Noah's Ark

[Kotatsu]

Would it not be simple for the creator to recreate?
It’s GOD…. Hello !
Could he not protect everything that Noah couldn't, like bugs, worms?

Supposing he does exist, and is invested with the powers commonly ascribed to him: possibly. Nevertheless, that is neither a satisfactory answer, nor, indeed, an answer at all. Is it simple or hard for god to create or recreate? I have no idea; how could anyone know? All in all, I place little, if any, interest in how, if at all, the whole thing was done. Speculating about how an entity alleged to exist performed an action he allegedly performed is, to me, a pastime for lazy afternoons, at best.

However, being a systematist and taxonomist, I am interested in the concept of "kinds", and how the present species --- supposing these, indeed, were present at the time of the flood --- are divided into these categories. Having worked with "worms", and belonging to an institution where most people work with "worms", the division of this assemblage of organisms into "kinds" interests me.

 

[XBoxWarrior]

Truth have it.......the ancestors of Barack Obama 'were' on the 'ark'.

And my friends........that is all that matters.

peace

 

[edge]

Supposing he does exist, and is invested with the powers commonly ascribed to him: possibly. Nevertheless, that is neither a satisfactory answer, nor, indeed, an answer at all. Is it simple or hard for god to create or recreate? I have no idea; how could anyone know? All in all, I place little, if any, interest in how, if at all, the whole thing was done. Speculating about how an entity alleged to exist performed an action he allegedly performed is, to me, a pastime for lazy afternoons, at best.

However, being a systematist and taxonomist, I am interested in the concept of "kinds", and how the present species --- supposing these, indeed, were present at the time of the flood --- are divided into these categories. Having worked with "worms", and belonging to an institution where most people work with "worms", the division of this assemblage of organisms into "kinds" interests me.

Tell me something can worms live in water or a real wet environment?
And if so for how long?
When land floods where do they go, do they go deeper in the ground, I know some die.

From what I can figure man appears about 40 to 30 thousand years ago.
Then he starts using a primitive science to improve his condition.
Like manufacturing tools and clothing.
One of them is exiled and breeds with some other race and the only 0ther race out there is Neanderthals, and many modern humans have certain traits like them but not all humans exhibit those traits. Some have been found to even have the crest on the skull like Neanderthal.
They suddenly dissapear shortly after we arrive and they are not directly linked to us.
Which brings to mind the ancient civilizations of the Americas.
Cain and his ilk go out and build cities, they travel east from Eden first and wander.
Then about 12,000 years ago a worldwide event happens and like a comet ends the ice age and massive amounts of water are released.
There is proof of this event happening.
Here’s an interesting link.

http://www.livescience.com/history/080605-ancient-shoes.html


XBoxWarrior we are all related.

There's still one more thing to work out.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Would it not be simple for the creator to recreate?
It’s GOD…. Hello !
Could he not protect everything that Noah couldn't, like bugs, worms?
Noah had enough to do, imagine if they didn’t have chores for that amount of time spent on an ark.

Then why was Noah even necessary in the first place? You're basing your apologetics of the story on a literal interpretation of something that was never meant to be read that way. If you're going to take the global flood literally, then you must also take the verse about "kinds" literally. You can't have it both ways.

God only shows what is needed to be seen at the time of his intervention with us from history’s stand point or view and that is what he wants and that is the reason for faith, and then you’ll ask why must we have faith? We are not going to see all of what there is, that would make us lazy.

What kind of horrific atrocity could not be justified in this way? How is it moral to even think this way?

You as skeptics are part of the mindset and the reason for destruction.

See above. If a natural cataclysm were to engulf the world in flames tomorrow, you would think it to be God's will, and therefore glorious.

As far as science saving the world it hasn’t yet and is in the process of global warming as we write in here/speak.
It hasn’t eliminated disease completely and has brought us new super bugs.
Famine is worst than ever.

Wow, then you'd better get off your computer, stop driving your car, stop taking whatever medication you're on, and eschew everything else science has brought us, before you inadvertently spread famine and create new diseases.

So for the past 200 years or so, with the growth of science and technology, humans believed that humanity was on the fast track to eliminating all these things, war, terrorists, pestilence and the terrors of nature through the ingenuity and moral progress of mankind.

