A kindly Noah talking to some white children from the 1950s who time-traveled to him. Photo by Waiting for the Word via Flickr (http://bit.ly/1cqz57E)

A kindly Noah talking to some white children from the 1950s who time-traveled to him. Photo by Waiting for the Word via Flickr (http://bit.ly/1cqz57E)

It’s a good thing stories of drunkenness, incest, adultery, and bizarre tales of bears killing children for making fun of a bald prophet never made it into the Bible. Can you imagine what a mess that would be? I, for one, am glad for this whitewashed and easy-to-interpret book.

Darren Aronofsky (director of such lighthearted family fare as Black Swan, Pi, and Requiem for a Dream) is working on a new film about the Biblical character of Noah. You remember Noah — he was the guy who turned away the unicorns from the ark because they were late. He had a long beard and a brown robe and a friendly smile, kind of like Russell Crowe, who plays Noah in the film.

Paramount, nervous about how faith-based audiences would respond to the film (set to be released March 28), held test screenings with Christian audiences. The Hollywood Reporter wrote about the audience reaction:

“Friction grew when a segment of the recruited Christian viewers, among whom the studio had hoped to find Noah‘s most enthusiastic fans, questioned the film’s adherence to the Bible story and reacted negatively to the intensity and darkness of the lead character. Aronofsky’s Noah gets drunk, for example, and considers taking drastic measures to eradicate mankind from the planet.”

And therein lies the problem. When we expect whitewashed versions of what is actually in the Bible, we will be sorely disappointed by the real thing. In case it’s been a while since you’ve read Genesis 9, take a moment to refresh your memory of what the Bible says about Noah:

“Noah, a man of the soil, was the first to plant a vineyard. He drank some of the wine and became drunk, and he lay uncovered in his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers…when Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him, he said, “Cursed be Canaan; lowest of slaves shall he be to his brothers.”

(Not incidentally, this passage was used by Christians in the antebellum south for decades, if not centuries, to justify slavery.)

So Noah got drunk and cursed his son for failing to honor his privacy and dignity. Noah was also “a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God.” (Genesis 6:9) This is the mystery of the Scriptures: both of these things are somehow true. Noah was righteous and he got super drunk and laid naked in his tent. As Rebecca Cusey wrote at Patheos, “If you associate the story of Noah with adorable animals smiling under a sunny rainbow, you’re reading the story wrong.”

One of my own early forays into understanding the origins of the world came about when my Old Testament professor at my (wonderful, very Christian) college mentioned how many Ancient Near Eastern origin accounts — some of which predated Genesis — had some kind of flood narrative as their starting point. The epic of Gilgamesh, for example, in which the god Ea commanded Utnapishtim to build a ship to survive the flood.

There is a great deal to struggle with in these early texts, and a great deal that is hard to understand. What we need to remember is to take the Scriptures for what they are without imposing some sort of Disney filter to them. Noah may not be the film you want to take your young children to see, and that’s no problem. But let’s not pretend that the Bible is all nice people and happy endings. We who call ourselves religious, of all people, should know better.

76 Comments

  1. You might want to read the objections and compare them to the Bible’s account that YOU posted again-they are NOT the same story! But here you are again on your high horse looking down your nose at Christians who actually stick to the text.

  2. Laura Turner

    Oh, gosh, I’m not looking down my nose at all–just encouraging all Christians to remember that the Bible isn’t a feel-good story. The objections were to “the intensity and darkness” of Noah, which is very representative of Noah in Genesis. We can’t read about an intense and, at times, dark character in the Bible and then object when he is portrayed as such–at least, we can’t do this and retain any sense of consistency.

