Hope for your project - a little off topic.

Discussion in 'C++' started by woodbrian77@gmail.com, Jun 9, 2013.

  1. David Brown Guest

    That's consistent, I suppose.

    However, I think it makes more sense to divide the Bible stories into
    three fairly obvious categories.

    One is the divine or supernatural parts - such as Jesus rising from the
    dead. That sort of thing is clearly a matter of belief and not
    scientific, but still has to be accepted as basically factual if you are
    a believer at all.

    Another group is the historical stuff - things like the records of the
    kings of Israel, or the letters to the early Christian church. These
    are probably at least partly based on real lives and events, though
    highly biased (as many histories are) and almost entirely without
    third-party corroboration. Much of these parts are not particularly
    relevant anyway.

    Finally, there are the myths, allegories, legends, fairy tales, and
    parables. This includes the creation myths, Noah's arch, and much of
    the books of Moses. If you treat these the way most religions treat
    their myths (including the way almost all Christians treated them until
    a couple of centuries ago), they are stories to describe God, his
    relationship to people, his strengths, his weaknesses, and how he wants
    people to behave. It is pointless to try to view these things as "real"
    events - it involves so much waving of magic wands and divine
    intervention that it becomes meaningless as "real" events, and you lose
    all purpose and teaching from the story. When Jesus told the parable of
    the lost sheep, he did not mean it literally - the same applies to the
    old prophets talking about Noah's ark and similar tales.

    If you believe in a creator God, and you believe he cares for you, then
    you have /got/ to believe he gave you rational sense for a purpose and
    expects you to use it. If he wanted you to have blind faith in what
    people tell you, he'd have made you a North Korean.
     
    David Brown, Apr 29, 2014
    #61
    1. Advertisements

  2. David Brown Guest

    No, the History Channel is a lot more accurate and entertaining. But
    the Daily Mail has more scantily clad women.
     
    David Brown, Apr 29, 2014
    #62
    1. Advertisements

  3. David Brown Guest

    It's been a number of years since I've had the History Channel, so maybe
    it's gone downhill. It is certainly possible to make accurate
    documentaries about what people /think/ about UFOs, ghosts, etc. - there
    is plenty of scope for good history about the place of such things in
    societies. But the History Channel suffers from the same problem as
    Discovery, Nat Geo, etc., in that Americans like to portray all opinions
    as equally valid. If you can mentally filter out the crackpot opinions,
    which are usually obvious, you can get real information from the
    programs. (The Cosmos series seems to be an exception - I've only seen
    a couple of the programs so far, but the crackpot opinions are mentioned
    briefly to show that they are wrong.)

    And sometimes these channels show BBC documentaries, which are always
    accurate :)
     
    David Brown, Apr 30, 2014
    #63
  4. David Brown Guest

    Last I checked, "iplayer" doesn't work outside the UK (which is not
    unreasonable - I pay TV license fees to the Norwegian equivalent, NRK,
    but I don't pay TV license fees to the BBC). Also last I checked,
    iplayer needs Windows.

    But I get "BBC Knowledge" in my TV package, and a fair number of BBC
    documentaries are shown on the Norwegian NRK national channels (a number
    of them are made as cooperations between BBC and NRK).

    I would probably watch the occasional program from the History Channel
    if I got it (but not "Reality" TV and other nonsense), but I can live
    without it.


    But back to the point - based on your description of the History
    Channel, the Daily Mail is still a worse source of information!
     
    David Brown, Apr 30, 2014
    #64
  5. Guest

    I'm doing my best here. Sorry if it doesn't help you.
    I not a historian. But yes, I believe G-d helped Noah
    in a variety of ways to be successful in the job he'd
    given him. This is also my experience with what I've
    been working on. G-d has led the way.
    I believe Noah endured similar mocking of his faith
    while he built the ark. Some probably thought the
    work was crazy.


    Brian
    Ebenezer Enterprises - In G-d we trust.
    http://webEbenezer.net
     
    , Apr 30, 2014
    #65
  6. seeplus Guest

    Just the one thing about the ridiculous bible story:

    There are now about 90 species in the whale family.

    The top 12 whales avg over 85 tonnes each, some are 200 tonnes.
    So just 12 of them weigh about 1000 tonnes.
    You need 2 of each on board = 2,000 tonnes.
    Now you can't just put these things down on a piece of damp towelling.

    They would need at least 10 times their own volume of water = 20,000 tonnes
    of sea water displacement for just those animals.

    The larger whales eat over 3 tonnes of krill a day.
    For 180 whales that is about 16,000 tonnes a month.
    The ships displacement now is 38,000 tonnes, to cater for 1 month.
    And 30,000 tonnes of poop a month to clean up, or about 1,000 tonnes a day.

    But then the magic guy with a broom could do his miracles again.

    How do you create that daily feed from just 2 krill?

    How does that guy Noah's mob manage to wrangle these things on board ...
    and get them individually penned. Promise not to mock ... if there is some sane explanation.

    Be interesting <not> to see Ken Ham's interpretation.

    Most religions say that their magic book is the word of their <insert magic author's name> god.

    If the magic book is just so absurdly wrong here, then how can anybody believe any of that other stuff in there?
     
    seeplus, May 1, 2014
    #66
  7. Qu0ll Guest

    "seeplus" wrote in message

    [snip]
    The whales are aquatic and hence were less prone to the effects of well...
    more water.

    They stayed in the water like the fish and all other sea-dwelling creatures.

    Sane enough for you?

    --
    And loving it,

    -Qu0ll (Rare, not extinct)
    _________________________________________________

    [Replace the "SixFour" with numbers to email me]
     
    Qu0ll, May 1, 2014
    #67
  8. Ian Collins Guest

    The one that used to flummox my RE teacher at school was a) where did
    all the water com from and b) where did it all go?

    If it cam from rain, the rain would have had to come form evapourated
    water, see where this is going?
     
    Ian Collins, May 1, 2014
    #68
  9. seeplus Guest

    To quote the book of myths.

    Genesis 7 >NKJV:
    "and I will destroy from the face of the earth all living things that I have made"

    Yes... the guy's just not sane, AND he did not say anything about leaving the whales alone did he?

    Of course if your particular cult considers the whales "clean", then there would be 7 of each aboard. Ken's ark is now the size of a medium modern tanker.
     
    seeplus, May 1, 2014
    #69
  10. Qu0ll Guest

    "seeplus" wrote in message
    The "face of the earth"could of course refer to the land ("earth") as
    clearly if a flood is His M.O. then flooding would not have much of a
    negative impact on animals that already live *in* the water.
    As I have said many times, I for one do not believe that the story of Noah
    is a fact-by-fact account of what happened and is more a statement of the
    way the situation appeared to the peoples of the time. Much of the Bible is
    like this and I have no problem with this. Also, as stated, many Biblical
    events such as this one could only have happened in a manner even remotely
    similar to how they were described if there was considerable divine
    intervention.

    But that's what we are talking about: God who is divine so once you accept
    that then there is absolutely no point in trying to argue over apparent
    scientific anomalies.

    Divine power cannot be explained by science and does not appear to be
    governed by scientific laws so why bother trying to somehow combine them or
    use one against the other in futile arguments?

    --
    And loving it,

    -Qu0ll (Rare, not extinct)
    _________________________________________________

    [Replace the "SixFour" with numbers to email me]
     
    Qu0ll, May 1, 2014
    #70
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.