First Look at Noah
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-08-2012, 10:07 PM
RE: First Look at Noah
Honestly, I'm kinda happy about this. Hopefully this will help future generations file Noah's Ark under FICTION!!!

But anyway, Russel Crowe as Noah? Does this mean his career is... puts on sunglasses... all washed up? (YEAAAAAAHHHH!!!)

[Image: 553193_635722216633_1026343474_n.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Science Believer's post
17-08-2012, 10:24 AM
RE: First Look at Noah
(16-08-2012 09:55 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  He didn't, at least not according to theologians. Bugs wouldn't be considered "creeping things that creep upon the earth", especially if they fly. The general assumption is that they floated on broken trees or some such objects.
Ah, thank you for that bit of education. I hadn't heard that before. But already the skeptic in me is asking how it could be that all those days and nights of rain wiped out every human and animal who were not on that ark, but somehow didn't wipe out insects clinging to floating objects. And surely they couldn't fly above the rain while it was pelting down so hard that it filled the entire earth in such a short span of time.

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2012, 06:33 PM
RE: First Look at Noah
(14-08-2012 09:27 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  ...the director is an atheist.

The Passion had an ulterior motive. The Gospel of John had an ulterior motive. Fireproof had an ulterior motive.

Noah does not.

oh KC. Sorry - I am new in town and you seem like a nice person - not particularly sensible, but nice, so I hate to become your nemesis. Maybe I can't help myself - who knows, it just seems inevitable.

OK - I already started, so lets take this on as well, just to get it over with, while it is fresh.

Can we please start with the definition of ulterior? I am afraid this is already a point of contention. And yes - I am that guy that posts a definition from the dictionary:

ul·te·ri·or/ˌəlˈti(ə)rēər/
Adjective:
Existing beyond what is obvious or admitted; intentionally hidden: "an ulterior motive behind his request".
Beyond what is immediate or present;

The Passion had a perfectly obvious motive - to stir up a hatred for the jews.
The Gospel of John seems obvious - to promote the "Jesus plan" and make it seem credible.
Kirk Cameron (Fireproof) - has the imagination for an ulterior motive? Be real. He has the creative capacity of a small rock or maybe a lawn chair.

So yes I disagree completely. Your counter examples are wrong and you completely missed the ulterior motive of Noah - which is to glorify the senseless murder of innocent babies et al.

The story of Noah is a "subtle" part of Christian brainwashing that serves to numb its followers into a feeling that its OK for "god" to be a homicidal manic and admitted psychopath. You can tell its an ulterior motive because even though the homicidal fury is an undeniable part of the story, Christians universally excuse it or deny it.

The Noah brainwashing usually starts in childhood where cute Noah toys are given to the child to numb their moral sensibilities like Novocaine to an open nerve. This experience is enhanced by lively and joyful songs that portray the gory story as innocent and glorious.

When this brainwashing is complete - otherwise perfectly decent and human individuals will cheerfully profess it is one of their favorite stories of the Bible. They are oblivious to the irony and delusional gymnastics when they then go on to condemn things like 9/11 and Islam for much less wanton destruction.

The story of Noah is ulterior motive incarnate.
.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RR Edwards's post
17-08-2012, 07:26 PM
RE: First Look at Noah
(17-08-2012 10:24 AM)Impulse Wrote:  
(16-08-2012 09:55 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  He didn't, at least not according to theologians. Bugs wouldn't be considered "creeping things that creep upon the earth", especially if they fly. The general assumption is that they floated on broken trees or some such objects.
Ah, thank you for that bit of education. I hadn't heard that before. But already the skeptic in me is asking how it could be that all those days and nights of rain wiped out every human and animal who were not on that ark, but somehow didn't wipe out insects clinging to floating objects. And surely they couldn't fly above the rain while it was pelting down so hard that it filled the entire earth in such a short span of time.

I know. I can come up with at least 3 examples off the top of my head of insects that couldn't survive this way. I don't agree with it either, but it is the current theology.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: