Debunking Noah, and I need some help

[Delvo]

I don't buy the argument of "she needs comfort so let her have it". People who look to religion for "comfort" are known to actually find LESS of it there than without it.

 

[Leumas]

How dare you denigrate my mother based on the fact that she is not Jewish.

How exactly was I denigrating yours or anyone's mother.

I said they are the best ever not in terms of better than others but that they are GREAT....no comparison implied.

It is an English colloquialism that means VERY GOOD...GREAT but not in comparison to others per se.

 

[Sideroxylon]

I don't buy the argument of "she needs comfort so let her have it". People who look to religion for "comfort" are known to actually find LESS of it there than without it.

People can have religion without buying into the kind of pig-headed ignorance required to accept the Deluge account as fact. It is unfortunate that clowns like Ken Ham are touting a particular U.S. brand of Protestantism that paints their believers into a corner of willful ignorance and lying.

 

[bluesjnr]

How exactly was I denigrating yours or anyone's mother.

By asserting that Jewish mothers are the "BEST EVER"

I said they are the best ever not in terms of better than others but that they are GREAT....no comparison implied.

No you didn't, you said that she was the "BEST EVER" because "she is a Jewish mother" thereby comparing Jewish mothers against all non Jewish mothers.

It is an English colloquialism that means VERY GOOD...GREAT but not in comparison to others per se.

No it isn't and no it doesn't.

Anyhooo, I'm derailing this thread so you can safely ignore my pettiness hereafter.

 

[catsmate]

Oops. Fixed. Happy? Of course not.

So no response to the debunking of the silly "hydroplate theory"?

 

[David Swidler]

And in regards to that aspect…. It is a heinous testament to how retarded and egregiously vile humanity can be.

(marginally relevant bits snipped)

Am I to understand that sections of a criminal code somehow help Mudcat's mother? What exactly are you getting at?

If you think that mandating sentences for various offenses is barbaric, WTF?

If you think that morality doesn't evolve, or that the authors of the Tanakh didn't see that evolution and work toward its continued development, I have nothing further to say to you. We've derailed enough as it is.

If you'd like to start a thread on the subject of the evolving nature of Biblical morality and how the laws were actually practiced in ancient times, as opposed to your assumptions regarding the text's intent, feel free. Just don't expect much sincere participation if your idea of debate involves browbeating and blue fonts.

 

[bikerdruid]

why does it matter what your mother believes?
does it harm anyone?

 

[NotJesus]

Height of Everest above sea level (hence, minimum depth of the water): 29000 ft

29000 ft / 40 days / 24 hrs/day = 30 ft rain/hour.

That's not rain, that's a solid sheet of water falling continuously from the sky.

Just one of the many stupidities of the story.

Mt. Everest is 29,029 ft. today.

If the entire earth was rocked by a global cataclysm such as Noah's alleged flood,
you have no idea what Everest's elevation was before that time.

You assume you know, but you don't know.

Suppose Mt. Everest's (or some other tallest mountain's) elevation was once only a third that high. It would still need to rain 10 ft. per hour. So your defense amounts to, "Hey, the story may be slightly less absurdly impossible than you think."

 

[Lowpro]

Whatever floats your boat down the Mississippi. But my point was not that "it never happened," which may or may not be the case, my point was that the text's purpose does not presuppose taking it as history, and that getting stuck on that point, even for a believer, detracts from its message. I actually don't care one way or the other whether it is factually, historically true, and I think it's a waste of time trying to convince anyone either way.

And I think that is an important step for to hear from a Rabbi. If you were to live in the Rambam's time, I don't think you'd be treated with much love and endearment.

But then again, as a friend of mine confirmed my suspicions, Judaism seems to be a neverending interpretation of the words of the Tanakh (maybe just the Talmud though after what you had said; is the Torah even to be interpreted or just memorized?).

