Jesus added is very relevant, too. “It’s what comes out of a person that pollutes: obscenities, lusts, thefts, murders, adulteries, greed, depravity, deceptive dealings, carousing, mean looks, slander, arrogance, foolishness—all these are vomit from the heart. There is the source of your pollution.”

        • adam

          What Jesus is not God?

          What can come out of a person created by a God, that isnt created by that God?

          God brags about creating evil, then bitches about the whole rest of the book

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          You can create good things. Or evil things. Regardless, it is a reflection of what is going on inside of you.

        • adam

          Yep

          And your God’s creation and mass murder is a reflection of what is going on inside of your “God”

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          More of a reflection of the people who were writing about God, actually. Jesus Christ came to change people’s understanding of God, and in Jesus we see someone who did not come to inflict violence, even when attacked, beaten, spit on, mocked and tortured.

        • adam

          “More of a reflection of the people who were writing about God”

          Since the character God in the bible only writes then 10 commandments and those get changed because God cant spread his message by any other way.

          “actually. Jesus Christ came to change people’s understanding of God,”

          That it want the monster that it was in book 1?

          “actually. Jesus Christ came to change people’s understanding of God,”

          Certainly not about slavery

          “Jesus we see someone who did not come to inflict violence”

          so he didnt ‘come with a sword’?
          didnt preach about violence of the armageddon?
          didnt preach about eternal unrelentess torture?

          Which book about Jesus are you reading?

        • Cygnus

          “You can create good things. Or evil things”
          ==
          We can create even God and how it looks depends on what you smoke.

        • Greg G.

          But the first half of that Mark 7:15 is “there is nothing outside a person that by going in can defile…” Have you ever stopped to wonder how many people died because they believed that? Or how long medical science was delayed because of that? It countered the benefits of ritual cleansing where it actually cleaned things that were consumed.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          He clearly clarified that he was talking about behavior. The context of the discussion had to do with dietary laws that people thought made them good people. Jesus was saying it isn’t these strict dietary laws that make you good, it is what your actions demonstrate.

        • Greg G.

          I don’t think “clearly” is the right word. Someone added Mark 16:9-20 with verse 18 saying that believers would be able to drink any deadly thing. That person apparently didn’t get that message from Mark 7:15. Even today, we have sanke-handling Christian dying from bites and some who drink poison because they believe verse 18.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          Sure, which is believed to be a late interpolation. Clear may be subjective, for sure.

        • Greg G.

          The person who interpolated it believed it. Many people who have read the Bible uncritically believed it ever since.

        • Cygnus

          What Jesus added is very relevant, too. “It’s what comes out of a person that pollutes…”
          ===
          But adam just gave you a quote about what comes out of god: darkness and disaster. Don’t you like to read your bible?

        • Greg G.

          But God didn’t see them that way until after his sons found the women attractive. Then he thought they were all sluts and everybody else was doing evil. But that’s the kind of story a murderer would say on the witness stand in self-defense, or his lawyers, the Hebrew priests.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          Wow. I never knew that. Thanks for filling me in with those understandings.

        • Greg G.

          Just remember that it is a fictional story. You can read it any way you like.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          No shit, Greg. 🙂

        • Susan

          No shit, Greg.

          Then, we might as well be talking about Pandora.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          Sure! Or we could talk about Enlightenment myths about the “Dark Ages”. I’m game for it all. 🙂

        • Susan

          I’m game for it all.

          If you are willing to be consistent about mythical claims, I am happy to do so.

          But you already snuck in that “actually. Jesus Christ came to change people’s understanding of God,” without showing any effort to separate it from all the myths that people refer to across the ages.

          You might as well say “Pandora came to unleash bad things and hope on the world”.

        • Michael.Pinecone.V2

          I’m logging off for some time. I get what you are saying. If you are still around next month I can continue you on with this. Because it is a topic that I’m interested in.

