UKC

Noah

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 stp 14 Jul 2014
Haven't seen this yet but after reading the reviews on IMDB it's clearly upset a hell of lot of ignorant American Christians. Their main gripe can be summed up in one comment as: "This is complete fantasy." That made me laugh. As if the whole story isn't complete fantasy to begin with. The Bible story itself is a mutated version of a much earlier flood story from the Epic of Gilgamesh. That story was changed to suit the religion of the time but now Aronofsky has changed it again they're getting all upset.

Anyone seen it? Anything that can upset a load of stupid Americans can't be all bad can it.
 gavmac 14 Jul 2014
In reply to stp:

Yawn. You might not agree with the 'stupid Americans' but you make yourself look a lot more ignorant and stupid by saying things like that.
 The Pylon King 14 Jul 2014
In reply to gavmac:

No, stp is spot on, most of the bible is a revamped version of something else. A bit like Christmas isnt it?

....and as for american christians, well, say no more!!!
Post edited at 21:03
 Edradour 15 Jul 2014
In reply to stp:

I saw this in North America a few months ago. It is, without doubt, the worst film I have ever seen in the cinema. It is laughably bad.
Removed User 15 Jul 2014
In reply to stp:
I watched it a few days ago, it was shit. It's not much more than thinly veiled Christian propaganda but with a twist that tries to make it seem like that's not what's going on.

Emma Watson is in it though which bumps it from 0/10 to 1/10.
Post edited at 09:09
 JayK 15 Jul 2014
In reply to Removed User:

It's worth at least 5/10 for Emma Watson.
 Blue Straggler 15 Jul 2014
In reply to Removed User:

>

> Emma Watson is in it though which bumps it from 0/10 to 1/10.


How so? I've only seen her in "My Week With Marilyn" and she had, sadly, rather little merit in that.

OP stp 15 Jul 2014
In reply to gavmac:

Ignorant of what exactly? Have you ever been to America?

The kind of people I'm referring to are the kind of people that want Sarah Palin for a president. If its OK to call Sarah Palin stupid it surely follows that her supporters must be stupid too.

The Noah story is perhaps the most demonstrably false story in the whole Bible. It shares a similar problem with the story of Santa Claus. How can Santa to visit every child's home (and eat mince pie at each house too) in one night? A bit of simple arithmetic is all that's needed to see the Santa story can't be true.

With Noah the question is how long does it take one man to collect up every species on the planet? Well there's 350,000 species of beetle for starters. If he found a new one everyday that alone would take 958 years, even longer than his own ridiculously long lifespan. Modern science admits it hasn't yet discovered many of the species that exist. Yet Noah managed it in a few weeks? If we restrict the animals to large vertebrates its still absurd: traveling from the rainforests of Brazil, Africa, the Arctic and Antarctic etc. all that travelling done on horse back? There are loads of other problems with the story too: not enough water to flood the earth, the Ark that engineers say could not have been built that big and made of wood ....

The point is if you live your life by these fables and these problems don't even occur to you then I think that suggests there's not a lot going on between one's ears. I think 'stupid' is a reasonable word to use in casual banter on a web forum. You can argue whether they're being willfully stupid or actually have a lower IQs but I think that's besides the point.
Removed User 15 Jul 2014
In reply to Blue Straggler:

Because she's Hermione.
 Cardi 15 Jul 2014
In reply to stp:

I also didn't think it was very good. But I'm also not particularly bothered by myths and legends.
 galpinos 15 Jul 2014
In reply to Blue Straggler:

I thought she was good in "The Perks of Being a Wallflower".
In reply to stp:

You might enjoy the debate on IMDB about Outlander. It's an aliens / Vikings film which offended some people because its portrayal of the Vikings was inaccurate.
In reply to Removed User:
>
> Emma Watson is in it though which bumps it from 0/10 to 1/10.