I suppose you mean to propose an alternative to scientific inquiry that has been proven to yield better results. If you have one, go right ahead. I'll wait.

So all this is to be expected.
Science may help us, but it can't save us, it is a false belief system brought on by men.
It is knowledgeable field, but not wise.
It is not totally infallible.

So is religiosity, only there's actual evidence to show that nothing fails like prayer. Bad science should be replaced with good science, not faith or dogma.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

It’s GOD…. Hello !
Could he not protect everything that Noah couldn't, like bugs, worms?

Take that thinking a step further: why would an almighty god need a mortal to do His bidding in the first place?

 

[Small Town Jesus]

It's interesting that the Bible doesn't record the name of Noah's wife. That woman went through quite a lot.

It was Nelly!^WP Everyone knows that. She got through it all by knitting it would seem.

 

[Kotatsu]

Irrelevant portions of your message have been omitted.

Tell me something can worms live in water or a real wet environment?
And if so for how long?
When land floods where do they go, do they go deeper in the ground, I know some die.

The vast majority of worms do, actually, which is sort of my point. Let me explain to you in more detail.

As most people who are interested in biology probably knows, there is a vast discrepancy between common names and scientific names. There are many instances where a name is used in daily speech which denotes a group of organisms which does not form a natural assemblage. "Reptiles", "birds of prey", "fishes", "flatworms", and, "mosses" are some examples; less known ones include "lice", most traditional groups of fungi and moulds and, yes, "worms".

From a scientific point of view, whether you accept evolution or believe the organisms in question were created by, for instance, the Christian God, none of these groups exist. There is no naturally occurring group that contains the organisms we call "fishes" and nothing else. With systematic nomenclature, they are all non-monophyletic; that is, they do not contain all the descendants of a single ancestor to the exclusions of all other organisms.

"Worms" is one of those groups. The vast majority of "worms" are never seen. They are small, interstitial (living inside water-logged sediment), and marine. Assuming the biblical flood, as commonly described, did occur, most would have remained outside the ark in the sea water, which is their natural habitat. Lest God or someone else personally made them aware of it, it is unlikely that they would even have noticed anything weird going on (to the extent worms notice anything at all).

Nevertheless, "worms" do include a number of fresh-water or terrestrial groups. Earthworms (mainly Lumbricidae) are well known, as are pot worms (Enchytraeidae), "Tubificids" and blackworms (Lumbriculidae); less known groups include the terrestrial polychaeta, various internal parasites, terrestrial "flatworms", and some other groups. These are groups that would need to have been aboard the ark, or else perish. They are around today, from which we can conclude that, barring recreation by God (but for argument's sake, let us assume he did no such thing(1)), they were on the ark.

What interests me is: how many "kinds" of "worms" are there, and of these, how many were represented on the ark. Several more detailed questions can be derived from this. The common theme, however, is to establish at what comparative taxonomic level the division into "kinds" is/was made.

For instance, let us concentrate on "true" or annulated worms (Class Clitellata), which includes the Earthworms, Potworms, Blackworms, "Tubifidics" and Leaches, as well as many other groups. How many "kinds" of this group were represented on the ark? One "worm" and one "leach"? One for each family (which number, if I recall correctly, between 30 and 40, depending on the taxonomy adopted)? One from each genus (which would be more than 300)? Or every species (I believe we are in the range of 10.000+ now)?

---
(1) I dismiss this option not because I find it less likely than the rest of the flood saga, but because it is not pertinent to my question, viz., how many "kinds" of worms are/were there?

 

[Kotatsu]

Tell me something can worms live in water or a real wet environment?
And if so for how long?
When land floods where do they go, do they go deeper in the ground, I know some die.

Let me answer this in another fashion as well:

If by "worms" we momentarily restrict ourselves to terrestrial Clitellates (i.e., Earthworms and Potworms), many of them rely entirely on being at all times submerged in a thin film of water, or at least moisture, for their respiration. I used to sample a lot of brooks and rivers in the area for aquatic clitellates a few years back, and got some individuals of these terrestrial groups every time. They survive and even do fine in bottom sediments, as well as in wet moss, soil, and composts. As long as they are wet, they are not incredibly picky.

