Ken Ham wants to "Wash the evil off me" after seeing "Noah" movie

Posted 28 March 2014 by Dave Thomas

Well, AiG's Ken Ham has seen the movie "Noah" starring Russell Crowe, and boy, is he steamed!

Friends, I just arrived home after seeing the Hollywood (Paramount) movie NOAH tonight. It is MUCH much worse than I thought it would be. Much worse. The Director of the movie, Darren Aronofsky has been quoted in the media as saying NOAH is 'the least biblical biblical film ever made', I agree wholeheartedly with him. I am disgusted. I am going to come right out and say it-it is disgusting and evil-paganism! Do you really want your family to see a pagan movie the has Noah as some psychopath who says if his daughter-in-law's baby is a girl, he will kill it as soon as it's born. And then when two girls are born, bloodstained Noah (the man the Bible calls righteous Noah-Genesis 7:1), brings a knife down to one of the baby's heads to kill it and at the last minute doesn't do it-and then a bit later says he failed because he didn't kill the babies. How can we recommend this movie and then speak against abortion! Psychopathic Noah sees humans as a blight on the planet and wants to rid the world of people. I feel dirty-as if I have to somehow wash the evil off me.

I cannot believe there are Christian leaders who have recommended people see this movie. It's as if someone heard the name Noah, that there was a Flood and and Ark and then made a pagan movie up about it. I don't think there is anything else that really has to do with the Bible's account except some names of people! Methuselah is some sort of witchdoctor who can do magical things. There is so much more I could say about it-so much more. And what's with the bizarre fallen angels being living rocks helping Noah?? I suggest you join us tomorrow night for our live stream at 8 pm EST. A number of AiG researches watched the movie tonight and four of us will be on the live stream to explain what we saw and heard. I am SO GLAD my wife did not come with me to see this-she would have been terribly upset. I feel violated as a Christian. Regardless of what others say-I just had to come right out and say this. Oh-it is also a boring movie-yes boring! Worst movie I think I've ever seen. That's my personal take-join us tomorrow night for our discussion of NOAH. The movie begins with (and has the same statement later on): 'In there beginning there was nothing' The Bible states 'In the beginning God.' That really sums up the difference!

Discuss.

128 Comments

Charley Horse · 28 March 2014

Psychopathic Yahweh sees humans as a blight on the planet and wants to rid the world of people, kittens, puppies....
There...fixed that.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 28 March 2014

The persecutions continue.

Now go out and build your Ark Park complete with the screams of the babies that God kills, Ken. That should make you feel better.

Glen Davidson

prongs · 28 March 2014

Ken Ham said: I feel dirty-as if I have to somehow wash the evil off me.

I feel the same way after a visit to the AiG website.

John Harshman · 28 March 2014

But they were evil babies, so it's OK.

SWT · 28 March 2014

prongs said:
Ken Ham said: I feel dirty-as if I have to somehow wash the evil off me.
I feel the same way after a visit to the AiG website.

Ken Ham said: I feel violated as a Christian.

I feel the same way after a visit to the AiG website.

CJColucci · 28 March 2014

So it's an "unbiblical fantasy" ... as opposed to a biblical fantasy?

DS · 28 March 2014

Funny thing, there was a YEC on my campus last night. He gave a talk entitled "Evidence for a World WIde flood". He gave away two tickets to the movie "Noah" as a door prize. I guess he loved the movie. Perhaps the big tent is starting to show some signs of ripping apart. In all fairness, he probably had not seen the movie yet before he had decided to give away tickets. I guess he just thought that anything with a magic flood must be good. It will be interesting to see if he renounces the movie after he sees it. If so, I guess he will feel really bad about giving out those tickets. If not, I guess Kenny boy will have another debate on his hands, this time with an irate YEC.

Karen S. · 28 March 2014

I feel violated as a Christian.

I think most reasonable Christians feel violated after listening to K-Ham's b.s. I know I do. If he hates it this much, it must be pretty good, so I'll probably borrow it from the library when it's out on DVD.

I feel dirty-as if I have to somehow wash the evil off me.

That's a tall order, and would require another world-wide flood.

Karen S. · 28 March 2014

Ironically, there will be plenty of floods if we don't do something about global warming, which is something the creationists deny.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/g_jqEg0ksIAZZ5mg15fwOz7qqbbg#0eec2 · 28 March 2014

After reading the NY Times review of the film:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/28/movies/russell-crowe-confronts-lifes-nasty-weather-in-noah.html
I would like to see it. Ken Ham's "review" doesn't dissuade me.

But, it's so *evil* because it portrays Noah as almost killing babies, but doesn't... unlike God who, according to Genesis and Exodus (and elsewhere) is all too happy to kill off scads of babies (and everyone else)?????

SLC · 28 March 2014

So far, it has received a rating of 7.3 on IMDB, which is not too bad.

http://goo.gl/Se0UD8

TomS · 28 March 2014

An unidentified editor has just posted what claims to be the plot of the movie on Wikipedia Noah (movie)#Plot. It fits what little I'd seen elsewhere, but this as a first draft it is subject to change (or even deletion).

Kevin B · 28 March 2014

Perhaps Ham is worried that people who've seen the film will find the Ark Park tame by comparison.

nobodythatmatters · 28 March 2014

So it's a terrible and boring movie and we shouldn't see it, but we should totally tune in to hear him and his buddies who did see it talk about it?

If the movie is so awful and boring, why would i want to hear people talk about it?

To be honest, the only reason i would even entertain seeing it is because i like Darren Aronofsky's work in general. Biblical epics are always dull films. The fact that it's not very biblical might actually make it more interesting.

FL · 28 March 2014

Further compounding the troubles with the film was the depiction of Noah and his relationship with God. Noah comes off as a psychopathic murderer who is too weak to carry out what he believes is his God-given task. This problem arises because God does not speak clearly to Noah but expects him to assemble a puzzle from a few dreams and visions. Noah, who is willing to murder three men to save one animal, interprets these dreams to mean he is to save “the innocents”—the animals—and kill all of the humans so that the creation can be restored to the way God intended it. Here the filmmakers distort the character of Noah, described as a preacher of righteousness (2 Peter 2:5), and being a faithful and just man (Genesis 6:9; Hebrews 11:7), as well as the character of God who, in the film, cannot communicate clearly with His prophet. That is not faithful to the essence, values, and integrity of God’s Word regardless of what Paramount Pictures claims.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/noah-movie/review-noah-movie-unbiblical FL

Robert Byers · 28 March 2014

I never go to movies as they are terrible and so only later word of mouth constancy motivates me to seek them out otherwise.
Its only a story and movies shouldn't matter more then the prestige of a good story. if they are right or wrong its irrelevant.
Can't agree with ham on this or it mattering.
I know many evangelicals who are planning on watching it because its NOAH.
I guess its a tougher and sexier Noah.
There is so much now and in the past wrong about hollywood as to make any complaint on any movie silly.
Its the left wing that insists movies show the right conclusions and agendas in the story's.
They are the ones who beleive and desire movie makers to have moral and intellectual and political influence.
Normal people should not believe or desire this.
A story is just a story from story teller. thats it folks.
Otherwise everyone at all times was right to control what Hollywood does. its come up before but its all stupid to care except to complain about offensive or message. But don't get excited.
I think a Noah movie , by a YEC, might of been better then the ark park. Bigger audience and around for ever.

Dave Thomas · 28 March 2014

It's only about an hour until Ken Ham vents in a live stream.

I'm sure Answers in Genesis would appreciate my linking to their live stream - but you folks are intelligent enough to find it if you really want to ! (But, aren't you a little concerned with having such masochistic tendencies?).

Mike Waldteufel · 28 March 2014

Noah is a fictional character, and so is his god. Good thing for humanity, too . . .'cause that god character in the Wholly Babble is a psychotic and megalomaniacal mass murderer.

bigdakine · 28 March 2014

Well Hell's bells Ken. Thanks.

I will see it now.

Ian Derthal · 28 March 2014

Down with this sort of thing.........

Ian Derthal · 28 March 2014

Well Hell’s bells Ken. Thanks. I will see it now.

Indeed, that's what always happens when you kick up a fuss about things on religious grounds. A line from Father Ted: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xode1p_father-ted-1x03-the-passion-of-saint-tibulus-vost-fr_fun "Congratulations. You've made this film the most successful since Jurassic Park. They're coming from all over the country to see the film. They're even coming from Gdansk to see the film". http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/bible-spoof-play-ban-makes-northern-ireland-a-laughing-stock-29946077.html

prongs · 28 March 2014

nobodythatmatters said: Biblical epics are always dull films. The fact that it's not very biblical might actually make it more interesting.

The Ten Commandments, with Charlton Heston as Moses and Yul Brenner as Pharaoh, is coming soon to a television set near you. (Strange that every Easter we get to see a movie about a Jewish Myth.) This is one of the finest of Hollywood classics. Don't miss it. It is a gem. When Anne Baxter as Nefretiri moans, "Moses, Moses", you know what she's asking for. What a great movie. So subtle. So Jewish. I love it.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/g_jqEg0ksIAZZ5mg15fwOz7qqbbg#0eec2 · 28 March 2014

Mike Waldteufel said: Noah is a fictional character, and so is his god. Good thing for humanity, too . . .'cause that god character in the Wholly Babble is a psychotic and megalomaniacal mass murderer.

Yeah, we're already chock-full of non-fictional megalomaniacal mass murderers sadly.

cmb · 28 March 2014

John Harshman said: But they were evil babies, so it's OK.

And now I can't get Alice Cooper's song "Dead Babies" out of my mind.

prongs · 28 March 2014

SWT said:
prongs said:
Ken Ham said: I feel dirty-as if I have to somehow wash the evil off me.
I feel the same way after a visit to the AiG website.

Ken Ham said: I feel violated as a Christian.
I feel the same way after a visit to the AiG website.

Don't think I could ever shake hands with Ken Ham, but I'd be honored to shake hands with SWT.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 28 March 2014

cmb said:
John Harshman said: But they were evil babies, so it's OK.
And now I can't get Alice Cooper's song "Dead Babies" out of my mind.

"Can't take things off the shelf" The pathos! Glen Davidson

phhht · 28 March 2014

FL said:
Further compounding the troubles with the film was the depiction of Noah and his relationship with God. Noah comes off as a psychopathic murderer who is too weak to carry out what he believes is his God-given task. This problem arises because God does not speak clearly to Noah but expects him to assemble a puzzle from a few dreams and visions. Noah, who is willing to murder three men to save one animal, interprets these dreams to mean he is to save “the innocents”—the animals—and kill all of the humans so that the creation can be restored to the way God intended it. Here the filmmakers distort the character of Noah, described as a preacher of righteousness (2 Peter 2:5), and being a faithful and just man (Genesis 6:9; Hebrews 11:7), as well as the character of God who, in the film, cannot communicate clearly with His prophet. That is not faithful to the essence, values, and integrity of God’s Word regardless of what Paramount Pictures claims.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/art[…]e-unbiblical

Poor old FL. A quasi-religious film like Hollywood Noah puts him in an uncomfortable spot. He already has difficulty distinguishing fiction from reality (e.g. Unsolved Mysteries), but he still feels dissonance when an alternative Hollywood Noah story clashes with the Biblical Noah. FL is too impaired to confront the dissonance directly, too incapable of explaining his own point of view or articulating his own opinion of the Hollywood Noah version of his myth, so to allay the dissonance, he seeks succor in the borrowed opinions of the authorities at AiG. FL is too rigid to accommodate the notion of different but equally valid versions of his mythic fiction, or even of different opinions about a particular version or fragment. It's gotta be FL's second-hand interpretation or the hiway to hell, sucker, because coercion of belief with the threat of infinite torture is the Christian Way as FL practices it. FL doesn't like it that there can be different versions of his myth. He feels certain that some versions, like the Hollywood version of Noah, just aren't True Fiction(TM) and therefore should not be allowed. He doesn't like it that the Hollywood Noah (just like FL himself) constructs his delusional narrative from dreams and visions. FL doesn't think that Hollywood knows how God intended it. Only certain people, like Answers in Genesis (and, by cut'n'paste implication, FL) know how God intended it, and even they can't say in their own words what that intention is. All they can do is to insist that Hollywood Noah does not exemplify it. But he does. Hollywood Noah is loving and just exactly to the extent that his (and FL's) own God is loving and just: both are psychopathic mass murderers.

phhht · 28 March 2014

Robert Byers said: Normal people should not believe or desire this.

Only weirdos think that.

Mike Waldteufel · 28 March 2014

I just came from ol' Hambo's carnival of stupid. What to say? The delusion, stupidity and fear are strong at AiG. Now that I know how much Hambo hates the Noah movie version of this fairy tale, I'm for sure going to watch it.

One wonders if Hambo's dislike for the movie might be driven by his perception of how the rubes may think his Ark Park is relatively boring by comparison. That's how carnival barkers and side-show operators think.

Just Bob · 28 March 2014

prongs said: When Anne Baxter as Nefretiri moans, "Moses, Moses", you know what she's asking for. What a great movie. So subtle. So Jewish.

...and so full of pointy bras.

Just Bob · 28 March 2014

Mike Waldteufel said: I just came from ol' Hambo's carnival of stupid. What to say? The delusion, stupidity and fear are strong at AiG. Now that I know how much Hambo hates the Noah movie version of this fairy tale, I'm for sure going to watch it. One wonders if Hambo's dislike for the movie might be driven by his perception of how the rubes may think his Ark Park is relatively boring by comparison. That's how carnival barkers and side-show operators think.

A fantasy: Somebody opens one of those 'dollar cinemas' just outside the bogus "Ark Park", showing nothing but Noah, always and forever. And puts up several big billboards with lurid scenes from the movie. How many Park visitors could resist the movie... for only a buck! After seeing the Hollywood mega-epic, how many would snicker at Ham's smarmy, sterilized amusement park version?

prongs · 28 March 2014

Just Bob said:
prongs said: When Anne Baxter as Nefretiri moans, "Moses, Moses", you know what she's asking for. What a great movie. So subtle. So Jewish.
...and so full of pointy bras.

GOOD POINT! Double good.

stevaroni · 28 March 2014

Ken whines... ‘In there beginning there was nothing’ The Bible states ‘In the beginning God.’ That really sums up the difference!

I thought In the beginning, there was the word. You mean John1:1's been lying to me all along!

Dave Luckett · 28 March 2014

Byers tells us: A story is just a story from story teller. thats it folks.

One of the great hilarities of dealing with Byers is his propensity to enunciate a great truth while remaining utterly blind to what he's just said. Yes, Byers, Genesis is just a story from a story teller. (Well, a series of stories from a number of storytellers.) That's it, folks. But one of the great sorrows of dealing with him is contained in that word "just", meaning "merely". Byers implies by it that stories are inconsequential, inconsiderable, of no importance. He couldn't be more wrong. Stories are one of the most important markers of humanity, and their implications are the most reliable indicators of what and how we think. Stories are vital, central, defining. In a certain sense, our stories are what we are. We once had a contest - on the BW, it was - to see if it was possible to state a precise definition of "human". I thought - l'esprit d'escalier, as usual - that I might say that we are the animal that tells stories - that is, knowingly fictive narrative to make a point. I know, yes, that isn't completely bullet-proof, but it's not bad. And if it's not bad, as a descriptor of humans, it means something. But stories, as stories, mean nothing to Byers and FL. By their lights, they're either literal or meaningless. And that means something about them.

stevaroni · 28 March 2014

NOAH is ‘the least biblical biblical film ever made’, I agree wholeheartedly with him.

Oh come on guys! You cannot be serious! The least Biblical film ever? How can you possibly forget "Jesus Christ - Vampire Hunter"? Or the ever popular "The Fist of Jesus", where Lil 'J dishes out some serious ass whumpin (but only to those who have cast the first stone). And, of course there's always the underated independant classic "Jesus, the Total Douchebag". And if that's not enough for Ken, if he can wait a few months, he can be one of the first to check out "Jesus Hates Zombies". I can see the one-sheet right now "Our Savior! Come back from the dead to fight the undead!". With a tagline like that, what could possibly go wrong. So ken's wrong again, Noah isn't the least biblical film ever made. At most it's number 5, max. And that's not even counting "Dogma", where Jesus's great-great-grandaughter works at an abortion clinic and Alanis Morrisette plays God. I wonder if Ken's ever seen that one? Probably not, since the evidence is that his head has never exploded.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmSOoisp2Oqk5_gBhZFwlSisb7SMhyTjFs · 29 March 2014

The biggest disappointment is that there's no clear indication as to the length of a cubit. You'd think that with a $135m budget someone would have prayed hard for an answer.

gnome de net · 29 March 2014

Mike Waldteufel said: One wonders if Hambo's dislike for the movie might be driven by his perception of how the rubes may think his Ark Park is relatively boring by comparison.

One also wonders if he knows how to use the Streisand Effect to the movie's advantage.

FL · 29 March 2014

A quasi-religious film like Hollywood Noah puts him in an uncomfortable spot.

Not at all, Phhht. In fact, although I completely agree with Ken Ham's assessment, I'm softly chuckling over the fact that Panda's Thumb is openly giving FREE PUBLICITY to a movie that effectively repeats and reinforces the claim that a Global Flood, initiated by God as a judgment on humanity, took place on Earth. You're even posting the Internet Movie Database rating for "Noah" (7.3 IMDB), and saying "which is not too bad." You guys apparently want your readers to see that movie. And to top it off, you're also putting in a mention of AIG's Ark Park, so that your readers can get more interested in checking out THAT item as well! Not to mention reminding your readers that the annual Easter broadcast of "The Ten Commandments" will soon be here. (A good way to boost the Nielsons, of course. So very kind!) **** So nope, I'm not uncomfortable. This is a win-win situation for me. How about you? FL

James · 29 March 2014

FL, seriously?

Does this movie that repeats and reinforces the claim that a Global Flood took place on Earth provide any evidence that a world-wide flood actually occurred? An assertion remains a fiction without facts to back it up.

I would say that the PT denizens love a good story of any stripe. If NOAH receives more positive reviews, I may have to see it, although I prefer sci-fi to plain old fi.

Scott F · 29 March 2014

I was amused by the way in which this comment from Steve Benen was phrased, over on the Rachel Maddow blog, referring to other coverage of the response to the movie: [internal link omitted]:

A new Hollywood biblical epic, Noah, opened in theaters nationwide yesterday, drawing criticism from religious groups claiming the filmmakers took liberties with the source material.

I could probably read the "source material" out loud to the kids in 5 minutes. I'd say if you want to create a 2 hour special effects movie, you're pretty much going to have to take some "liberties" with the "source material".

Scott F · 29 March 2014

I think that Dave Luckett has it pretty much nailed.

To FL, the movie Noah "reinforces the claim that a Global Flood, initiated by God as a judgment on humanity, took place on Earth.", while the movie Thor is "just a story".

FL is simply incapable of distinguishing "fact" from "fantasy".

Doc Bill · 29 March 2014

FL still owes me 600 million cubic miles of water.

Like Dembski and the single malt, FL has never paid up. Deadbeats all.

Scott F · 29 March 2014

stevaroni said: And that's not even counting "Dogma", where Jesus's great-great-grandaughter works at an abortion clinic and Alanis Morrisette plays God.

Hey! Dogma was a riot. Who couldn't love George Carlin as a golf-club swinging Cardinal, and Chris Rock as the thirteenth apostle?

phhht · 29 March 2014

FL said:
A quasi-religious film like Hollywood Noah puts him in an uncomfortable spot.
Not at all, Phhht. In fact, although I completely agree with Ken Ham's assessment, I'm softly chuckling over the fact that Panda's Thumb is openly giving FREE PUBLICITY to a movie that effectively repeats and reinforces the claim that a Global Flood, initiated by God as a judgment on humanity, took place on Earth.

Poor old FL. He says he completely agrees that Hollywood Noah is "disgusting and evil-paganism" - but he's real pleased with the FREE PUBLICITY it gets here. Why don't you explain that apparent self-contradiction, FL? Oh yeah, it's because you cannot. You're incapable of explaining it. You can't even recognize that you shot yourself through the foot.

Henry J · 29 March 2014

Yeah, the movie Thor was a story, about a guy who saw every problem as a nail...