That's an interesting feeling, and I can see what you mean, even if I disagree. Certainly in the view of the aforementioned Rav Kook, atheists play an important, even sacred, role: their arguments serve as constant reminders of the inadequacy of human language to truly express anything about God, such that any term used to "define" God will necessarily fail.

But I think we should now let Mudcat decide whether by continuing we're helping now or just adding confusion...

Well I just feel like Mark Twain's novels definitely include some historical elements, including current zeitgeist views such as those of racism and slavery, so where does my comparison fail versus the Talmud? A claim to divinity? If that's all it takes, I'm sure if Twain were alive he'd add it in just to gauge your opinion

 

[wardenclyffe]

You can always use the Biblical quote that Leumas supplied (I quote it below) to tell her that you are afraid she is going to kill you. She should be trying to kill you if she really believes the Bible.

Ward

P.S. Here's that quote again (one of my favorites):

"Deuteronomy

{13:6} If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which [is] as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; {13:7} [Namely,] of the gods of the people which [are] round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the [one] end of the earth even unto the [other] end of the earth; {13:8} Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: {13:9} But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. {13:10} And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. {13:11} And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you."

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

why does it matter what your mother believes?
does it harm anyone?

Oh goodie, "What harm does it do."

 

[David Swidler]

And I think that is an important step for to hear from a Rabbi. If you were to live in the Rambam's time, I don't think you'd be treated with much love and endearment.

That would depend on where. He had some vehement exchanges with the Rabbis of Provence and Alsace-Lorraine on various fundamentals.

But then again, as a friend of mine confirmed my suspicions, Judaism seems to be a neverending interpretation of the words of the Tanakh (maybe just the Talmud though after what you had said; is the Torah even to be interpreted or just memorized?).

There's continual interpretation, but as I said earlier, it has to be consistent with the rest of the body of work or it's an exercise in postmodernism (which of course Judaism has room for, but not to the exclusion of all else; the subjectivity of the observer is an important element in classical Jewish thought).

Well I just feel like Mark Twain's novels definitely include some historical elements, including current zeitgeist views such as those of racism and slavery, so where does my comparison fail versus the Talmud? A claim to divinity? If that's all it takes, I'm sure if Twain were alive he'd add it in just to gauge your opinion

I'd be flattered, but I doubt Sam Clemens would care much what some random Rabbi halfway across the world said about anything.

Also I'm not sure what you mean by "versus the Talmud" - the Talmud doesn't claim to be of divine origin; the Talmudic figures were just very, very good readers of text.

 

[Lowpro]

That would depend on where. He had some vehement exchanges with the Rabbis of Provence and Alsace-Lorraine on various fundamentals.

Very true, I don't think Judaism as a whole over all regions come to a concensus on some specifics, but then again I think that's part of the built in interpretation process of the Tanakh (or again, the Talmud, I do not know if the Tanakh itself is)

There's continual interpretation, but as I said earlier, it has to be consistent with the rest of the body of work or it's an exercise in postmodernism (which of course Judaism has room for, but not to the exclusion of all else; the subjectivity of the observer is an important element in classical Jewish thought).

It was that sentiment that had my friend say to me "Welcome to Judaism"

I'd be flattered, but I doubt Sam Clemens would care much what some random Rabbi halfway across the world said about anything.

Also I'm not sure what you mean by "versus the Talmud" - the Talmud doesn't claim to be of divine origin; the Talmudic figures were just very, very good readers of text.

First, I actually do think Twain would take time out of his day to exercise a literary point, but he's far too dead to ask now.

As for "versus the Talmud" I had to bring it up because I don't know how a rabbi treats Scripture versus any other Jewish person. I know the Tanakh is read by my friends, but I know little about how the Talmud plays a role in religious education. I said that because I don't want to make it seem like what I have to say is truth by my declaration, I'm admitting ignorance.

 

[Leumas]

But then again, as a friend of mine confirmed my suspicions, Judaism seems to be a neverending interpretation of the words of the Tanakh (maybe just the Talmud though after what you had said; is the Torah even to be interpreted or just memorized?).