Yes, I'd give her 1 too.

 graeme jackson 15 Jul 2014
In reply to stroppygob:

She's not as nice as ginny weasely tho.
 Shani 15 Jul 2014
In reply to stp:
> (In reply to gavmac)
> With Noah the question is how long does it take one man to collect up every species on the planet? Well there's 350,000 species of beetle for starters. If he found a new one everyday that alone would take 958 years, even longer than his own ridiculously long lifespan. Modern science admits it hasn't yet discovered many of the species that exist. Yet Noah managed it in a few weeks? If we restrict the animals to large vertebrates its still absurd: traveling from the rainforests of Brazil, Africa, the Arctic and Antarctic etc. all that travelling done on horse back? There are loads of other problems with the story too: not enough water to flood the earth, the Ark that engineers say could not have been built that big and made of wood ....

You are being Theophobic. Your brand of aggressive and shrill atheism is just another belief system.
In reply to stp:

I thought the whole film was very good myself , an interesting take on the modern ecological debate mixed with a interesting religious and theological frame work.

Then again I'm interested in things like that.

I'd class myself as spiritual but not religious.

Can't see why the film would upset so many people

 Thrudge 15 Jul 2014
In reply to stp:
> With Noah the question is how long does it take one man to collect up every species on the planet?

God did it.

> Well there's 350,000 species of beetle for starters.

God did it.

> If we restrict the animals to large vertebrates its still absurd

Not if we allow that God did it.

> There are loads of other problems with the story too: not enough water to flood the earth

There is if God makes it.

> the Ark that engineers say could not have been built that big and made of wood ....

It could if God made it.

> The point is if you live your life by these fables...

...you can 'win' every argument by saying, "God did it". And hey - who doesn't want to be a winner?

For a more concise explanation, see the pigeon:

http://www.flubu.com/blog/2014/02/12/pigeon-chess/

 wintertree 15 Jul 2014
In reply to Shani:

> You are being Theophobic. Your brand of aggressive and shrill atheism is just another belief system.

I assume you are being ironic and not actually asserting that one is "aggressive" and "shrill" for pointing out basic logical inconsistencies in an ancient myth that are so simple a 5 year old could spot them... Go out and ask 5,000 Christians if they believe that the events depicted in the story were ever physically possibly and by your definition you're likely to meet 4,950 aggressive and shrill theophobic's....



OP stp 16 Jul 2014
In reply to Shani:

> You are being Theophobic.

Theophobic?? Had to look that one up as I've never heard of it. No such word. I'm guessing you are trying to suggest something along the lines of homophobia towards religious people. But that's absurd since religion is an ideology that can and is changed over time. Quite different to homosexuality or race or gender which are biological and a person can never change.

Criticizing a person for who or what they are is totally different to criticizing their ideas and beliefs.

Inventing such words is not only manipulative it debases real problems like homophobia. You can apply it to anything: if I criticize the government label me government-phobic, or some scientific research and I'm science-phobic etc.. It's an ad hominem argument whose purpose to shut off criticism and stifle debate. Critics of Israel are sometimes labled anti-semitic in the same way.



 knthrak1982 16 Jul 2014
In reply to stp:

> Well there's 350,000 species of beetle for starters.

You can probably rule out any animal that's likely to start chewing through the hull and bulkheads. That's a lot of insects gone.

and woodpeckers. No woodpeckers.
 Shani 16 Jul 2014
In reply to stp:
> (In reply to Shani)
>
> [...]
> Criticizing a person for who or what they are is totally different to criticizing their ideas and beliefs.

I agree absolutely. (In my original post above I was being 'trollophillic'.)
 graeme jackson 16 Jul 2014
In reply to knthrak1982:

or beavers
 Shani 16 Jul 2014
In reply to graeme jackson:
It just occurred to me that Noah would have had to collect two of pretty much every freshwater and/or saltwater dwelling of species of animal that was not euryhaline.

If the earth was covered in water, it would be largely brine OR freshwater (depending upon what He magicked up), thus affecting stenohaline species.

I don't recall the Bible mentioning Noah's aquarium!

The same reasoning could be extended to plant life...
Post edited at 13:35

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...