          If you are interested in my understanding, this gentleman expands on it in a very sufficient and excellent way:

          https://sojo.net/articles/god-biggest-serial-killer-all-time-response-friendly-atheist

          Thanks and peace out!

        • Susan

          I’m logging off for some time.

          Sadly, this is a theist pattern. When they are asked for specific lines of demarcation, they have to go. I’m not saying that’s what motivates you. It’s the internet. Meat space calls. We all understand that.

          I will say that after many years, no theist has returned with
          consistent standards they will subject their own claims to. .

          The few who do return, return and hit the reset button as though the question was never asked.

          Most don’t return.

          It’s a perfectly honest and obvious question. I wish theists would have thought about that question before they show up and start going on about stuff. .

          Many, many of us here are ex-theists.

          You seem like a nice enough guy in some ways. But nice guys believe in magnetic bracelets, in the Loch Ness Monster, in honour killings, that they were abducted by aliens.

          Not checking your work and showing it just makes you a nice enough guy who annoys the hell out of other nice people who often have done their work and can show it.

          Thanks for the link to the lecture. It’s very interesting in an “ideas that shaped history” sort of way.

          But that doesn’t make those ideas true in any sense.

          I hope you come back and that you don’t hit the reset button when you return.

        • Rudy R

          He’s just another theist who pops on here to teach us atheists the errors in our ways, but find out the errors in their ways, so leave the combox as quickly as they popped on.

        • Cygnus

          The Dark Ages is a name given to the period from the fall of the Roman Empire to about 1000. And it pisses me off. Everyone’s always picking on the eighth, ninth and tenth centuries, like nothing good ever happened then. Let me tell you, anyone who thinks those centuries were bad is going feel some pain. Historians are careful to use the term Dark Ages because it is a dangerously misleading term — “dangerous” because I will put my foot up their asses if they use it.
          In fact, the so-called “Dark Ages” were full of scientific breakthroughs that you never get down on your knees and thank Jesus for.

        • Greg G.

          I accept the Dark Ages label because in the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries, they started reading fifteen hundred year old Greek writings and advanced by trying to catch up to the Greeks.

        • Cygnus

          Yet you know me, and that I laugh at those who think that Dark Ages is just a myth, especially cat’licks

    • Jack Baynes

      You would think He’d be pretty explicit about that.
      This is what pissed me off enough to flood the world, you should try not to do that again…

  • Jim Jones

    > There’s never been a time in the history of the world since before the
    flood when homosexual marriage has been open and celebrated,

    WTF? The RCC used to marry men until they came up with not to. Is this guy ignorant or a liar?

    • wtfwjtd

      “Is this guy ignorant or a liar?”

      Yes.

    • MNb

      Post fact explanations always work. Back in those days the pastor’s god looked away from it because there were sufficient holy men and women to please him.

  • MR

    Elijah seems to have initially been a sun god who gradually evolved into merely a great prophet as Judaism became monotheistic

    Bob, your Wikipedia link on Elijah doesn’t seem to support your statement. It says that Elijah is associated with Helios, the sun, starting in the fifth century. From the context I believe it means A.D. Is there another tradition that dates back further?

    • Good question. I’m away from my desk at the moment and will have to follow up later.

      • MR

        You haven’t forgotten about me, I hope.

        • I’m in London. Just got back from a couple of hours at Speakers Corner in Hyde Park. I return home Thursday.

        • MR

          Oh, okay, no worries. Just curious. It’s an interesting take.

        • I can’t find any reference that contradicts your concern. I’ve made a note so that I’ll avoid this problem in the future. Thanks.

        • MR

          Errr…, okay….

        • I’ve updated the “sun god” link to point to the relevant passage in Price’s book.

        • MR

          Ah, thanks!

  • wtfwjtd

    So God’s most advanced weapon of war was a bow and arrow? Heh. Oh yeah, mankind hadn’t invented gunpowder yet, so I guess “god” was stuck with existing technology. Interesting coincidence, how “god” always seems to reflect, and is always limited by, the prevailing technology and culture of the time.