However, and this is important, especially larger worms --- like earthworms --- are incapable of absorbing sufficient amounts of oxygen unless they are exposed to air. This is because air contains a higher concentration of oxygen than water. As worms lack lungs or similar structures, and have to absorb oxygen through the cuticle, these will drown if submerged for too long (though see below). You have probably seen a lot of earthworms on the pavement during and after heavy rain, precisely for this reason (1).

My old professor sometimes speculates that apart from a handful of species of earthworms that are never found anywhere except in brooks, rivers, and lakes, the earthworms that are found in these habitats are simply terrestrial ones that have crawled into the water and now can't get out, for some reason. His hypothesis is that they do not generally reproduce there, at least not to any great extent. However, this is so far an untested hypothesis.

Nevertheless, these are worms which would certainly not survive being placed in a marine environment. Worms, I understand, are poor osmoregulators. That is, they have no or few mechanisms to regulate the flow of water and dissolved molecules across their cuticle. I would assume that if they were suddenly placed in marine water, they would meet the same fate as other organisms under similar circumstances: as their body has a higher concentration of water than the surrounding seawater, water would leak out through the cuticle and literally make the worm dry out, despite being surrounded by water (2).

Thus, to succinctly answer your questions: they are dependent on water for their survival, but cannot take sea water. Also, the larger forms are incapable of absorbing sufficient quantities of oxygen if submerged for too long. Certainly for 40 days and 40 nights (3).

---
(1) This may not be the only reason, though, as current thought is that this is also a spreading mechanism. The idea is that earthworms generally spread to new areas during the night, when they are not harmed by the sun. The same conditions --- chilliness, darkness, wetness --- occur when it is raining, and the earthworms --- which by any measure of intelligence are not particularly bright --- leave the soil and transfer to new areas. When the sun comes back, they try to dig down again, but can't get through the asphalt.

True animal friends will always rescue all earthworms they find from pavements and puddles! Save them from a death of combined asphyxiation and being burned alive!

ETA: I might add that due to the construction of the earthworm's cuticle and circulatory system, a worm which is submerged halfway into a puddle, but with one end outside it will actually drown in one end and dry out in the other. A curious and unenviable death.

(2) According to Randall, Burggren & French's " Eckert Animal Physiology", page 580 (5th edition), earthworms have the following intercellular concentrations of ions (seawater in parenthesis):
Sodium: 76 mM (460 mM)
Potassium: 4.0 mM (19 mM)
Calcium: 2.9 mM (19 mM)
Chlorine: 43 mM (540 mM)
This indicates that there is quite a substantial disequilibrium across the cuticle of an earthworm submerged in sea water.

(3) In addition to Randall et al (2002) mentioned above, I have also consulted Brusca and Brusca's (2003) excellent book "Invertebrates" (2nd edition) --- a must-have for anyone even vaguely interested in the animal kingdom, its diversity, or how it works.

 

[edge]

You can't have it both ways.

Pure logic says I can.
We have been relying on science since the fall.

Then why was Noah even necessary in the first place?

He wasn’t in a sense but because he was righteous he was blessed to continue or we would have had the kinds of changes the other epochs experienced in the form of re-creations and extinctions.
Since he was so righteous Gods dissension to allow grace to continued and the plan was to give a second grace continued in the form of the Messiah.
God had hope in us.
That’s why we are looking at the bones of Neanderthals and not humans.
But there is a third grace that will happen.

What kind of horrific atrocity could not be justified in this way? How is it moral to even think this way?

How about this?

Step 1 - If there had been an eternity of the past of cause and effects, we would have had an eternity to be perfected without sin, but since we still sin, we know there was not an eternity of the past of cause and effect. And thus we were created by God of the Bible, given Christ for none can compare! Psychological studies can be done to verify in just these past 6000 years the exponential progression of the conscience of mankind, that it will not take another 6000 years to reach sinlessness in the saved, e.g. God works in long transitions from the OT period of 4000 years to the dispensation of grace of 2000 years, eventually reaching the kingdom of 1000 years. Each period exhibits a new grace. Did you notice anything special? This is an exponential progression. For example, throwing children as sacrifices into the fiery mouth of the Molech-type god is virtually non-existent now as many nations once did in the past. Israel got rid of some of those evil nations like the Philistines. Other such peoples were the Talismanics, Mayans, Incas, Aztecs, TaoTuoKongs, Egyptians, Romans, Persians, Philistines, etc. The only place you really see this today is in Islam, teaching their kids to be suicide mass-murderers. There are lots of data points for other examples, e.g. the murder rate and crime rate per capita have continued to go down millennia after millennia and usually, century after century. Cannibalism, slavery are now outlawed today. A Hindu practice whereby a widow immolates herself on the funeral pyre of her husband is now abolished by law. It was the impact of Christianity that put a stop to these things, that is, because Jesus came to earth, died on the cross and was resurrected. What will come in place of a Christian society? One of diminished value and cynical.

Your whole point is moot.

Non-Annihilation

God will never extinguish the soul of man, not even in hell, because once God created man, He gave the ability of God-consciousness. He would never be unholy by annihilating that man after giving Him this ability, for He would never treat us as merely instrumental value. Righteously, we are considered of intrinsic value to God because God wants to walk with us one day after we have been raised up. This is what God longs for and what His whole purpose is: the new city in the new earth and what is to occur after that too for eternity.

He created us because we are to Him for His good pleasure, created out of His glory to be subjected to His authority in perfect harmony. This is revealed to us by His Holy Spirit and the power of eternal life, which is His uncreated life. He has entered into their regenerated spirits to lead us through to such truths and simple knowing. We have new life which is the same new life that those under the law received, except that the Holy Spirit did not reside in them, but came upon them and moved them. The veil was not yet rent. The indwelling Holy Spirit did not commence until Christ was raised to the right hand of the Father, then gave the Holy Spirit to dwell each man who believed according to John 3.16. For we have become a royal priesthood and no longer bring our prayers to the intermediary priesthood of the Levites. The experience of Israel under the law was to show us we are utterly incapable of keeping the law which points us to Christ, the One who was able to keep the law and fill it up.

If you really want to understand the why, read the links I provide.
http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm

See above. If a natural cataclysm were to engulf the world in flames tomorrow, you would think it to be God's will, and therefore glorious.

So it is written.
Baptism by fire, what is the whole world, is it not you, from your perspective?
What I would think doesn’t matter. What makes you think it is Gods will when man can’t follow Gods will and aren’t we capable of accomplishing that on our own with nuclear proliferation as it is now the way of the world?
The third grace will happen. It will happen before the world is engulfed in fire brought on by us.

Then you say,

Wow, then you'd better get off your computer, stop driving your car, stop taking whatever medication you're on, and eschew everything else science has brought us, before you inadvertently spread famine and create new diseases.

I’m not saying we should go back to drums I am saying that the powers that are in place will ruin us.
You can use science for good or evil inadvertently or on propose.
Are you telling me that the News is wrong when they say that the food crises is worse than ever because of our greed and the use of fossil fuel is driving economy to ruin. So much for science turning grains to fuel.
Do you think that suppression of new technologies is real? What is this, thirty-six years after the knowledge of hydrogen as a fuel for cars derived from water is finally being brought to light recently.
This was known in 1972.
All we got now is hybrids that still burn gas.
Tell me this knowledge hasn’t been suppressed, seems like the people that are into the oil business are at the end of their rein and are going to extract all that they can till end of their rein, and they must know something for all this to be occurring, wake up!

I might have to abandon my car and use a bike.
If I had enough land I would ride horses at this point, but I don’t have a horse, silly me I could save my money for other important things if I had enough land and horses, like food that I can’t grow or cloths or school or a new saddle for my future horse.
I could actually do this where I live and no one would give a second look.

So is religiosity, only there's actual evidence to show that nothing fails like prayer. Bad science should be replaced with good science, not faith or dogma.

The point is if we all had faith then there would be no bad science.
In my world the evidence points to something else. Faith is prayer and prayer is faith.
God will not be tested even Jesus knew that, I can give you many links where prayers were answered, you can only go by a couple of tests, and not all are answered or we would all be in the position of Bruce all Mighty, every one would win the lottery.

Safe-Keeper says,
Take that thinking a step further: why would an almighty god need a mortal to do His bidding in the first place?

If at that point further Grace was to continue then the bloodline of Noah and family had to continue or it was all going to end then and there.
God seen that there was hope for his new creation since one family was righteous.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

We have been relying on science since the fall.

