Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Saturday March 01 2014, @08:00AM   Printer-friendly
from the you-both-get-dirty-and-the-pig-likes-it dept.

McGruber writes:

"Following up on the Bil Nye and Ken Ham debate on Creationism, Creation Museum founder Ken Ham announced Thursday that a municipal bond offering has raised enough money to begin construction on the Ark Encounter project, estimated to cost about $73 million. Groundbreaking is planned for May and the ark is expected to be finished by the summer of 2016. Ham credits the high-profile evolution debate he had with "Science Guy" Bill Nye on Feb. 4 with boosting support for the project.

After learning that the project would move forward, Nye said he was 'heartbroken and sickened for the Commonwealth of Kentucky,' lamenting that the ark would eventually draw more attention to the beliefs of Ham's Young-earth Creationist ministry. 'Voters and taxpayers in Kentucky will eventually see that this is not in their best interest.' Nye hopes."

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 01 2014, @03:33PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 01 2014, @03:33PM (#9136)
    You're right that this points out some absurdities in the story of Noah Arc. But another way of thinking about it, is that it points out inconsistencies between the way this particular religion is described/interpreted modernly, versus how it was interpreted back when those passages were written.

    With regard to animal well-being, animal rights wasn't really a concept back then. Exterminating untold trillions of animals perhaps wasn't viewed as having any moral downside. It's only modern people, who have internalized the notion that animal's have some rights, that would view God's actions in that story as being immoral. (This is of course just the tip of the iceberg in terms of how God's ancient actions, viewed modernly, are evil.)

    With regard to the power of God, I don't think the christian God was viewed as omnipotent back in the day. For one thing, the world was polytheistic; religions were fighting about whose God/Gods were better, but they often accepted that the other Gods were real. (Even some bible passages suggest that the other Gods were real, just not 'the right God'.) In this context, Gods were not viewed as omnipotent: merely extremely powerful. So the ancient version of the Christian God actually could not just magically make every human on Earth disappear. He could only use things like floods and volcanoes to enact his fury (or try to persuade humans into waging the wars he wanted, etc.).

    The religion has evolved over time, and has been converted into a monotheistic faith that claims God to be omnipotent and omnibenevolent, even though these assertions are directly contradicted by the supposed holy texts.

    All of this of course bolsters the case that the story is ludicrous, and that believing in it doesn't make sense. But it additionally calls into question the internal consistency of the whole religion. The modern version of Christianity (even the version of literalists and Creationists) bears little resemblance to what was practised back when the religion was founded.
    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Informative=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2