But if you want movies that slightly revised the stories: The History of the World, Part 1.

stevaroni · 29 March 2014

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmSOoisp2Oqk5_gBhZFwlSisb7SMhyTjFs said: The biggest disappointment is that there's no clear indication as to the length of a cubit.

I think I remember this. It was a video game from the 80's. This little orange bouncy guy tries to put footprints all over this pyramid, right?

stevaroni · 29 March 2014

Scott F quoted press coverage: A new Hollywood biblical epic, Noah, opened in theaters nationwide yesterday, drawing criticism from religious groups claiming the filmmakers took liberties with the source material.

Hey! you can't do that! Your made-up fantasy epic takes liberties with our made-up fantasy epic!

TomS · 29 March 2014

stevaroni said:
Scott F quoted press coverage: A new Hollywood biblical epic, Noah, opened in theaters nationwide yesterday, drawing criticism from religious groups claiming the filmmakers took liberties with the source material.
Only we are allowed to take liberties with the Bible. Anyway, the Bible took liberties with the story of Gilgamesh. And Milton took liberties with Genesis 1-3. Hey! you can't do that! Your made-up fantasy epic takes liberties with our made-up fantasy epic!

Karen S. · 29 March 2014

Just read that several Muslim countries have banned this movie, since depicting prophets is forbidden. (They think Noah is a prophet.) Looking better all the time!

Matt Young · 29 March 2014

A.O. Scott in the Times said, in essence, that it is not a biblical movie; it is a horror movie and not all that bad. I shall probably pass anyway, unless I go to spite the creationists.

FL · 29 March 2014

(FL) says he completely agrees that Hollywood Noah is “disgusting and evil-paganism” - but he’s real pleased with the FREE PUBLICITY it gets here. Why don’t you explain that apparent self-contradiction, FL?

Sure, let's do that. Again, I completely agree with Ken Ham's assessment, and yes I'm noticing that not one Panda in the house (including you) is able to offer ANY refutation to the specific points of Ham's snippet that I offered.

Further compounding the troubles with the film was the depiction of Noah and his relationship with God. Noah comes off as a psychopathic murderer who is too weak to carry out what he believes is his God-given task. This problem arises because God does not speak clearly to Noah but expects him to assemble a puzzle from a few dreams and visions. Noah, who is willing to murder three men to save one animal, interprets these dreams to mean he is to save “the innocents”—the animals—and kill all of the humans so that the creation can be restored to the way God intended it. Here the filmmakers distort the character of Noah, described as a preacher of righteousness (2 Peter 2:5), and being a faithful and just man (Genesis 6:9; Hebrews 11:7), as well as the character of God who, in the film, cannot communicate clearly with His prophet. That is not faithful to the essence, values, and integrity of God’s Word regardless of what Paramount Pictures claims.

So Ken Ham is correct on those issues--and he's correct on other issues too, like the movie's false depiction of the biblical Methuselah. Therefore, as you phrased it, the "Hollywood Noah (movie)" truly IS "disgusting and evil-paganism". **** But now the Noah controversy is attracting big public attention, including Pandasthumb's. Now YOU GUYS really are giving free publicity to the "Noah" movie. And notice what some of your own Panda Pallies are saying:

If NOAH receives more positive reviews, I may have to see it, although I prefer sci-fi to plain old fi.

I shall probably pass anyway, unless I go to spite the creationists.

So all you're doing is making your Non-Christian readers MORE curious about what's going on. You're influencing your readers to expose themselves to a movie that depicts (with full-screen special effects, no?) that a Global Flood, initiated by God as a judgment on humanity, took place on Earth. And you're also,(inadvertently but openly), plugging the AIG Ark Park too. Now you guys can whine all day, in this little Panda cubbyhole, that the biblical Global Flood story is historically false, or a myth, or whatnot. But that denial won't make any difference in the attendance numbers, and THAT's what matters. For every person who visits that "Noah" movie, religious or non-religious, will at least have THAT one biblical claim (the one I just highlighted), seared into their memories before they leave. (That's all the more true if A.O. Scott is correct that "Noah" is a "horror movie." It's hard to forget a horror movie.) So, lots of folks, people who would never step inside church, will have their attention directed to an important Bible story. And as Ham suggested, that will mean opportunities for God to speak to people's hearts. And also further opportunities for Christians to explain and affirm what the Bible says about Noah, God, the Flood, and Jesus Christ. **** So there you have it Phhht. A solid win-win for Christians, either way. So what about you, dude? Aren't you curious? YOU wanna see that movie, yes? Don't you want to experience some special effects of Biblical proportions? FL

phhht · 29 March 2014

FL said:
(FL) says he completely agrees that Hollywood Noah is “disgusting and evil-paganism” - but he’s real pleased with the FREE PUBLICITY it gets here. Why don’t you explain that apparent self-contradiction, FL?
Sure, let's do that. Again, I completely agree with Ken Ham's assessment, and yes I'm noticing that not one Panda in the house (including you) is able to offer ANY refutation to the specific points of Ham's snippet that I offered.
Further compounding the troubles with the film was the depiction of Noah and his relationship with God. Noah comes off as a psychopathic murderer who is too weak to carry out what he believes is his God-given task. This problem arises because God does not speak clearly to Noah but expects him to assemble a puzzle from a few dreams and visions. Noah, who is willing to murder three men to save one animal, interprets these dreams to mean he is to save “the innocents”—the animals—and kill all of the humans so that the creation can be restored to the way God intended it. Here the filmmakers distort the character of Noah, described as a preacher of righteousness (2 Peter 2:5), and being a faithful and just man (Genesis 6:9; Hebrews 11:7), as well as the character of God who, in the film, cannot communicate clearly with His prophet. That is not faithful to the essence, values, and integrity of God’s Word regardless of what Paramount Pictures claims.
So Ken Ham is correct on those issues--and he's correct on other issues too, like the movie's false depiction of the biblical Methuselah. Therefore, as you phrased it, the "Hollywood Noah (movie)" truly IS "disgusting and evil-paganism". **** But now the Noah controversy is attracting big public attention, including Pandasthumb's. Now YOU GUYS really are giving free publicity to the "Noah" movie. And notice what some of your own Panda Pallies are saying:
If NOAH receives more positive reviews, I may have to see it, although I prefer sci-fi to plain old fi.

I shall probably pass anyway, unless I go to spite the creationists.
So all you're doing is making your Non-Christian readers MORE curious about what's going on. You're influencing your readers to expose themselves to a movie that depicts (with full-screen special effects, no?) that a Global Flood, initiated by God as a judgment on humanity, took place on Earth. And you're also,(inadvertently but openly), plugging the AIG Ark Park too. Now you guys can whine all day, in this little Panda cubbyhole, that the biblical Global Flood story is historically false, or a myth, or whatnot. But that denial won't make any difference in the attendance numbers, and THAT's what matters. For every person who visits that "Noah" movie, religious or non-religious, will at least have THAT one biblical claim (the one I just highlighted), seared into their memories before they leave. (That's all the more true if A.O. Scott is correct that "Noah" is a "horror movie." It's hard to forget a horror movie.) So, lots of folks, people who would never step inside church, will have their attention directed to an important Bible story. And as Ham suggested, that will mean opportunities for God to speak to people's hearts. And also further opportunities for Christians to explain and affirm what the Bible says about Noah, God, the Flood, and Jesus Christ. **** So there you have it Phhht. A solid win-win for Christians, either way. So what about you, dude? Aren't you curious? YOU wanna see that movie, yes? Don't you want to experience some special effects of Biblical proportions?

Yes, yes, FL. We know you agree with the opinion you borrow from AiG. We understand that you do that because you cannot produce your own, personal, original opinion. That's beyond you. And it is beyond you to explain why you think that a wider exposure for a film which, you agree, exhibits “disgusting and evil-paganism”, is a good thing. That is the self-contradiction, FL, or am I going too fast for you? To say it is good to depict a Hollywood Noah because there is a Biblical Noah is like saying that it is good to depict a magical Harry Potter because there is a magical Jesus. Pretty stupid argument, FL. But don't give up. By all means try again.

stevaroni · 29 March 2014

FL said: Again, I completely agree with Ken Ham's assessment... Further compounding the troubles with the film was the depiction of Noah and his relationship with God. Noah comes off as a psychopathic murderer who is too weak to carry out what he believes is his God-given task.

The classic creobot take on the Noah story. In both the Bible and the film, God kills Every. Living. Thing. on the entire planet because... I don't know... because someone somewhere is making graven images or some shit, and Ken decides that the issue with the movie is that Noah is acting a bit unhinged. I think anybody who finds fault with Noah's actions needs to tap the "zoom out" button a couple of times and think about why God's best answer for how to fix the world is just "Kill all this shit and start over". Despite having a maybe couple of hundred years of leadtime to work the problem while Noah and his 3 boys build a wooden box too big to fit into the Rose Bowl. Of course, this is par for the course for the Big Buy. After all, when Moses is trying to convince God to let the Israelites go, he sends no less than 7 plagues, which pretty much kill all the cattle and wheat in Egypt. Oh, and also kill the hundreds of thousands of Egyptians who happen to have an inconvenient birth order. Which he had to do because he had previously "hardened Pharoh's heart" and left him disinclined to negotiate with Moses. Because, apparently, all this convoluted blooodshed was so much better than just beaming Pharoh up to the pearly gates and having a one-on-one with him - "Seriously, Ramses. You're a pharaoh, but have you noticed that I'm God? Let this guy go or I'm gonna get mad, and you don't want me mad."

prongs · 29 March 2014

Curious, is it not, that FL can twist any post (or movie or TV show or random weather phenomenon or plebiscite or Bible verse) to support his own evil purpose?

stevaroni · 29 March 2014

I said: Of course, this is par for the course for the Big Buy. After all, when Moses is trying to convince God to let the Israelites go, he sends no less than 7 plagues,

Ummm.. I meant

Of course, this is par for the course for the Big BGuy. After all, when Moses is trying to convince ~~God~~Pharoh to let the Israelites go, he sends no less than 7 plagues...

Sorry, typing fast, fat fingers, and unlike writing code, no context-sensitive checker other than my mark1, mod0 brain, which is getting mighty old...