    • Laura, I really appreciated your article! It’s very true that (we) believers tend to “whitewash” and/or selectively “underline” certain passages of the Bible that best tell a story that we’re comfortable with. It’s really important to take the Bible for what it says, where and how it says it – with respect to it’s context and intended audiences, as well – and in our American Evangelical tradition, we often find it hard to remove our own perspectives and cultural traditions from the text. I was raised with a great deal of reverence for Scripture, and the older I get, the more important it is to revere God’s word for what it is and what it says, even and especially in those areas that are uncomfortable. Thanks for a very thought-provoking read. :)

  3. Suzanne Thompson

    It is my understanding Noah, the movie, is a completely unbiblical account of Noah and the flood. Christians do NOT want “whitewashing” of biblical accounts. On the contrary, Hollywood of late would never portray accurate biblical accounts because that would involve dealing with man’s sin and God’s judgement. That’s what the real Noah of the Bible illustrates. The flood was God’s judgement. Read Genesis 6:5-8. The books of the Bible are full of sinful men, failures, and God’s judgement, but also God’s love and redemption, which began in Genesis and was fulfilled in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ for our sin. The Bible is definitely not “all nice people,” but it does have a happy ending! Here is a review of the Noah movie from a Christian perspective.
    http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2013/11/19/dont-be-taken-in-by-the-noah-movies-promotion/

    • Suzanne I think you made a mistake. You said: “Here is a review of the Noah movie from a Christian perspective.” Then posted a link to Ken Ham’s website review instead. Just wanted to let you know so you could add the Christian review that you meant to post.

    • Dina Britton Kirk

      Keep in mind there were many versions of the same stories that never made it in the Bible, because it would “confuse the masses”. When one is trying to gain followers of a new faith keeping the stories simple in ancient times was the key to successful conversions to Christianity.
      This film is an interesting study on mythical archetypes. Mans’ failure to live within the balance of the earths’ needs, and man at war with the divine feminine. Noah is struggling with imagining how can a new world be possible if one continues to make the same mistakes? It is the women, the rocks, the plants, and animals in the film that show the compassion strength and courage in their quiet support of him that allow Noah to remember his own compassionate nature, opening his heart to love again, accepting the value of all consciousnesses on the planet – that they all have value and something to teach – whether it be animal, rock, women etc. When love is forgotten in the most desperate of times then all is lost, but if one can learn to forgive oneself, and begin again then new life is possible. Because Noah feels he must carry the guilt of all mans’ failures, he feels his family does not deserve to be the only ones left to continue the race. But as his wife reminds him “it’s time to let that burden go”, so he can create a better world.

  4. Great post Laura – i love it when you get rebuttals from “it is my understanding” which translates to “i haven’t seen the movie but this might be in it” rather than hearing the point you are making [from your high horse apparently] which is completely valid and a great one – i am looking forward to seeing how the story is told and being old enough and hopefully mature enough to hold it against the story in the Bible and know where it measures up and where it doesn’t. i imagine God feels secure on His throne going in to this one…

    thank you
    brett fish

  5. The danger would also be to think that there was actually a global flood that covered the entire earth 4,000 years ago. To take this account as a literal historical account rather than the greater theological message the Hebrews were communicating would be a big mistake.

    • No, Marcus, the danger would be to deny that an event happened the way the Bible says is did in spite of the account of Jesus himself speaking of it as historical fact in Luke 17:26 & 27. On the other hand it would be easy to call into question Jesus’ statements if we are able to pick and choose the passages we choose to believe and cast aside the ones we don’t– and, if this is the case, why believe any of it? The value of the “theological message the Hebrews were communicating” is dubious at best if it is based on whimsical accounts of fabricated events.

      • A global flood is impossible; as in, NOT possible.
        It didn’t happen.
        Jesus believed all sorts of things including the idea that sin causes paralysis, that the earth was flat, that earthquakes were a direct message from God, non Jews were ‘dogs’, and Jonah lived inside a big fish for 3 full days hence His determination to be raised on the 3rd day (which also didn’t happen).

        Believe it if you wish, but no evidence points to it being remotely possible. People focus on the beauty of a Dove flying to Noah at the end of the story – instead of the genocidal God whose ‘final solution’ to rid the world “evil humans” failed in the same way Hitler’s did. God’s attempt is considered virtuous by believers instead of psychopathic and one can only wonder why.

        • Edward Borges-Silva

          Atheist Max, I never cease to be amazed at the way you blithely dismiss the assertions of others without ever offering any sound historical or scientific evidence of your own. You criticize, critique, and negate without any proper forensic rebuttal.

          • Edward Borges-Silva,

            Right, I don’t provide much evidence because I assume a minimum of science knowledge from most people.

            How did a 300-year old Noah build…eh, okay…..I’ll skip that part.

            Where did all the water go?
            If the Noah story is true the global OCEAN covered Mt. Everest which is 5 miles above sea level. For the earth to be so covered with water would require more oxygen and hydrogen (H2O-water) than has ever been found on earth.

            The story says a dove brought the branch to Noah. But as the water receded the first land masses would be 5 miles high – where no trees or foliage has ever grown!

            It would also use up all the oxygen and hydrogen on earth for thousands of years – in fact as I pointed out there isn’t enough of it on earth to create that much water. Not even close.
            It is absolutely impossible.

            What about the trees and grasses?
            They would have all become extinct. Trees cannot survive under water – there would be no trees on earth today if a global flood had ever happened. All studies show that seeds also would be water logged and dead – unable to grow.

            What about the air?
            The humidity required to flood the earth with so much water would render the air unbreathable. 100% humidity!
            Did Noah and his family have oxygen tanks – did each of the animals have oxygen tanks? I don’t remember the Noah story so well, can you enlighten me on that one?
            I assume most people have at least a minimum of science knowledge.

            I could go on. But this is getting too long.

            google this: Why the noah story is impossible

            Noah is a completely ridiculous story.

          • Because one can dismiss it out of hand as impossible, unproven and based on centuries of mistake and embellishment.

            The story depends on people ignoring scientific possibility and constantly saying, “it was a miracle that allowed ,,,”

            My favorite way to puncture the veracity of the Noah account is to bring up questions as to how Noah avoided succumbing to super-instant cholera from all of the herbivore poop accumulating on the ship and impregnating the wooden hull. Nobody ever wants to think about sanitation.

        • Edward,
          Additionally, there is water currently locked in ice.

          According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) if all the global ice including from the North Pole, South Pole, glaciers, etc…were to melt completely the global sea level would rise only 220 feet.

          That isn’t enough to cover a single major land mass in the world. Not even mount Ararat!

          • Even believers who are familiar with the text in its original language can tell you the Noah flood was only 23-25′ high in the story. Orthodox Jews are not Young Earth Creationists. At best they are theistic evolutionists. (God works through science!)

            All of this belief of Noah’s Flood as worldwide is pure Christian ignorance/embellishment.

  6. More likely than not Fundamentalists and people looking for Biblical text portrayed on screen will be disappointed. Director Aronofsky has never shown an interest in appealing to such crowds and likes to “mess with the heads” of audiences with existential issues.

  7. One of the most haunting nightmares I’ve ever had in my life is of being on the Ark and watching the flood of humanity and animals in swirling waters banging the ship and calling out for help and to let them on board and us leaving them to die. I’ve felt sorry for Noah ever since; it’s not easy following God’s will.

  8. The Gilgamesh flood story does not bring Noah’s story into doubt, it supports it. If the flood truly effected all of mankind, we should expect ancient people groups to have an oral tradition that includes a devastating flood. Also, we should not expect the different accounts to be exactly the same in all details. These are oral traditions that were written down later. Even eyewitnesses of the same event cannot get all the details the same.

    I have not yet seen the movie, but if the film depicts Noah considering murdering all of his family – as you seem to suggest with your comment that Noah “considers taking drastic measures to eradicate mankind from the planet” – then the film is not adhering to the text.

    I was looking forward to the movie, but if it depicts Noah in that manner I have a big problem with it. I don’t have a problem showing Noah getting drunk, because that’s in the text. I hope the filmmakers edit the film to be closer to the real story.

    • Any notion of an actual world flood from Genesis comes from centuries of misinterpretations, embellishments and wishful thinking. It is not even supported in the text. The far more plausible, honest and likely interpretation requires one to consider the environment in which the Noah story was written.

      The oldest sedentary civilizations out there were riverine in nature. People lived by rivers because it was the easiest areas to grow food and stay put. The most devastating natural disaster which could befall such communities was flooding. It was the most common way entire settlements could be wiped out in an instant. There was no effective protection from them.

      Flood stories would be common not because of some mythical great flood in our Jungian memories and whatnot. They would be common because it would strike fear in the hearts of people of the people reading. Everyone in such places knows about floods and what they could do. If you are making a religious parable, why make it just some mundane flood when you could embellish it as the ultimate wrath of your singular all powerful God.

      Give people credit for using their imagination. They didn’t have TV back then and had a lot of time on their hands to come up with this stuff. :)

      • Mike D'Virgilio

        Larry, our God is not singular. And your naturalistic/materialistic assumptions read into the text are no more or less plausible than my supernatural/spiritual assumptions that God can actually break into history and the world he created and do as he likes. Actually, I’ll go with the God who is really God than the human wannabes.

        • YOUR God is singular. Do not presume to tell me what I believe or should believe.

          Once you start with the “materialist/naturalistic assumptions” spiel you are admitting that you have no credible objective evidence to support yourself. If you have to say “its a miracle” or “its the supernatural” you are saying it is impossible when viewed in a rational fashion. The supernatural has no evidence, cannot be proven, can be dismissed as superstition.

          You can go with God, but by doing so you are admitting that you have nothing but faith to go on. Essentially you are also saying I have no compelling reason to believe so myself.

          Fact of the matter is the most logical and far most plausible basis for the flood story is it is a thrilling story having to do with the most feared natural disaster ancient people would have known. A parable to teach the kiddies about trusting your deity.

      • Mike D'Virgilio

        Laura, you make a great point. To bad these atheist trolls can’t just reveal their superior intellect and brilliance on their own atheist websites. I wonder if it is a requirement to be arrogant and condescending to be an atheist.

        Anyway, I’ve been reading through the Bible, front to back, this last year or so and the book is not for the squeamish. Much of it is very much “R” rated, and many Christian parents wouldn’t let their kids go to a movie if it accurately depicted much of what is there.

        It always amazes me how modern people with no knowledge whatsoever of the ancient near east, or God’s covenental plans in redemptive history, can sit in judgement on the text. And these same people have absolutely no conception of the holiness of God nor the depth of human sin. They always confirm for me how true Satan’s temptation to Adam and Eve was in the Garden: you shall be like God knowing good and evil. They’ve swallowed the lie hook, line and sinker.

        • Hi Mike , it is not a requirement to be arrogant and condescending as an atheist but it kind of neutralizes the smug certainty of the religious, that believe incredible stories with no evidence.

      • Larry, you love to tell us Christians how inaccurate and false the Bible is. Please show us unbiased facts and evidence with sources not mere words from your mouth. Also, we will check your sources so please do not make a fool of yourself with more false words.

        One more thing, please do not bring up “man shall not eat shrimp.” Please dig a little deeper.

        If you believe the Bible is false why do you feel the need to tell us every day?

        • Religion is a dangerous toy. I’d bet that is why Larry protests.

          Religion is not only the repression of critical thinking in the name of ‘faith’ and threats of Hell – which is reason enough to oppose it.

          But…Religion is also the promotion of immorality in the form of vicarious redemption, genital mutilation, repression of rights for women over their own bodies, repression of rights of gays and the teaching of nonsensical Creationism in our schools.

          If religion could keep to itself there wouldn’t be a problem, but unfortunately it tries to destroy civilization wherever it can… as the Arizona Senate did today in yet another affront in the name of Christianity to oppose Gay rights!

        • The Bible is not a science book, a cook book, a historical account or even a singular work. It is a religious text. Literalism defeats its purpose, denudes it of its strength and appeals to those who don’t like to think very hard. People like yourself are so hung up on trying to pretend there is factual accuracy in the Bible that you completely ignore its value as literature and as a religious text. Using a butter knife where a power-drill is called for.

          Calling me a liar does not make it so. You are just annoyed that my version of the story is far more plausible, logical and can be supported by evidence such as the flood myths of other cultures. Even people conversant with Biblical texts do not believe the Noah story dealt with a worldwide flood. That it was embellishment over the centuries for dramatic effect.

  9. Many thoughts on your post Laura, but mostly….I am not surprised by some of the comments above. I think it is clear that people see what they want to see (Bewildered) and quickly defend when they feel slightly challenged (Suzanne). Thanks, Laura, for being an example of a Christian who is willing to take a closer look at things.

      • Laura Turner

        Thanks so much, Evan. I appreciate it. And Dave, the point of the post isn’t to look at the film itself but the response to the film. Your point is, also, my point–we haven’t seen it, so we can’t dismiss it out of pocket.

      • I for one won’t pay good money for a movie just so I can have an “informed opinion.” I’ll read the reviews from people I personally trust and make a decision from there. Mr. Aronofsky and his backers won’t get my money if I don’t hear things that don’t fulfill my personal prerequisites for spending two hours in a theater seat.

  10. I worked for Icon Productions during the making of the Passion of the Christ…signed a non-disclosure agreement, the whole 9 yards, promising not to divulge info about the story and it’s premise, directions and character. It was tough listening to the critics lambaste a movie they have not even seen…speaking to it as if they had the inside scoop. Like those people, you have no idea how this movie – the story et al – will play out. So it always baffles me how people such as yourself think they have it all figured out. So we all know how this goes, you will stick to your uninformed opinion regardless, even after the release and rile up a few naive alarmists along the way and the film makers will thank you for whatever publicity you can provide – good or bad.

    • I remember when it was just “The Passion” on Apple’s trailer webpage way back when.

      It’s a beautiful movie (AWESOME original score!). Whether or not PofC (not to be confused with Disney’s PotC) is authentic, for me: it’s the tangibility of it all.

      Hole-EEE crap! Every whip that scourged Jesus’ flesh is MY sin, My lie, MY vanity and pride. The anguish on Mary’s face watching her son, and our salvation, take that beating. The blood that washed clean the Roman (ie, Gentile) on Golgotha.

      Who ISN’T touched by that remarkable scene?

      • I hate to be strident – I really do. But you asked for it.

        “The Passion of the Christ” was revolting. Nothing about it was redeeming.
        Human sacrifice is a primitive, morbid, terrible theory and a ridiculous philosophy.
        The solipsism that claims a man was victimized, tortured and murdered for one’s own behalf is not only delusional but likely sociopathic.

        The neanderthal idea of vicarious redemption at the hands of a murderer must be abandoned. It cannot be real.

        • It was the best marketed gore film since “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre”. Mel Gibson was a marketing genius.

          He got people to see “torture porn” who would normally be picketing such things outside of movie theaters. Take the nasty effects used in horror films and convince uptight Christians to not only watch it, but not make a stink about them. Living proof that appealing to the naivete of the self-righteous can be a profitable venture.

        • Strictly speaking, it was not human sacrifice since Jesus undertook these actions of his own authority. In John 10:17 & 18 he says, “I lay down My life so that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again.” The beauty in the crucifixion is not the “murder”, violence, blood-shed, pain, etc. Rather it is in the lengths to which God (in the person of Jesus Christ) is willing to go in order to redeem his people from the horrific consequences of sin. The value of putting it on film is to inform comfortable, privileged 21st century Christians of the realities of what Christ did for us via an ancient far-eastern torture method utilized by the Romans.

          • “I’ll forgive you, but first I have to become a human and have myself killed. Never forget I did this for you.” – God

            I hope you think about how incoherent the Jesus story really is.
            It doesn’t make a whiff of sense.

  11. I don’t understand why Christians expect someone who is not a believer (probably) to be concerned with biblical or historical accuracy. IT’S A STORY! From Aronofsky’s perspective. We don’t hold musicians to a standard of exact replication of a song, so why are we expecting a story teller to do the same? His intent is not to create a false bible study or indoctrinate people. His intent is to create a visually beautiful and captivating story. Why can’t we, as believers, appreciate the creativity that God has instilled in Aronofsky, even if we don’t like his particular rebelling of the story?

    Great job point out that scripture is complex, often not pretty, and actually messy!

  12. Noah aside, I think Russell Crowe has got to either play nicer with producers or find a better agent. I can’t think of a decent film he has been in as of late. It will be very tough to top the atomic level badness of his Javert in the last version of Les Miserables.