The Talmud is a collection of INTERPRETATIONS by numerous Rabbis over the centuries. It is NOT scripture.

The Tanakh is the scriptures memorized and recited.

The Talmud is the INTERPRETATION of the scripture (among other things) being a conglomeration of numerous opinions by many Rabbis who are frequently diametrically opposed and often orthogonal to each other.

The Talmud is studied to make sense of the Tanakh…. Unfortunately it is often quite impossible to make sense of the Talmud too. Even if you do understand it, you are not likely to come out with much of a decisive view on anything.

 

[David Swidler]

As for "versus the Talmud" I had to bring it up because I don't know how a rabbi treats Scripture versus any other Jewish person. I know the Tanakh is read by my friends, but I know little about how the Talmud plays a role in religious education. I said that because I don't want to make it seem like what I have to say is truth by my declaration, I'm admitting ignorance.

Not much difference, at least in my circles. "Rabbi" in its formal sense just means expertise in certain areas of Jewish law. And the way the sources are studied can vary tremendously from one institution to the next, not to mention from one denomination of Judaism to the next. But what is true is that Orthodoxy has to some degree distanced itself in the last century and a half from intensive Tanakh study in favor of Talmud.

 

[truethat]

To the OP

Instead of trying to "Debunk it" I would encourage you to use common sense to get her to consider it as a story.

For example I'd show her the video clips of the Japanese Tsunami and point out that if you lived way back when and saw the same sort of thing, you'd certainly feel as though the "world" was flooded. Instead of trying to argue exegesis get her to see it as a story that wound up being misinterpreted as a bigger event in time.

There's no physical evidence for a world wide flood, it's not possible and yet there are many stories in history that discuss one. They don't corroborate on time, and so there may have been a tsunami that happened that hit nearby and distant lands.

Just consider this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceym2c18OQM&feature=related

Notice how it is a "flood" not a huge "wave" and that it wipes out everything in it's path. Think of the emotions going through the person videotaping it, everything is wiped out. Now imagine the survivor watching everyone and everything be destroyed. The flood that happened in history probably started as a story like this.

 

[Lowpro]

Not much difference, at least in my circles. "Rabbi" in its formal sense just means expertise in certain areas of Jewish law. And the way the sources are studied can vary tremendously from one institution to the next, not to mention from one denomination of Judaism to the next. But what is true is that Orthodoxy has to some degree distanced itself in the last century and a half from intensive Tanakh study in favor of Talmud.

I had figured as much, which is why I was concerned not to speak without knowledge

I am just happy to finally discuss such a topic with a rabbi, it pleases me.

 

[epix]

My mom is getting deeper and deeper down the rabbit hole with religion and has become positively obsessed with the book of Genesis, believing every word of it to be true. Normally I wouldn't be concerned with it except that she keeps on trying to force that crap on me.

'Why me?' is a huge mystery here. I'm not her only child, I am the oldest of three. None of my siblings are any more religious I am, in fact she about made herself unwelcome at my sister's house for trying to press this crap onto my niece and nephew. My brother made it clear he didn't want anything more to do with religion either.

There were cases like that before and they all proved annoying to the members of the affected families. It turned out that all those cases had a common denominator: the persuasion efforts culminated with the story of Noah's Ark. That was strangely coincidental to the point of getting attention from the folks who answer the atheist hotline calls. Upon the inspection of the houses, it was found that the roofs needed repair. When the repairs were done, the sudden interest and the urge to pass around the account of the Biblical flood subsided and finally went away.

 

[Harte]

There was no mention of feed on the boat, in which case, how is it so that he managed to feed all animals?

Manna, obviously.

(Gawd!)

Wait. Maybe that should be beastta instead.

Harte

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Mudcat, tell your Mom this Orthodox Rabbi gives her permission not to understand the flood narrative as history.

Bah! What do Rabbi's know about reading Genesis compared with chess master chemists, hydrological engineers and pastors who have attended Bible College.