So the Fall took place at the end of the Dark Ages now?

If at that point further Grace was to continue then the bloodline of Noah and family had to continue or it was all going to end then and there.
God seen that there was hope for his new creation since one family was righteous.

You didn't answer my question.

The point is if we all had faith then there would be no bad science.
In my world the evidence points to something else. Faith is prayer and prayer is faith.
God will not be tested even Jesus knew that, I can give you many links where prayers were answered, you can only go by a couple of tests, and not all are answered or we would all be in the position of Bruce all Mighty, every one would win the lottery.

Cop-out. Science is the measuring and observation of real-world phenomena. If something can be seen and observed by the faithful, it can be seen and observed by the cynical. The "it requires faith" (religion) or "it can't be measured by science" (woo) cop-outs prove nothing else than that the person making them are ignorant about what science is.

If prayer worked, we'd be able to measure its efficiency. We can't, because the times when praying to God "works" are as few as the times when praying to a jug of milk, a child, a tree or a door knob has worked.

Likewise with woo medicine. If homeopathy worked, we'd be able to measure its effect. Declaring something "religion" or "alternative" doesn't help here.

 

[edge]

Thanks for the explanation Kotatsu As I have seen in the past that our swimming pool after winter and being iced over when drained for spring seemed, (if my memory is right), a few that had been submerged under water for a couple of months survived.
When I threw some fish in there, which I have done in the fall, then the worms seem to disappear and not be there in the spring.
One year I threw in a walleyed pike in there and didn't release it till that next fall he actually became accustomed to people and grew from six inches to well over a foot, I then released him back into a lake near our house.
He would float at the top of the water and resembled an alligator.
Different water bugs would also survive the iced over condition of the pool.
There where a lot of bugs that would fall in and die and stay on the bottom till spring I assumed that when iced over the fish where eating parts of those too and I always suspected that they would also go into a hibernation or temporary suspension of activity.
The pool would also grow green brown algae till spring and coat the walls and bottom.

 

[Gravy]

What do you think?

I think that belief in Noahs Ark is a solid measurement of intelligence.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

What kind of horrific atrocity could not be justified in this way? How is it moral to even think this way?

It isn't. But the truly faithful have to rationalize evil as good in order to remain consistent with their view that God is good.

1. God is good, no matter what He does, period.
2. God does horrific things that'd make Mao blush more red than his Red Banner.
3. This is inconsistent with the view that God is good.

Two different conclusions here:
a. God is not good after all.
b. Horrific atrocities are really OK, but only when done by God - not when done by Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot or Kim Jong-il, 'cause they're not good.

If you want to set "God is good" in stone, fine. But "good" is something measured by the good-doer's action and thought. Mother Theresa is considered "good", but if she was to massacre a school within her life time, we would call that "bad". This logic (let each person be judged by his deeds) is applied to everything in the world - except God, who can be as evil as He wants and still be "good" because "good" in His case has been reduced to a word without meaning. It's as if I was to say my house was white even after it had been repainted red.

Your whole point is moot.

So genocide is acceptable now? I've got nothing against believers who don't pull this kind of ****, but this is just disgusting.

 

[Kotatsu]

Thanks for the explanation Kotatsu As I have seen in the past that our swimming pool after winter and being iced over when drained for spring seemed, (if my memory is right), a few that had been submerged under water for a couple of months survived.

Well, that's sort of exactly what I am after. Even if we restrict ourselves to clitellates when we talk about worms (which is what the vast majority of people would likely do, albeit unknowingly), the group is such a diverse assemblage of organisms that no "kind", as I understand the term, would ever be able to encompass all of them, without either allowing for an extreme amount of evolution in the post-flood period, or simply deny the existence of this diversity. Most worms would never have survived that kind of thing. They would either have exploded from influx of water, frozen to death, drowned, or simply starved to death. Yet some would survive.

There are minute species which last intestines and live interstitially. There are species which are more than three metres long, some of which can allegedly project a jet of white fluid 30 cm into the air when disturbed. There are the leeches, with their predatory habits and odd ways of moving around. There are the blackworms which, when divided, regrow both a front and a back end, and seldom, if ever reproduce sexually. There are worms with enormous gills, and worms which don't even have setae. There are worms with sexual organs just behind their "head" and ones where it is 20-30 segments further back. There are worms with penises and worms with elephant-like trunks. There are marine worms, terrestrial worms, limnic worms, worms that crawl, worms that burrow, worms that swim, white worms, blue worms, green worms, red worms, pink worms, yellow worms, brown worms.