Dave Luckett · 29 March 2014

Yes indeed, if the moviegoer is as blind to fictive convention as FL is, they might take home the message

that a Global Flood, initiated by God as a judgment on humanity, took place on Earth.

Now, all that FL has to believe is that these moviegoers are as devoid of moral compass as he is, and won't see this as the insane act of a monstrous cosmic psychopath. The really weird part is that believing that of others is actually essential, for FL. He can't see it any other way. As we have seen many times, FL must assume that other people's responses will be exactly the same as his. Difference in affect is something he simply cannot deal with, nor even perceive, so empathy is impossible for him. It comes close to solipsism. FL can use only himself as a template for the Universe. That explains his certainty that atheism, the opposite of religion, is really a religion. Religion is what motivates him; it must be what motivates others. He cannot imagine that others may be motivated differently. It also explains why FL's God is so much in FL's image. It explains why FL thinks that his body, as seen in the bathroom mirror, is the image of God. FL's God actually is FL, as FL would like to be. The only attributes needed to make it perfect would be omnipotence and total authority. You'd see some really serious heavy-duty smiting then! It explains why FL thinks that his own ignorance is sovereign. He could never explain the human mind, or vacuum fluctuations, or the expansion of the singularity. Therefore no-one ever can. But it's all good, really. For nearly everyone who goes to that movie, this is stuff on a par with Lord of the Rings or Zombie Apocalypse. Same conventions. This never happened; it can't happen; but a story about it can entertain. Why can it entertain? Weren't you listening? Why, because it's a story. Here's the thing about stories: they don't need to have happened; they don't need to be possible; the things that happen in them can give overlapping layers of impossibility; and it doesn't matter. We'll follow along to find out how it comes out. Which makes story THE most powerful way of teaching anything. Jesus knew that. Oh, brother, did He what! But FL doesn't. I wonder in how many other ways FL isn't like Jesus? Anybody got a millenium or two, while I list?

Just Bob · 29 March 2014

Dave Luckett said: I wonder in how many other ways FL isn't like Jesus? Anybody got a millenium or two, while I list?

Ooh! Ooh! I've got one! Jesus was fluent in Aramaic and/or POSSIBLY Hebrew, and likely knew a little Greek and Latin, due to their historical and political influence in Judea. FL, OTOH, knowing none of those languages (forget fluency), feels free to pontificate on the subtle shades of meaning of ancient terms, transmitted through innumerable scribes, translators, redactors, etc. (All of which he borrows, of course, from some apologetics site that he agrees with, ignoring those that don't suit him. Unless, of course, he doesn't understand his source, or hasn't read far enough. Then he may cite a source that shoots down his very point. Which, of course, he will never admit. Of course.)

TomS · 29 March 2014

Sorry to be nitpicking, but there were ten plagues.

Scott F · 29 March 2014

Dave Luckett said: Weren't you listening? Why, because it's a story. Here's the thing about stories: they don't need to have happened; they don't need to be possible; the things that happen in them can give overlapping layers of impossibility; and it doesn't matter. We'll follow along to find out how it comes out.

It's just like the movie "2012", complete with global flood. It's just displaced about 3,000 years or so, and has multiple metal "arks", instead of a single wooden one, trying to save millions of people, rather than just 8.

AltairIV · 30 March 2014

prongs said: The Ten Commandments, with Charlton Heston as Moses and Yul Brenner as Pharaoh, is coming soon to a television set near you. (Strange that every Easter we get to see a movie about a Jewish Myth.)

Well, it does depict the origin of Passover, which is one of the key background elements in the Easter story. Let's not forget that Cecil B. DeMille's The Ten Commandments took quite a few liberties with the source material itself, and received much the same kind of reaction from the fundamentalists when it came out in 1956 as Noah is getting today. On a side note, I've recently learned of the hypothesis (if you could call it that) that the ten plagues were each designed to specifically counter the power of one of ten Egyptian gods. That's why God had to keep hardening Pharoh's heart, to ensure that all ten cans of whoop-ass got administered. If so, it's yet more evidence of just how petty, petulant and narcissistic the God of the Bible really was, since He was more interested in showing up his rivals than actually freeing his people. Here's one amusing little summary of the idea: http://hubpages.com/hub/Ten-Plagues-For-Ten-Gods

Rolf · 30 March 2014

Might not this be the real lowdown on the ten plagues?

Karen S. · 30 March 2014

Sojourners, a liberal Christian journal, found the "Noah" film to be Deeply, Passionately Biblical

It seems that the film makers did their homework, "pouring over the Genesis text, investigating the meaning of each word, consulting with biblical scholars and studying complimentary ancient texts including the Dead Sea Scrolls, The Book of Jubilees, and The Book of Enoch." No wonder Ham hates the film!

FL · 30 March 2014

Yes indeed, if the moviegoer is as blind to fictive convention as FL is, they might take home the message that a Global Flood, initiated by God as a judgment on humanity, took place on Earth.

Now, all that FL has to believe is that these moviegoers are as devoid of moral compass as he is, and won’t see this as the insane act of a monstrous cosmic psychopath. So in fact Dave, you do agree with what I said about what the moviegoers of "Noah" will be specifically exposed to. But you'll notice (re-read my post) that I never said anything about what individual moviegoers will or won't believe about God, after they've been thoroughly exposed to the quoted biblical claim and the hard-to-forget "horror movie" (A.O. Scott). What I did say was this:

And as Ham suggested, that will mean opportunities for God to speak to people’s hearts. And also further opportunities for Christians to explain and affirm what the Bible says about Noah, God, the Flood, and Jesus Christ.

...and of course you have no refutation for that statement. That's going to happen whether you like it or not. **** As for you, YOUR mind is made up. Been made up for decades. Lotta water under your bridge by now. But because you guys are helping promote the "Noah" film to your readers, helping them become more and more curious about it, you're influencing them to go see the movie and get exposed to the biblical claim for themselves. And maybe, just maybe, some of them might be more open-minded about it than you are. God might use the movie to raise inner questions and careful reflection about their own lives. Or maybe God will move some individuals to ask some Christian schoolmate or workmate about whether some scene in the movie is actually in the Bible. An interesting prospect. Meanwhile, the movie's not about me, Dave. You can psychoanalyze "FL" all you want, especially since you seem patently unable to refute or even address what Ken Ham wrote. But know that your armchair analysis won't make any difference on the attendance numbers at the "Noah" box office. Russell Crowe and company are making sure, even with a clearly paganized film (or "horror movie"), that moviegoers DO get exposed to that one historical claim about God and his judgment on humanity. Such exposure will raise even more questions, reflections, dialog and discussions. Once again...a win-win for Christians. Is it a win-win for you atheists as well? Hmm? FL

Dave Luckett · 30 March 2014

Win-win? Well, the fundagelicals hate it, if Ham is anything to go by. That can't be bad. Mind you, they hate it on account of God doesn't go into details about what he's about to do. It isn't, I don't know, specific enough. Insufficiently explicit. The fact that the fundagelicals are saying that is a win in itself. Other people who aren't thoroughly disgusted will laugh.

And notice that FL simply can't get his head around the idea that God doesn't come well out of this. God, say FL and Ham, did do this. He drowned everyone, whole civilisations, cities, homesteads, farms, fathers, mothers, children, babies. Everyone. All the animals in their innocence, everything. Noah says the same. Everyone dies, oh, the embarrassment.

It's a good bet that if your mind is not warped by fundamentalist religion, it will occur to you that this is an intensely evil thing to do. That to worship this god is to worship evil, so you should stop doing it.

Well, that's a win, too, but more likely will be the conclusion that this can't be right. That the story's just a story, and God never did this; that the Bible's not authoritative or inerrant. That's a win, too.

So far I count win-win-win-win. And for FL and Ham, nothing but pure solid lose.

Scott F · 30 March 2014

AltairIV said:
prongs said: The Ten Commandments, with Charlton Heston as Moses and Yul Brenner as Pharaoh, is coming soon to a television set near you. (Strange that every Easter we get to see a movie about a Jewish Myth.)
Well, it does depict the origin of Passover, which is one of the key background elements in the Easter story. Let's not forget that Cecil B. DeMille's The Ten Commandments took quite a few liberties with the source material itself, and received much the same kind of reaction from the fundamentalists when it came out in 1956 as Noah is getting today. On a side note, I've recently learned of the hypothesis (if you could call it that) that the ten plagues were each designed to specifically counter the power of one of ten Egyptian gods. That's why God had to keep hardening Pharoh's heart, to ensure that all ten cans of whoop-ass got administered. If so, it's yet more evidence of just how petty, petulant and narcissistic the God of the Bible really was, since He was more interested in showing up his rivals than actually freeing his people. Here's one amusing little summary of the idea: http://hubpages.com/hub/Ten-Plagues-For-Ten-Gods

What I find amusing about this is the author's conclusion that Moses and the Ten Plagues is all about validating the power of salvation through Jesus. Really? Seriously? It's not about Jews and Passover. It's all about the healing power of Jesus? Talk about fixation. Odd that this was never mentioned during my entire religious upbringing.

phhht · 30 March 2014

FL said: But know that your armchair analysis won't make any difference on the attendance numbers at the "Noah" box office. Russell Crowe and company are making sure, even with a clearly paganized film (or "horror movie"), that moviegoers DO get exposed to that one historical claim about God and his judgment on humanity. Such exposure will raise even more questions, reflections, dialog and discussions.

Why do you think that disseminating the image of your god as a psychopathic mass murderer, a classic "horror movie" monster, is a good thing? Won't Christians themselves get "paganized" by the movie? Won't they engage in more questions, reflections, dialog and discussions about their monstrous god? Won't people see the movie and say, Jesus, now I've got to rethink my belief in Godzilla? That's a clear win for Christians, right, because Godzilla has the word God in it.

Just Bob · 30 March 2014

phhht said: ... Godzilla has the word God in it.

That's a typical American mispronunciation. The original Japanese was something like Gojira. But Americans 'knew' Japanese couldn't pronounce Ls. And the god came from somewhere deeply Freudian: a monster who, like a force of nature, destroys whole cities with no concern for who might be crushed. Yep, a personification of Yahweh.