  13. In addition to all the gritty, Biblical details about Noah (getting drunk, naked, etc.), let us not forget the biggest fact of the Noah story: God Almighty had decided to drown every man, woman and child on the face of the earth to thehir death; except for eight people. I stipulate that God, being THE supreme being and ruler of the universe, can do whatever He pleases. Nonetheless, one has to (at least) be perplexed about the reality (if you take this story literally) that thousands upon thousands of infants (along with their older brothers, sisters, parents) died a terrible death in a Tsunami that was not just permitted, but was caused, by God Almighty. In our convenient retrospect, it’s easy to make this a type of baptism, talk about God’s covenant to never repeat mass murder/annihilation, etc. But, to those living on the face of the earth at the time, I suppose the poetry was lost on them as young mothers made a last grasp for their suckling children and while everyone else made a last gasp for air before a 20,000 pound tree cut them in half. Maybe an NC-17 rating would be more appropriate?

    • You speak as if God has some moral duties to people. I don’t see any reason to believe this is so, or even that God has any moral duties whatsoever.
      When I make a vase out of clay, I own that wholly and completely. I can gild it and set flowers in it, or I can throw it aside. I can even break it – I have no duties toward that vase whatsoever, because I am its creator.
      If the flood of Genesis recounts any sort of literal historic event (not necessarily a global flood, but any kind of natural disaster brought about by God for punishing mankind) we have absolutely zero grounds for complaint, as we hold no rights whatsoever with respect to our creator.

      • Can my wife and I kill the children we created? Nope. I also can’t kill our pets without penalty. So, to God, we are less than pets and just pottery? Does pottery have a soul or life?

    • I’m also intrigued why every plant, animal, and most fish also had to die for Mans errors. I want to see the movie just to see the carnage floating near the ark.

      • “I’m also intrigued why every plant, animal and most fish also had to die for Man’s errors”. Well, the Bible says that God gave man dominion over the fish of the sea the beast of the field and the birds of the air. When Man sinned by listening to satan rather than God, then Man made sure that not only he but all of earth was cursed. Man in his sin was a wicked creature because they CHOSE to. Man has free will. In the time of Noah man’s sin was overwhelming to God so much so that it eventually became an acrid stench to Him. Man was destroying himself and all around him so God gave Noah the mantle to build the ark so that unblemished animals, birds and plantlife could be saved along with Noah and his family. The fish wouldn’t have anything to worry about, being that it was a flood. Remember, God does not arbitrarily kill for no reason, He usually reacts to the man when they refuse to stop sinning, in mind, word and deed in rebellion and total selfish abandon. What’s God to do? He created Earth and man to be perfect, man messed up, God acts to save His earth.

  14. Earold Gunter

    Mass godly murder aside, I love how “god” and noah are so close, god gives noah detailed ark building directions down to the cubit. But then after the flood, noah has to send a dove out to see if there is any dry land yet. Did god go on vacation, loose noah’s cell number, what’s up with that?

    Religion poisons the mind!!

  15. Noah:
    The story of a mass murdering, vindictive, All-knowing, All-powerful God who destroys all living things to rid the world of all evil.
    And fails completely. Somehow.

    Watch for the sequel(s). Coming soon.
    Because nothing fails like God.

  16. WorldGoneCrazy

    If authentic Christians want a whitewashed version of Biblical events, why were we flooding (pun intended) to see The Passion of the Christ?

    • Because they want to see a film with torture, depravity and blood but would be embarrassed to go rent Hostel or Salo.

      Cecil B; DeMille had you guys all pegged from the early days of cinema. You can show as much sin and nastiness on screen as censors would allow if you called it a Biblical epic and made sure the bland pious protagonists either triumphed or had a stirring emotional martyrdom.

  17. Edward Borges-Silva

    What Atheist Max, Earold, Larry, and other unbelievers fail to take into account, is that they are in a distinct minority; however confused humanity’s sense of God is, the fact remains that most of the world’s 7 billion + persons recognize the reality of the Supreme Being. He states in His very Word that He has placed this knowledge intrinsically within us, and it is only self deception to deny it. The tragedy is that those so deceived are denying themselves the blessings and benefits, however presently circumscribed, that are readily available to them.

    • Are you saying that science is irrelevant to use as a tool to understand the world?

      If so, you do have that right.
      But be prepared for the implications. The consequences are not benign.

      When science was not applied to problem solving people burned witches in order to stop diseases like the plague from spreading.

      You are indirectly validating such superstitions
      as a method of disease control.
      If you disregard science you will have no argument against superstitions you disagree with.

      “If you believe absurdities, you will commit atrocities” – Voltaire

    • OOOOOOH, An argument based on strength in numbers! How scary! I am just quaking in my shoes here.

      Of course you have given us the reason why the world is still in such crappy shape. Many of those 6 billion (1 billion Chinese are mostly non-spiritual or atheist) are trying to kill each other over which Supreme Being is really the correct one. Worse still they are doing so over which sect of the same Supreme Being is right.

      Throughout the world things are getting more peaceful. Wars are becoming fewer and less destructive than in generations past. Genocide has become far less frequent now than it has in a very long time. The great economies and world powers are not locked in death struggles and conflicts which threaten our existence on the planet.

      But the exception to all of that is where there is religious conflict. Where religion controls the apparatus of government. Where people believe their religious faith is more important than consideration of the person next to them.

  18. James Brickley

    You would think regular readers would learn to not feed the comment trolls. Atheist Max and Larry are openly attacking Christianity merely because it is entertaining. They take joy in their snarky mocking tone and self-righteous superiority. There is no argument to be won, they are not here to argue, they are here to mock and laugh. When you respond to an atheist troll, you are granting them legitimacy. When you ignore them, they will go away bored. They are only here to antagonize and provoke a response. When you see their postings just say to yourself “Yep, much of the world thinks like that” and just let it go.

    Not everyone will hear the Word and believe it.
    http://bible.com/1/luk.9.1-4.kjv

    We as Christians already know the end game; we know that many will perish. We also know that we are to strive to save as many as we can. Larry and Atheist Max are like the car load of laughing teenagers barreling down the highway towards the missing 100ft bridge span and we Christians are the ones waving our arms and jumping up and down and yelling at them to stop. But alas, the car plunges over the missing roadway to their doom! http://goo.gl/ac1Vhv

  19. Robert Neuman

    Biblical scholars have long been puzzled by what exactly Ham did when he “uncovered his father’s nakedness,” for which a sober Noah cursed him. For two theories that Ham either castrated his drunken father, or had some kind of sex with him, see Robert Alter, The Five Books of Moses (New York, 2004) page 52, and “What did Ham do to his Father?” in Avigdor Shinar & Yair Zakovitch, eds., From Gods to God (Philadelphia, 2012), pp. 131-137. Is this scene in the movie?

  20. Medicated mouthwashes are easy to find and so are herbal mouthwashes.
    You can get gone a lot of reduce posts and also lint accumulation.
    Collect the review of the type Singer sewing
    machine model you are going to purchase taking help from local sewing stores, magazines or internet.

  21. There are over 750 additives (including excipients)
    which have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for our food and health supplement products.
    But you should be well sure that the content you are reading should
    be insightful and honest, and not some paid content meant to lure you by false promises and causing you to not
    only lose some cash but also some skin problems from using a product which is not up to the mark.
    Potassium chloride is a corrosive compound commonly used in fertilizer, fire extinguishers
    and it is the third compound within a three compound mixture raised for
    lethal injection. Im addicted to my hobby of advanta supplements
    Sounds boring? Not at all!
    I to learn Japanese in my free time.

  22. If there is an event in your home. Keep brushing them quite lightly to mold home test kit prevent the spreading of germs along with other mold poisoning
    treatment options. Initial symptoms of this syndrome, then immediate medical intervention is required.
    Insert the probes into the wood and create mold growth.
    With the developed mold manufacturing center to China as
    the mold is found, black mold is?

  23. Hey there! I know this is kinda off topic but I was wondering which blog platform are
    you using for this website? I’m getting fed up of WordPress because I’ve had problems with hackers and I’m looking at alternatives for another platform.

    I would be awesome if you could point me in the direction of a good platform.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments with many links may be automatically held for moderation.