    • Rudy R

      Where do you think Star Trek got its concept of the Prime Directive of non-interference?

    • Odd Jørgensen

      The LORD was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots fitted with iron.(Judges 1:19)

      Maybe gawd was a fairy?

  • MR

    As you guessed, like most everything else bad in the world, it’s all the gays’ fault.

    Could God have been acting out because he was suppressing certain…, feelings? I mean, to carry around a rainbow-colored bow and arrow…. Just sayin’.

    • Michael Neville

      Yahweh hangs around with Jesus and the apparently neuter Holy Ghost but there’s never any mention of Mrs. Yahweh. There’s hints and rumors of Asherah but nothing definitive. Plus it’s telling that Jesus hangs out at the YMCA.

      • MR

        Oh, she’s there, but, like the good Jewish mother, keeps it all to herself, looks the other way, suffers in silence…. Meanwhile, Yah’s on the down low with his Grindr app, callin’ in, “I’ll be home late, gotta flood to take care of….” Mm-hmmm.

    • Cygnus

      yup, God was in love with his son. God didn’t even slept with Mary, he sent some fucking Holy Spirit.

      • MR

        Cygnus, you and I really don’t have the kind of relationship that you can play off my comments. I think you’re a douche. Let’s keep it contentious. Thanks.

        • Cygnus

          Get a life, I am not answering to “your” comments, just to idiotic ideas you spew, nothing personal. I have the freedom of expression, and opinion about any idea. Get over it, I am not looking for some weird kind of interpersonal relationship with you. Duh!

        • MR

          Cygnus, don’t respond to my comments unless you’re countering what I have to say. As I said, you’re a douche. Fuck off, dude.

        • Cygnus

          What a sore pathetic kind of mentality you have… *your* comments.
          Ideas are circulating in blogs, ideas are discussed, not people. This is not a blog to find friends because you are a lone screw up and you want people to kiss you up so you they won’t get your “wrath”.
          If you don’t like with what idea I respond to your ideas, just fuck off. I give you back your advice. You need it to calm down.

        • MR

          Fuck off, Cygnus.

        • Cygnus

          LOL! “How should I fuck off, my Lord?” LOL!
          I pity your sorry ass.

        • Kodie

          Some people just don’t like you, get it? I don’t understand what it is about PEOPLE, when you get the opportunity, to piss people off MORE THAN YOU ALREADY DO, FOR FUN. I really don’t know why people think that makes you cool.

        • Cygnus

          Here I don’t give a flying duck about people, this is not “christian, muslim, or jews mingle”, here I like to reply to funny, interesting or moronic ideas, and debate, analyze ideas NOT people.
          If some people are so brainwashed or deluded into thinking that an idea they hold is absolute and perfect and others should accept it.. well, they are retarded. So if they don’t like how I answer to their ideas, they can kiss my arse.

        • MR

          Nah, I’m just messing with you so people are reminded what a douche you are. “Poke it again! Poke it again!” Don’t forget to take you meds, loon.

        • Cygnus

          “…people are reminded what a douche you are…”
          ===
          Parlez-vous français, my darling douchebag ? Oh, I hurt your feeling and you can’t get over it? You poor pathetic lost soul.

        • MR

          Nope, I’m good. Keep showing your douchery.

        • Cygnus

          OK, you got your last word and an upvote. Your life purpose has been attained.

        • MR

          Back on your meds? That’s good.

  • Sophia Sadek

    The orthodox are especially adept at glossing over the distinctions between Elohim and Yahweh. The former are associated with the Pagan solar deity and the latter is associated with the Pagan deity of inundation. Conflating them into a single deity was a big mistake.