To the extent that these, as per the explanation above, would have needed to be aboard the ark, assuming that is a correct retelling of an actual event in (or perhaps before) history, do you know if all of these were represented by one pair, or several?

 

[edge]

Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot or Kim Jong-il, 'cause they're not good.

So man can take these out but God isn't allowed to.
Imagine a world full of this kind and only one righteous family.



Be clear on this. The proof has always been known. Moses knew it. Abraham knew it. And Abel knew it. What did they know? They knew what Adam knew, Cain knew and what Judas knew, except these latter three didn't care enough and preferred to self-exalt themselves above God.
This is what you do. Take the wall down and look...
Even God was remorseful after wards.

To the extent that these, as per the explanation above, would have needed to be aboard the ark, assuming that is a correct retelling of an actual event in (or perhaps before) history, do you know if all of these were represented by one pair, or several?

I don't know but I still have to stand on this.

Your missing the point, why would God the creator, Say, “and this is after the flood",
“I give you all"?

If it was all destroyed wouldn’t you think that he had to set the ecosystem right.

Here’s the quote:

Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

Sounds to me that what Noah didn't have aboard God re-created.

"Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though [a] every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.
22 "As long as the earth endures,
seedtime and harvest,
cold and heat,
summer and winter,
day and night
will never cease."

 

[Safe-Keeper]

So man can take these out but God isn't allowed to.

Do you honestly, deadly honestly compare genocide to World War II? Did the Allies walk into Germany and slaughter every single man, woman, child and animal and burn every single structure in Germany to the ground?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Take that thinking a step further: why would an almighty god need a mortal to do His bidding in the first place?

And why would an infallible god need to correct his creation?

 

[articulett]

Now, you guys are being unfair... sure god killed his failures... but he recycled their souls so they got to live happily ever after in heaven. Noah was the loser... he had to finish out the tortures of living in a flood ravaged world... before going to "happily ever after" land!

Be real... who cares when you start your happily ever after? Isn't sooner better than later? God let his failures into the party a little early. It's a prodigal son story or something. Jeez.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Now, you guys are being unfair... sure god killed his failures... but he recycled their souls so they got to live happily ever after in heaven.

So the Allies should really just have carpet-bombed the goo out of Germany in WWII and killed everyone there? I mean, they were all Christians, right? So they'd go straight to Heaven, wouldn't they?

 

[articulett]

So the Allies should really just have carpet-bombed the goo out of Germany in WWII and killed everyone there? I mean, they were all Christians, right? So they'd go straight to Heaven, wouldn't they?

Absolutely... and Andrea Yates did the right thing by killing her kids.

At least if the Christian beliefs are true... the stuff about life being a test that determines how you spend eternity...

Moreso if god knows all and knows how it's all going to end up anyhow.-- Heck, he planned his own kid's death (of course his kid was just him) and he got to live happily ever after afterwards. It's ALL part of his plan isn't it?

I can twist anything into the belief I want using Christianity. I was once a Christian! Now I prefer the facts over faith. Dead people are dead forever. All people die. It's cruel to their loved ones or those that depend upon them to kill people. It's also illegal. I can't believe in an invisible supposedly loving guy who tortures and eternally damns his own creations to hell for crimes he knows they'll commit. I'm not all loving... I wouldn't have a kid if I actually believed that hell was possibility for anyone. Of course who am I to question god or faith or the assorted stuff people "believe"?

And while we're at it... I think all Christians should be kissing the butts of Jews who are supposedly responsible for carrying out the god's very own salvation plan. We are saved per their god's bizarre blood atonement plan involving Jews. Right?

Aren't assorted fundamentalists welcoming the possibility of world destruction to usher in whatever happily ever after they've been indoctrinated to believe in?

But don't look at me... religion never made sense to me. And every time I asked a question, I was told it was all part of the mystery, and I was arrogant if I thought I could understand the will of god. I think people who believe in that stuff are "crazy".