Marilyn · 30 March 2014

(1 Peter ch 3 vs 20 - 21) -- (2 Peter ch 3 vs 4 - 13, English standard version a little different from King James but mean the same) (Matthew ch 6 vs 19, this might be a safe place for a while) I suggest for these days a fire proof Ark.

phhht · 30 March 2014

phhht said:
FL said: But know that your armchair analysis won't make any difference on the attendance numbers at the "Noah" box office. Russell Crowe and company are making sure, even with a clearly paganized film (or "horror movie"), that moviegoers DO get exposed to that one historical claim about God and his judgment on humanity. Such exposure will raise even more questions, reflections, dialog and discussions.
Why do you think that disseminating the image of your god as a psychopathic mass murderer, a classic "horror movie" monster, is a good thing? Won't Christians themselves get "paganized" by the movie? Won't they engage in more questions, reflections, dialog and discussions about their monstrous god?

I'm being disingenuous, of course. The reason FL thinks it is a good idea to depict his god as a horror movie monster is because that is what he himself believes of his god. And he likes that. FL is an authoritarian sadomasochist. He's a psycho sicko who worships a murderous reanimated corpse. His god is a monster because FL has made his god in his own image, and he himself is monstrous.

stevaroni · 30 March 2014

AltairIV said: On a side note, I've recently learned of the hypothesis (if you could call it that) that the ten plagues were each designed to specifically counter the power of one of ten Egyptian gods. That's why God had to keep hardening Pharoh's heart, to ensure that all ten cans of whoop-ass got administered.

I'm not sure if I buy the exact hypothesis, but I've always been suspicious that the whole "10 plagues" thing had some sort of specific political or allegorical aspect that would have been significant to a temple-goin' Israelite in 400BC. That, and it probably piggy-backed on some sort of actual, historical, natural disaster sequence from deep cultural memory. As several people have noted, there are plausible scenarios for a really bad year where a drought leads to locusts, which lead to famine, which leads to disease, etc. Those sorts of failure chains were probably within living memory of any agrarian people in such a marginal landscape, so hey - why wouldn't a good story-teller milk the image and give God the credit?

bplurt · 30 March 2014

Ian Derthal said: Down with this sort of thing.........

Careful now...

eric · 30 March 2014

It got a 76% from Rotten Tomatoes (which amalgamates a whole ton of critics), which probably indicates it's pretty good. But I'm going to wait until DVD. The preview shows guys wearing brigandine armor and wielding a big iron hammer. Those are only, ooooh, about a 4,000-year historical anomaly for a story set in the stone age middle east. Oh please.

Re: FL's rantings about this being a win for him, I think Noah is going to create as many Christians as Thor produced Astaru. Its Hollywood entertainment, FL, nothing more, nothing less.

johnbebbington · 30 March 2014

Robert Byers chalked:

I never go to movies as they are terrible

Me neither. I don't read books either as they are all terrible, too. 'Specially so-called "science" books.

Sorry to be nitpicking, but there were ten plagues

Eleven - counting Robert Byers.

Scott F · 30 March 2014

I was directed to this blog post on "Camels with Hammers" by a link from PZ Myers, where Daniel Fincke, a real-life professor of philosophy (and former YEC) reviews the recent movie God's Not Dead, and makes some excellent arguments about the hypocrisies of Creationists, both in cinema, in science, and in life.

It's an excellent read.

Scott F · 30 March 2014

Ten plagues? "Frogs"? Really? "Frogs" is a plague?? Heck, "frogs" is food! AFAIK, they don't compete with us for food (unless Egyptians ate lots of insects), and there aren't that many that are poisonous or otherwise deadly. I never understood that particular "plague". A plague of rats I could see, but not frogs.

ksplawn · 30 March 2014

eric said: It got a 76% from Rotten Tomatoes (which amalgamates a whole ton of critics), which probably indicates it's pretty good. But I'm going to wait until DVD. The preview shows guys wearing brigandine armor and wielding a big iron hammer. Those are only, ooooh, about a 4,000-year historical anomaly for a story set in the stone age middle east. Oh please.

I remember hearing somewhere that the filmmakers were going for a deliberately "timeless" style and design to the story, so that it could plausibly be sometime in the past, the future, alternate world, whatever you like. Rather than slavish devotion to real-world, chronologically-appropriate trappings (which wouldn't work anyway because... ya know, the real world didn't have an actual Flood) they wanted something that was clearly not a modern level of technology, but other than that not very specific so that the viewers could place it for themselves.

wayneefrancis · 31 March 2014

FL said:
A quasi-religious film like Hollywood Noah puts him in an uncomfortable spot.
Not at all, Phhht. In fact, although I completely agree with Ken Ham's assessment, I'm softly chuckling over the fact that Panda's Thumb is openly giving FREE PUBLICITY to a movie that effectively repeats and reinforces the claim that a Global Flood, initiated by God as a judgment on humanity, took place on Earth. You're even posting the Internet Movie Database rating for "Noah" (7.3 IMDB), and saying "which is not too bad." You guys apparently want your readers to see that movie. And to top it off, you're also putting in a mention of AIG's Ark Park, so that your readers can get more interested in checking out THAT item as well! Not to mention reminding your readers that the annual Easter broadcast of "The Ten Commandments" will soon be here. (A good way to boost the Nielsons, of course. So very kind!) **** So nope, I'm not uncomfortable. This is a win-win situation for me. How about you? FL

See this is the difference between us and you. We don't mind knowing your fairy tales. We don't even mind our kids knowing about your fairy tales. Hollywood isn't pushing this movie as fact. Most people will recognize it as fiction just as they would recognize Star Wars or the Matrix as fiction. I know more atheist that have read the bible cover to cover then I know "Christians" that have read it cover to cover. Hell I know more former "Christians" that have read it from cover to cover then practicing "Christians". We don't shy away from stuff just because we don't believe it.

Rolf · 31 March 2014

Scott F said: I was directed to this blog post on "Camels with Hammers" by a link from PZ Myers, where Daniel Fincke, a real-life professor of philosophy (and former YEC) reviews the recent movie God's Not Dead, and makes some excellent arguments about the hypocrisies of Creationists, both in cinema, in science, and in life. It's an excellent read.

I can't wait for FL to set the professor straight;)

Kevin B · 31 March 2014

Scott F said: Ten plagues? "Frogs"? Really? "Frogs" is a plague?? Heck, "frogs" is food! AFAIK, they don't compete with us for food (unless Egyptians ate lots of insects), and there aren't that many that are poisonous or otherwise deadly. I never understood that particular "plague". A plague of rats I could see, but not frogs.

Perhaps they were cane toads...... The Terry Pratchett version (in Pyramids) had a plague of frog, but it was a big frog which got into the ventilation and kept everyone awake at night with its croaking.

eric · 31 March 2014

ksplawn said:
eric said: [snip] The preview shows guys wearing brigandine armor and wielding a big iron hammer. Those are only, ooooh, about a 4,000-year historical anomaly for a story set in the stone age middle east. Oh please.
I remember hearing somewhere that the filmmakers were going for a deliberately "timeless" style and design to the story,

Iron age isn't timeless. It started sometime around 1000 BC. It post-dates significant Chinese, Egyptian, Babylonian (and other fertile crescent), Cretan, and Greek civilizations. And brigandine originated in more like 1400 AD. If you're going to do that, why not give Noah a gunpowder cannon? It dates to the same time era as the armor. Now, I can suspend my disbelief to see a movie. But this sort of gross/sloppy treatment of the setting is what kicks it from "go to theater" down to "wait for DVD" for me.

daoudmbo · 31 March 2014

eric said:
ksplawn said:
eric said: [snip] The preview shows guys wearing brigandine armor and wielding a big iron hammer. Those are only, ooooh, about a 4,000-year historical anomaly for a story set in the stone age middle east. Oh please.
I remember hearing somewhere that the filmmakers were going for a deliberately "timeless" style and design to the story,
Iron age isn't timeless. It started sometime around 1000 BC. It post-dates significant Chinese, Egyptian, Babylonian (and other fertile crescent), Cretan, and Greek civilizations. And brigandine originated in more like 1400 AD. If you're going to do that, why not give Noah a gunpowder cannon? It dates to the same time era as the armor. Now, I can suspend my disbelief to see a movie. But this sort of gross/sloppy treatment of the setting is what kicks it from "go to theater" down to "wait for DVD" for me.

I would like to see this movie, but probably on DVD as well, because a) it's more comfortable at home and I can eat real food and enjoy a nice bottle of something and actually more importantly b) movies in current theatres, particularly anything "action" are played at enormously ear-damaging and joy-killing volumes. Besides all the other contemporary "plagues" which affect/will affect modern North American populations (obesity, diabetes etc) will be widespread hearing loss at young ages (the constant use of in-ear headphones most likely played at too high volumes is a major cause too). I'd rather take a plague of frogs over the plague of noise we deal with today.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/bh6ZZU1ijse8T4kchrf74AgxhAZJllN2#f2370 · 31 March 2014

So, Noah wants to rid the world of humans and he's a crazy psychopath. The creator of the world wants to do it, and... Well that's a different story...

daoudmbo · 31 March 2014

https://me.yahoo.com/a/bh6ZZU1ijse8T4kchrf74AgxhAZJllN2#f2370 said: So, Noah wants to rid the world of humans and he's a crazy psychopath. The creator of the world wants to do it, and... Well that's a different story...

If the creator of the world wants to do it, it's performance art.

gnome de net · 31 March 2014

eric said: Now, I can suspend my disbelief to see a movie. But this sort of gross/sloppy treatment of the setting is what kicks it from "go to theater" down to "wait for DVD" for me.

Even better, "wait for your local library to get a borrow-for-free DVD".

DS · 31 March 2014

gnome de net said:
eric said: Now, I can suspend my disbelief to see a movie. But this sort of gross/sloppy treatment of the setting is what kicks it from "go to theater" down to "wait for DVD" for me.
Even better, "wait for your local library to get a borrow-for-free DVD".

What section will that be in? Drama? Humor? Comedy? History? Pseudo history?

ksplawn · 31 March 2014

eric said: Iron age isn't timeless. It started sometime around 1000 BC. It post-dates significant Chinese, Egyptian, Babylonian (and other fertile crescent), Cretan, and Greek civilizations. And brigandine originated in more like 1400 AD. If you're going to do that, why not give Noah a gunpowder cannon? It dates to the same time era as the armor. Now, I can suspend my disbelief to see a movie. But this sort of gross/sloppy treatment of the setting is what kicks it from "go to theater" down to "wait for DVD" for me.

Not to get into an argument about your tastes, but I think you're missing the point. They wanted the ambiguity and anachronism. It's not because they didn't know any better. Think of it as the quasi-Biblical version of gaslamp fantasy or diesel-punk; the setting is supposed to have the appearance of historicity but intentionally incorporates fantastical elements and futuristic technology. It's not sloppiness if it's a deliberate design decision which has been hashed out to set the tone and look for the project. Again, they built the setting in a way that's unconnected with any recorded history. This isn't a movie about a neolithic family, it's a movie about a "primitive" family. And besides, Noah's story itself is anachronistic and does not line up with any real period in human history. It's only dated to about 1,600 years after Creation, going by the timeline in the Old Testament. Since Creation didn't actually happen at any point within the last 13 billion years and the Old Testament includes people living nearly a thousand years, that's clearly not an actual date corresponding to the real world. Just wanted to make that clear.

nobodythatmatters · 31 March 2014

Dave Luckett said: We once had a contest - on the BW, it was - to see if it was possible to state a precise definition of "human". I thought - l'esprit d'escalier, as usual - that I might say that we are the animal that tells stories - that is, knowingly fictive narrative to make a point. I know, yes, that isn't completely bullet-proof, but it's not bad. And if it's not bad, as a descriptor of humans, it means something.

i think i'd go with humans are the animal with the capacity for abstract thought. I would say abstract thought is probably the most fundamental necessary component of storytelling, so I'd accept an argument that we are saying the same thing in different terms.

But stories, as stories, mean nothing to Byers and FL. By their lights, they're either literal or meaningless. And that means something about them.

nah. to them things mean whatever they have to mean to support their prior conclusions. That's why everything is literal except when it isn't. For FL, it's just because he's a troll and the argument changes as necessary to maximize the emotional impact on the audience. The most important thing is that you respond emotionally because that validates him. Love and hate both mean you care and hate is easier to get. It's apparently the only way he can get an erection. For Byers, it's just that he needs someone to do his thinking for him and he's already picked a pony. He cannot entertain anything that might suggest he's chosen poorly so he'll go with whatever answer confirms that he's backed the right horse. He's immune to the contradictions of his positions because he doesn't actually understand his positions. But his chosen authority says they are right, so they are.

Just Bob · 31 March 2014

nobodythatmatters said: i think i'd go with humans are the animal with the capacity for abstract thought.

Not to revisit this whole question, but... The rules of the challenge were to specify criteria that would INCLUDE ALL humans, and EXCLUDE ALL nonhuman animals. Clearly not all humans have the 'capacity for abstract thought'. Infants don't, and some humans never attain it, regardless of age. They lack that capacity.

Carl Drews · 31 March 2014

eric said:
ksplawn said:
eric said: [snip] The preview shows guys wearing brigandine armor and wielding a big iron hammer. Those are only, ooooh, about a 4,000-year historical anomaly for a story set in the stone age middle east. Oh please.
I remember hearing somewhere that the filmmakers were going for a deliberately "timeless" style and design to the story,
Iron age isn't timeless. It started sometime around 1000 BC. It post-dates significant Chinese, Egyptian, Babylonian (and other fertile crescent), Cretan, and Greek civilizations. And brigandine originated in more like 1400 AD. If you're going to do that, why not give Noah a gunpowder cannon? It dates to the same time era as the armor.

Back in the Stone Age, people had no iron tools, metal body armor, or source code control.

hawks.linds · 31 March 2014

So... the book is better than the movie?

eric · 31 March 2014

ksplawn said: Not to get into an argument about your tastes, but I think you're missing the point. They wanted the ambiguity and anachronism.

Yes, well, when Disney puts martial arts ninjas in their three musketeers movies they may also want anachronism, but I can still argue it was a very poor decision on their part that detracts from the movie…at least for me.

This isn't a movie about a neolithic family, it's a movie about a "primitive" family.

But the point is, the iron age wasn't that primitive (all things considered). Iron age peoples had running water, plumbing, fairly impressive architecture, and so on. I have not seen the movie but it sure looks to me like they were going for "pseudo neolithic." As in, "neolithic...except when we can add something we think the audience will find cool. Or except when thinking about how someone without access to metal tools would have done this would require us to think." The former is very much like Disney putting a ninja in a three musketeer movie.

And besides, Noah's story itself is anachronistic and does not line up with any real period in human history.

I'm not complaining about the general ahistoricity of the Old Testament. I’m fine with that. But sheesh, a movie about Genesis 6 should not have Noah’s enemies using technologies that surpass what the Egyptians had in Exodus. Regardless of how the OT stacks up against real history, that is a very bad internal inconsistency.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 31 March 2014

If you read Genesis, they had iron well before Noah. Tubal-Cain forged tools out of iron and bronze.

Of course it's anachronistic, but, if you're following the text, at least iron is fine. YECs often like to project a very high level of development, heavier-than-air flight, etc.

You simply can't reconcile Genesis with any period (I think the internal combustion engine would be overmuch). Is it iron age, because iron work is claimed, or bronze age as it "should be" using the chronologies?

What would Thor think about these issues, do you suppose?

Glen Davidson

SWT · 31 March 2014

eric said: But sheesh, a movie about Genesis 6 should not have Noah’s enemies using technologies that surpass what the Egyptians had in Exodus. Regardless of how the OT stacks up against real history, that is a very bad internal inconsistency.

I'd assumed the technology of Noah's enemies would have been "left behind" in the flood. Problem solved.

SWT · 31 March 2014

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: What would Thor think about these issues, do you suppose?

That reminds me ... I watched the Thor movie on FX yesterday. It was least Eddic Eddic film I've ever seen! They even used a stupid Anglicized pronunciation of his name...

eric · 31 March 2014

SWT said: That reminds me ... I watched the Thor movie on FX yesterday. It was least Eddic Eddic film I've ever seen! They even used a stupid Anglicized pronunciation of his name...

Evidently those are sourcing back to the comic books, not the mythos. Which is also why the movies use "Asgardians" instead of "Aesir."

SLC · 31 March 2014

Apparently moviegoers are paying no attention to Kenny boy. According to IMDB, the movie racked up some 46 million in receipts in the first 2 weeks.

Just Bob · 31 March 2014

Ken baby, you need to do a LOT of washing to get all the evil off of YOU.

AltairIV · 31 March 2014

Scott F said:
AltairIV said: Here's one amusing little summary of the idea: http://hubpages.com/hub/Ten-Plagues-For-Ten-Gods
What I find amusing about this is the author's conclusion that Moses and the Ten Plagues is all about validating the power of salvation through Jesus.

Yep, that's exactly what I was thinking, and the main reason I used the same descriptor. :-)

AltairIV · 31 March 2014

Just Bob said:
phhht said: ... Godzilla has the word God in it.
That's a typical American mispronunciation. The original Japanese was something like Gojira. But Americans 'knew' Japanese couldn't pronounce Ls.

I imagine it was more of a simple Anglicization and marketing decision than a mispronunciation issue. The unfamiliar foreign word doesn't provide English speakers with much of an image, so the importers of the original movie probably decided to spice it up a little for American audiences. Japanese pronunciation doesn't actually have either "l" or "r", but rather a softer rolling sound about halfway between them. This gives them a lot of trouble when it comes to hearing and speaking the separate English sounds. It can sometimes take quite a bit of practice for a native Japanese to learn to pronounce the l/r distinction correctly. English speakers, conversely, tend to harden the Japanese pronunciation to one side or the other, although this causes fewer problems with communication than in the other direction. In any case, Gojira (ゴジラ) is a portmanteau of "gorilla" and "kujira" (whale), two particularly large and powerful creatures. The Japanese pronunciation of the imported word "gorilla" is usually romanized as "go-ri-ra", but it could just as easily be rendered as "go-li-la", and thus the monster's name to "Go-ji-la". Then it's just one more small step to "Godzilla".

TomS · 1 April 2014

Noah (the man the Bible calls righteous Noah-Genesis 7:1), brings a knife down to one of the baby’s heads to kill it and at the last minute doesn’t do it

Excuse me if someone else mentioned this. This reminds one (and this is certainly meant so) of the story of Abraham and Isaac.

bigdakine · 1 April 2014

Just Bob said: Ken baby, you need to do a LOT of washing to get all the evil off of YOU.

Actually he needs to do self-flagellation. I'd actually pay money to see that.

DS · 1 April 2014

SLC said: Apparently moviegoers are paying no attention to Kenny boy. According to IMDB, the movie racked up some 46 million in receipts in the first 2 weeks.

Is that more than "Expelled"?

david.starling.macmillan · 2 April 2014

I was incredibly amused (and just a little bit horrified, to be honest) by the lengths AiG went to in criticizing this movie. "If they had WANTED to make it closer to the Bible version, they could have had Noah release the raven, but instead Japheth did it! BLASPHEMY!!" I mean, seriously? The problem isn't that the story was adapted. It wasn't really adapted all that much. Nor is it that the basic interpretation of events were changed...they weren't, not very much. This movie poses a much bigger problem for AiG: it didn't change the story enough. Creationists love to skip over the nasty details, but this movie makes them unavoidable. This movie is actually too close to the Biblical account for viewers to continue seeing the Flood as a "good idea". AiG has to sell its followers on the idea that a worldwide flood was good. Necessary. Justifiable. Holy. Required. But when Ken went to see Noah, it was obvious that he couldn't possibly interpret the flood in a good way. Not without being as much of a psychopath as the god depicted in the film. And this cognitive dissonance is what was so offensive to Ham...he knows something is wrong, but he can't put his finger on why. "For God so loved the world that he gave his only son, so that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life." AiG knows you can't take the Noah movie literally and make it work with John 3:16. And that's the problem. I'd like to see the film. If I had to bet, I'd say the movie has more truth in it than the entire Creation Museum and forthcoming Ark Park. The Flood story (and most of the Bible, for that matter), wasn't primarily intended to tell us about God; it was intended to tell us about ourselves.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: If you read Genesis, they had iron well before Noah. Tubal-Cain forged tools out of iron and bronze. Of course it's anachronistic, but, if you're following the text, at least iron is fine. YECs often like to project a very high level of development, heavier-than-air flight, etc.

I thought they had lighter-than-air flight and perhaps some steampunk technologies. I had figured that a lack of fossil fuels would have prevented the industrialization necessary for an infrastructure supporting regular heavier-than-air flight.

Scott F said:
Here's one amusing little summary of the idea: http://hubpages.com/hub/Ten-Plagues-For-Ten-Gods
What I find amusing about this is the author's conclusion that Moses and the Ten Plagues is all about validating the power of salvation through Jesus.

Fundies are always wary of going into too much detail about the potential symbolism in Bible stories. "See, this might have been what everything meant...but don't forget, this is LITERAL HISTORY and that's the most important part!!"

DS · 2 April 2014

Good point David. Where was Jesus when all of this death and destruction was happening? Why didn't he save the people for a gruesome death? Why did he wait another few thousand years before being born to a supposed virgin? Was he taking a nap? Were these people not worthy? Were the people thousands of years later more worthy?

Ken is right. It is hared to overstate the evil depicted by the movie. But then again, Ken is the one worshipping the evil doer.

Just Bob · 2 April 2014

DS said: Good point David. Where was Jesus when all of this death and destruction was happening?

Well, duhh... Jesus IS God. So Jesus did it.

SWT · 2 April 2014

david.starling.macmillan said: The Flood story (and most of the Bible, for that matter), wasn't primarily intended to tell us about God; it was intended to tell us about ourselves.

Let me gently disagree with this contention. I am inclined to understand much of the Genesis creation narrative as a response to the religions of surrounding nations. In the context of the flood narrative, the older Babylonian myth had the god Enlil causing the flood out of annoyance, because humans were too noisy and keeping the gods from sleeping. Enlil's intent was to destroy all humanity, but his intent was subverted by the god Ea, who gave Utnapishtim a heads-up about the coming disaster. This is quite different from the Genesis account, in which HaShem's intent is a response to evil behavior on the part of humans and includes a plan to regenerate humanity for a surviving remnant. The message of the story is, ultimately: Their gods: Arbitrary and capricious, willing to totally wipe out humanity because they are annoyed. Their will can be subverted through a sneaky end run. HaShem: Just, righteous, all-powerful, but ultimately merciful by making provision to continue humanity. (I know, this is not how most readers here would characterize HaShem's actions.) Of course, the narrative doesn't have to be literally true to make this point, just as Genesis 1 doesn't have to be literally true to assert the superiority of HaShem over the gods of the neighboring nations.

david.starling.macmillan · 2 April 2014

SWT said:
david.starling.macmillan said: The Flood story (and most of the Bible, for that matter), wasn't primarily intended to tell us about God; it was intended to tell us about ourselves.
Let me gently disagree with this contention. I am inclined to understand much of the Genesis creation narrative as a response to the religions of surrounding nations. In the context of the flood narrative, the older Babylonian myth had the god Enlil causing the flood out of annoyance, because humans were too noisy and keeping the gods from sleeping. Enlil's intent was to destroy all humanity, but his intent was subverted by the god Ea, who gave Utnapishtim a heads-up about the coming disaster. This is quite different from the Genesis account, in which HaShem's intent is a response to evil behavior on the part of humans and includes a plan to regenerate humanity for a surviving remnant. The message of the story is, ultimately: Their gods: Arbitrary and capricious, willing to totally wipe out humanity because they are annoyed. Their will can be subverted through a sneaky end run. HaShem: Just, righteous, all-powerful, but ultimately merciful by making provision to continue humanity. (I know, this is not how most readers here would characterize HaShem's actions.) Of course, the narrative doesn't have to be literally true to make this point, just as Genesis 1 doesn't have to be literally true to assert the superiority of HaShem over the gods of the neighboring nations.

Good points. I have to be careful not to go too overboard in my sanitizing of the narratives. It feels good to make everything out to be daisies and roses, but that's not realistic. Of course, there's the secondary question -- there's an immediate, proximate purpose but then if we do happen to be theists then there's the overarching purpose (which we can't make the mistake of thinking has a 1-to-1 correspondence with 20th-century American readers). But yeah, I'm down with the Genesis Flood being a retooling of a cultural fable that says "No, God isn't capricious, he's more like this" without really making any changes to the horrifying parts of the story. As far as overarching purpose/meaning is concerned, that's more of a theological question.

eric · 2 April 2014

david.starling.macmillan said: If I had to bet, I'd say the movie has more truth in it than the entire Creation Museum and forthcoming Ark Park.

That bar is so low that Darren Aronofsky can probably do the twist over it. :)

If you read Genesis, they had iron well before Noah. Tubal-Cain forged tools out of iron and bronze.

Yeah, someone else mentioned that too. I guess I have to concede the point here; aside from the 14th century armor (cough), it's not particularly anachronistic compared to the source material. To reality, yes, but Aronofsky did not make it measurably worse than what was already there. I will still wait for the DVD.

daoudmbo · 3 April 2014

SWT said:
david.starling.macmillan said: The Flood story (and most of the Bible, for that matter), wasn't primarily intended to tell us about God; it was intended to tell us about ourselves.
Let me gently disagree with this contention. I am inclined to understand much of the Genesis creation narrative as a response to the religions of surrounding nations. In the context of the flood narrative, the older Babylonian myth had the god Enlil causing the flood out of annoyance, because humans were too noisy and keeping the gods from sleeping. Enlil's intent was to destroy all humanity, but his intent was subverted by the god Ea, who gave Utnapishtim a heads-up about the coming disaster. This is quite different from the Genesis account, in which HaShem's intent is a response to evil behavior on the part of humans and includes a plan to regenerate humanity for a surviving remnant. The message of the story is, ultimately: Their gods: Arbitrary and capricious, willing to totally wipe out humanity because they are annoyed. Their will can be subverted through a sneaky end run. HaShem: Just, righteous, all-powerful, but ultimately merciful by making provision to continue humanity. (I know, this is not how most readers here would characterize HaShem's actions.) Of course, the narrative doesn't have to be literally true to make this point, just as Genesis 1 doesn't have to be literally true to assert the superiority of HaShem over the gods of the neighboring nations.

I have just finished reading Genesis and Exodus, and to me it's clear, particularly in Exodus, that God is a tribal God and one of many, with all his whining that he is a Jealous God etc. if you were truly omnipotent and omniscient, and thus *knew* you were the only God, you'd figure you'd be a lot less insecure, but in Exodus in particular, God speaks and acts like a God who is competing with other gods for dominance. This makes sense of course, since it's written from a human perspective, where the Jewish God *is* competing with other gods. (and really, SO much text about the very specific details of making a fancy tent, I admit, I had to skip over it, at least the 2nd time it went over the fancy tent blueprints). I admit to feeling terrible having such a terrible and scornful impression of Genesis and Exodus, I don't want to come across as anti-semitic, Exodus in particular being the founding myth of Jews and all that...

david.starling.macmillan · 3 April 2014

daoudmbo said: I have just finished reading Genesis and Exodus, and to me it's clear, particularly in Exodus, that God is a tribal God and one of many, with all his whining that he is a Jealous God etc. if you were truly omnipotent and omniscient, and thus *knew* you were the only God, you'd figure you'd be a lot less insecure, but in Exodus in particular, God speaks and acts like a God who is competing with other gods for dominance. This makes sense of course, since it's written from a human perspective, where the Jewish God *is* competing with other gods.

Oh, it's quite obviously the project of the human perspective. The only question is whether the human perspective was inspired by real interactions or fictious ones.

SWT · 3 April 2014

There are some pretty good arguments for the position that the original Hebrew tribes were henotheistic -- that they worshiped HaShem but did not necessarily consider the gods of other nations to be imaginary. You can, as daoudmbo has already noted, see remnants of this belief in the Torah as well as in other parts of the Jewish Bible. According to this hypothesis, the Hebrew religion only later became fiercely monotheistic. The children of the older Hebrew religion (such as what we know today as Judaism, the Samaritan religion, Christianity, and Islam) later inherited this monotheism.

david.starling.macmillan · 3 April 2014

SWT said: There are some pretty good arguments for the position that the original Hebrew tribes were henotheistic -- that they worshiped HaShem but did not necessarily consider the gods of other nations to be imaginary. You can, as daoudmbo has already noted, see remnants of this belief in the Torah as well as in other parts of the Jewish Bible. According to this hypothesis, the Hebrew religion only later became fiercely monotheistic. The children of the older Hebrew religion (such as what we know today as Judaism, the Samaritan religion, Christianity, and Islam) later inherited this monotheism.

That's definitely the progression: "Our god is better" to "Our god is best" to "Our god is real and your gods are only demons" to "Our god is real and your gods are just fake." This pathway does seem fairly unique to the Abrahamic faiths. The rule in most of antiquity was syncretic adoption and the growth of pantheons, not the reduction of pantheons. I've heard it argued that the Hebrews borrowed monotheism from the Egyptian Atenism, but I don't buy it. I certainly don't mind the idea of the Hebrews struggling to come to grips with the idea of a single transcendent creator God over the centuries.

Just Bob · 3 April 2014

david.starling.macmillan said: That's definitely the progression: "Our god is better" to "Our god is best" to "Our god is real and your gods are only demons" to "Our god is real and your gods are just fake."

There are some who have not made that final step -- after a few thousand years. I have heard from evangelicals of various stripes that Hindu gods, Shinto gods, Buddha -- even Muhammad -- are real demons, servants of Satan, or whatever. But that they are REAL entities.

Just Bob · 3 April 2014

Just Bob said:

david.starling.macmillan said: That's definitely the progression: "Our god is better" to "Our god is best" to "Our god is real and your gods are only demons" to "Our god is real and your gods are just fake."
There are some who have not made that final step -- after a few thousand years. I have heard from evangelicals of various stripes that Hindu gods, Shinto gods, Buddha -- even Muhammad -- are real demons, servants of Satan, or whatever. But that they are REAL entities.