  • Uzza

    It’s weird how all the creation myths seem to have god regret making people, wipe them out, and start over.
    The Mayan’s God did it three times; made people out of mud (no good) then wood (still no good) and finally out of corn (ok).
    There was a flood too, for the wooden people, but they didn’t die, they turned into monkeys.

    • Cygnus

      Only christians don’t know that the bible was plagiarized from old religions. Then when christians came in totalitarian power tried to destroy other cultures and religions.

  • Brent

    At the end of the flood story, God says, “I will place my bow in the clouds, and it will become a guarantee of the covenant between me and the earth” (Gen. 9:13). Never again will God destroy all living things—by flood, anyway.

    And there is also Gen. 8:21, which says in part, “the Lord said in his heart, ‘I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done. …'” Note the word “for”.

    So let’s see: Man’s heart is evil (Gen. 6:5), so I’ll send the flood (Gen. 6:7); man’s heart is evil, so I’ll never send a flood again (Gen. 8:21). WTF?

    And then consider the reason why “the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth” in the first place–most Christians believe that’s because of original sin and the curse, which were implemented by this same supposedly omni* God.

  • Jack Baynes

    But then in what sense is it “true anyway” without being true a literal sense?

    I guess it’s just a threat. If we piss God off enough, he’ll totally take the whole world out.

    Then someone wrote Revelation and said. “Yes. God is DEFINITELY going to do destroy the world. It’s just a matter of when”

  • Cygnus

    “[Jehovah] regretted that he had made human beings on the earth,”
    ===
    Well, God had no father and was drunkenly mad because of that. Sometime God drank like an depressed alcoholic because God didn’t know how a father should behave. When God woke up, of course he’s almighty ass was sorry, or sore. Whatever came first.
    I described God in the past, when it existed in the minds of deluded.

  • Greg G.

    Dog rescued from rubble more than a week after Italian quake

    It’s a miracle that the article doesn’t claim it was a miracle. Hmmm, maybe it’s only a miracle if it’s a human or a Bible that gets rescued.

    • Myna A.

      Well, if it was a cat, my mother would claim it a miracle.

  • eric

    Elijah seems to have initially been a sun god who gradually evolved into merely a great prophet as Judaism became monotheistic (more on Jewish polytheism here).
    Instead of dying, Elijah was taken into heaven on a fiery sun-like
    chariot. He was hairy, like the rays of the sun, while his disciple
    Elisha was bald, suggesting the moon.

    Elisha also has the distinction of being, I believe, the only not-Jesus person in the bible to resurrect other people. And he didn’t even intend to do it! Check out 2 Kings 13:21. For a skeptic, this is a somewhat handy reference to have, because some Christians will occasionally claim that only Jesus could do this and it shows he was God, or that the New Testament’s stories about Jesus are so very different from earlier stories that this lends them credibility. Response: nope, and nope.

    • Odd Jørgensen

      Back in the day, raising people from the dead were so common it got boring, so people simply stopped documenting it.

      • Kodie

        Back in the day, they more commonly began the burials for people who weren’t actually dead yet. This was a startling occurrence and they made a bad guess, but eventually, they figured out those people didn’t come back from the dead, and started to put some checks in place to try to avoid burying anyone who wasn’t dead.

        Ross: “No, no, she’s gone.”

        Monica: “We checked. A lot.”

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

  • Gregory Peterson

    Of course when I was young, there were those who claimed that God caused the flood because of “miscegenation.” Apparently, the Nephilim were apparently rather swarthy, or something.

    It’s always something.

  • Orion Dumptee

    hmmm,Enoch made 365 circuits with gawd? That musta been one hellava vaudeville routine…

  • Myna A.

    What if God threw a flood and no one came? I found this question at: https://cognitivediscopants.wordpress.com/2012/03/24/what-if-god-threw-a-flood-and-no-one-came/

    • Odd Jørgensen

      true to form, the goobers are in the comment section there, with their “just a theory, not a fact” nonsense about evolution.