Not to mention, of course, all the ancient gods of the Greeks, Egyptians, Romans, Phoenicians, Canaanites, Babylonians, Aztecs, Chinese... That's a lot of demons. One wonders what their jobs are nowadays, now that they've gone out of the god business.

david.starling.macmillan · 3 April 2014

Just Bob said:
david.starling.macmillan said: That's definitely the progression: "Our god is better" to "Our god is best" to "Our god is real and your gods are only demons" to "Our god is real and your gods are just fake."
There are some who have not made that final step -- after a few thousand years. I have heard from evangelicals of various stripes that Hindu gods, Shinto gods, Buddha -- even Muhammad -- are real demons, servants of Satan, or whatever. But that they are REAL entities.

This is true. We see that final step quite obviously in the Old Testament -- lots of "your gods are made out of wood and stone; they cannot eat or speak or move". But evangelicals have regressed a bit, largely due to the influence of gnosticism and generalized docetism. Unsurprisingly, this is most common among the more spiritualist and miracle-driven breeds of Christianity. It's hard to claim that all of your "healings" and other "miracles" are real works of God when they are no more impressive or out of the ordinary than the miracles claimed by other religions. Might as well just hedge our bets and say that other miracles are caused by demons. I'm not sure whether my evolving Christianity has space for supernatural entities other than God. I mean, Jesus certainly did plenty of exorcisms, so there's that. But apart from those events, the Devil and his cohorts fit much better as the personification of humanity's awareness of evil.

david.starling.macmillan · 3 April 2014

Just Bob said: Just Bob said: Not to mention, of course, all the ancient gods of the Greeks, Egyptians, Romans, Phoenicians, Canaanites, Babylonians, Aztecs, Chinese... That's a lot of demons. One wonders what their jobs are nowadays, now that they've gone out of the god business.

They're busy possessing evolutionists. Duh.

Just Bob · 3 April 2014

david.starling.macmillan said:
Just Bob said: Just Bob said: Not to mention, of course, all the ancient gods of the Greeks, Egyptians, Romans, Phoenicians, Canaanites, Babylonians, Aztecs, Chinese... That's a lot of demons. One wonders what their jobs are nowadays, now that they've gone out of the god business.
They're busy possessing evolutionists. Duh.

Hmm, I wonder which one's possessing me. Must be pretty low on the demon totem pole. I wonder if there are evangelicals in the business of diagnosing which particular ex-god demon is possessing whom. Who, for instance, has Poseidon? Quetzalcoatl?

TomS · 3 April 2014

Just Bob said: Just Bob said:
david.starling.macmillan said: That's definitely the progression: "Our god is better" to "Our god is best" to "Our god is real and your gods are only demons" to "Our god is real and your gods are just fake."
There are some who have not made that final step -- after a few thousand years. I have heard from evangelicals of various stripes that Hindu gods, Shinto gods, Buddha -- even Muhammad -- are real demons, servants of Satan, or whatever. But that they are REAL entities.
Not to mention, of course, all the ancient gods of the Greeks, Egyptians, Romans, Phoenicians, Canaanites, Babylonians, Aztecs, Chinese... That's a lot of demons. One wonders what their jobs are nowadays, now that they've gone out of the god business.

What about the Intelligent Designers, now that they're finished designing eyes, flagella, etc.?

david.starling.macmillan · 3 April 2014

Just Bob said: Hmm, I wonder which one's possessing me. Must be pretty low on the demon totem pole. I wonder if there are evangelicals in the business of diagnosing which particular ex-god demon is possessing whom. Who, for instance, has Poseidon? Quetzalcoatl?

Dude, dude. That's totally a thing. I've read long treatises trying to identify which demons fit which cult pattern -- like, the same demon that was Molech also did a stint as Samhain and has now been kicking about in Africa for the last half-dozen centuries; there's suspicion that one of his underlings hitched a ride on a slave ship over to the US and caused the whole ruckus in Salem. The "Gabriel" that appeared to Muhammad also appeared to Joseph Smith as "Moroni". The "sons of God" from Genesis 5 are identified with a couple Egyptian deities, some of the demons in Daniel/Ezekiel, and practically all alien abductions ever. And don't even get me started on the various devils who possessed various world leaders...Agag the Amalekite, Haman the Agagite, Nebuchadnezzar, Antiochus Epiphanes, Herod the Great, Adolph Hitler, and Saddam Hussein all had the same resident demon. Demonology is big business. My guess is that they'd be more likely to pick particular evolutionists and assign demons rather than going in reverse order. It's obvious that Neil Degrasse Tyson is now channeling whatever spirit formerly possessed Carl Sagan.

SWT · 3 April 2014

Sometimes it seems really boring here in a mainline congregation. We spend our time talking about stuff like feeding the hungry, providing shelter to the homeless, comforting the afflicted, and practicing grace, mercy, and forgiveness in our own lives.

Just Bob · 3 April 2014

I want Poseidon! Where do I sign up? Is there a waiting list?

david.starling.macmillan · 3 April 2014

Just Bob said: I want Poseidon! Where do I sign up? Is there a waiting list?

Sorry, Poseidon is obviously kicking around down in Chile causing tsunamis. He was the one who drowned Atlantis, after all. I'd want Horus -- I mean, FALCONS FTW -- but I'm sure he's still in Egypt somewhere.

KlausH · 6 April 2014

AltairIV said:
Just Bob said:
phhht said: ... Godzilla has the word God in it.
That's a typical American mispronunciation. The original Japanese was something like Gojira. But Americans 'knew' Japanese couldn't pronounce Ls.
I imagine it was more of a simple Anglicization and marketing decision than a mispronunciation issue. The unfamiliar foreign word doesn't provide English speakers with much of an image, so the importers of the original movie probably decided to spice it up a little for American audiences. Japanese pronunciation doesn't actually have either "l" or "r", but rather a softer rolling sound about halfway between them. This gives them a lot of trouble when it comes to hearing and speaking the separate English sounds. It can sometimes take quite a bit of practice for a native Japanese to learn to pronounce the l/r distinction correctly. English speakers, conversely, tend to harden the Japanese pronunciation to one side or the other, although this causes fewer problems with communication than in the other direction. In any case, Gojira (ゴジラ) is a portmanteau of "gorilla" and "kujira" (whale), two particularly large and powerful creatures. The Japanese pronunciation of the imported word "gorilla" is usually romanized as "go-ri-ra", but it could just as easily be rendered as "go-li-la", and thus the monster's name to "Go-ji-la". Then it's just one more small step to "Godzilla".

Nope. The Japanese CLEARLY pronounce "L"s as "R"s. Period.I have spent years in Japan and have been on Naval exercises with the Japanese Navy (officially the Maritime Self Defence Force). I have never heard any of the radio operators pronounce phonetics like "lima" anywhere near correctly; it ALWAYS came out as reema. These were highly trained professionals.

AltairIV · 7 April 2014

Nope. The Japanese CLEARLY pronounce "L"s as "R"s. Period.I have spent years in Japan and have been on Naval exercises with the Japanese Navy (officially the Maritime Self Defence Force). I have never heard any of the radio operators pronounce phonetics like "lima" anywhere near correctly; it ALWAYS came out as reema. These were highly trained professionals.

And I'm in Japan now. I've been living here for close to 20 years and deal with students studying English every day. The actual phonetic sound they use is /ɽ/. Depending on the exact word, and the individual, and probably even the region in question, even the Japanese will pronounce it more strongly one way or the other, generally sounding closer to 'r' than 'l' to western ears, but still without quite the clear distinction that there is in English.

From Wikipedia: /ɽ/ is an apical postalveolar flap undefined for laterality. That is, it is specified as neither a central nor a lateral flap, but may vary between the two. It is similar to the Korean r. To an English speaker's ears, its pronunciation varies between a flapped d ([ɾ], as in American English buddy) and a flapped l [ɺ], sounding most like d before /i/ and /j/, most like l before /o/, and most like a retracted flap [ɽ] before /a/.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_phonology I also personally think that the influence of decades of English education and multicultural contact has shifted the native pronunciation so that there is tendency to more of a clear 'r' sound now than in the past.

AltairIV · 7 April 2014

I should also point out that this mostly applies to Japanese speaking Japanese. How well they pronounce foreign words depends a lot on the individual and the amount of study, training, and exposure they've had.

I don't doubt that most of the people you met in the Navy had had a lot of exposure to English, and were more capable than average in pronouncing "l" and "r". But the very fact that they still confuse "lima" and "reema" shows that their brains and vocal chords were still trying to process them according to their native conditioning.

[Apologies for the off-topic detour, BTW. I'll shut up about it now. ;)]

Rikki_Tikki_Taalik · 18 April 2014

From the Quotemining Used In Book and Movie Advertisements Department.

I was flipping tv channels this evening and saw for the hundredth time a commercial for the movie Noah. This time, like many commercials, the advertisement had been edited down in running time to about five or six seconds making it much cheaper to broadcast. At the end of the advert they give two "quotes" from reviewers, one of which was ...

Rolling Stone calls Noah "EPIC"

The actual text from the review (giving 3 out of 5 stars) reads ...

"Pick your gospel: the Scriptures or rock & roll. Both figure into director Darren Aronofsky's Noah, a biblical epic that follows no rules except its creator's teeming imagination."

In a word, we switch the adjective up from ...

: telling a story about a hero or about exciting events or adventures

: very great or large and usually difficult or impressive

Dude, have you seen Noah ? It's "EPIC" !

Nice.

Rikki_Tikki_Taalik · 18 April 2014

Ooops, pardon me. (3 out of 4 stars)

Kira L · 1 May 2014

I believe the movie is actually a adapt reflection of the world we live in and truthfully mirrors the Biblical story of Noah . "In a world ravaged by human sin, Noah is given a divine mission: to build an Ark to save creation from the coming flood." (unknown,Google review,2014)

We live in a world of human sin, but there are still glimpses of humanity and moral displays seen through out the world. A very exaggerated example of this, is when Noah claims he will kill his daughter-in-law's baby, if it is a female. However he cannot bring himself to go through with the act.

So yes, Hollywood has glamorized the biblical tale of Noah, but in essence the fundamental message is still clearly seen throughout this brilliant movie. Although the story has been fractionally altered,i believe this refreshed tale of Noah, better reflects the world we live in, yet still keeps true to its Biblical lesson.