The Noah Game

I won’t go so far as to say I LOVED the Noah movie. (My husband and I agree Noah’s near-total-breakdown at the end was just too much…)

But, I want to stress:  I don’t think it’s technically “unbiblical.”   And that’s what I found so intriguing about Aronofsky’s script.

He took the bare bones of the Noah story (which is just a few chapters in Genesis), and basically stayed true to everything the Bible says happened. But he went as far outside the box as he could imagine, when reading “between the lines.”

Example (*spoiler*):  The Bible states multiple times that the wives of Noah’s three sons were aboard the ark.  Lots of Christians were upset that Aronofsky left two of the sons wife-less. (“Only six people were aboard in his version!”)

But that’s just not true…because–surprise–one of the women is pregnant, and she gives birth to twin girls on the ark. The twins’ mother tells Noah, “God has provided what we needed,” implying the babies will act as wives for Noah’s younger sons when they’re older.

Now, is that probably what happened?  No. It’s really not likely at all.  But, it’s “technically” possible…and that’s what makes it so interesting.  Creativity is interesting.

I respect creativity.

The same goes for Aronofsky’s solution for the very valid question: How did Noah care for all those animals for months and months? And exactly what is a “fallen angel?” Also–who’s to say there one of the evil men didn’t hitch a ride for a few weeks before being discovered? There’s no reason to assume that happened–but there’s no way to argue otherwise.

You may have different theories about what the Bible DOESN’T say…but I believe there’s value in being challenged by the more wild imaginations among us…

When we get too familiar with the standard interpretation of a story, it starts to lose its flavor.  Every once in awhile, a gifted story-teller comes along and suggests plausible details which breathe new life into the tale. He makes us realize once again that those old, familiar caricatures were real people with real struggles.

But, over time, we honestly forget that many events from the Bible probably looked quite different from the image in our heads. I think ALL of us are going to be surprised when our eyes are opened to the Whole Story. And, in the meantime, we fight so hard to keep our comfortable, sacrosanct versions of Bible stories…taking for granted what used to be awe-inspiring…magical…almost-unbelievable…

The real problem most people have with the new Noah flick is that it challenged a lot of things we just KNOW about the story:

-All the plants/animals before the flood looked pretty much like they do today.

-The fallen angels (“Nephilim”) didn’t help Noah build his ark, and they certainly didn’t look like THAT.

-God spoke audibly to Noah; he never struggled with doubt or confusion about his purpose because God made everything crystal clear.

-The rest of humanity was so depraved they didn’t believe in God at all. They mocked Noah as a crazy person. Nobody wanted to come aboard the ark because they didn’t believe there was a flood coming…

etc. etc.

But, when angry Christians crack open the Bible to explain the problems with Aronofsky’s Noah, they struggle. The best they can do is complain his details are really far-fetched. (Which is true.) But, I just have to ask, is that completely bad?

Because, personally, I appreciated the chance to see Noah through a lens I haven’t used since I was a child…to be inspired by the possibilities, once again, of any tale about the All-Powerful-Creator-Interacting-with-Someone-Like-Me.

When God is involved, shouldn’t we be surprised sometimes?

Humans tend to connect the Bible’s dots like this:

Traditional Connect-the-Dots

Aronofsky connected them like this:

Aronofsky Connect-the-Dots

Truly, I understand “probability” and “accuracy” and people arguing that we-shouldn’t-add-outrageous-details-that-God-didn’t-include.  I understand being worried a non-believer is mocking a text he doesn’t view as sacred.

But, can’t we see any value in being a little imaginative with the Scripture–or do we resent anyone who even makes us consider our history from a brand new perspective?

In my opinion, you have to go pretty wild to shake people out of their assumptions with a story that has been around for centuries.   Aronofsky did that. And–no–I don’t believe his account is exactly what happened (or even close to it in some cases).

But neither is my version of the story.  

Being challenged by such extreme plot points reminded me to Think Big–even if we still find out some day we were wrong. The God who walked on water and raised people from the dead loves surprises. I don’t think He has finished revealing some… 


Thanks to the creative license taken by Aronofsky (and the brain-teasing effect the movie had on me), I’ve come up with the Noah Game. It’s an exercise in imagination–to think outside-the-lines.

Take any chunk of Scripture…or a well-known poem or song lyric…and connect the dots Aronofsky-style.  You know what I mean, right?! Give me the “REAL” story behind the written words, that most people would be surprised to learn.

For example, did you know that Mary Magdalene actually traveled with Jesus and the other disciples, and witnessed many miracles such as the Feeding of the 5,000?   (This little stretch-of-Scripture was included in Son of God. Interestingly, I didn’t hear nearly as much complaint about the liberties taken in that movie…)

But, maybe the Mary Magdalene tid-bit isn’t quite imaginative enough to ruffle Christian feathers.  We need to go bigger! Crazier!  Not this:

Traditional Connect-the-Dots

But this:

Aronofsky Connect-the-Dots

Just one rule: You can’t include details which clearly, definitively contradict Scripture.  (For example, you can’t say “Mary wasn’t really a virgin” or “There were only 9 disciples”)  If the Bible says it happened, it happened. But, if the Bible is silent, go crazy.

How would you retell the story of David and Bathsheba?  (Or, if you have a brilliant retelling of another story, go for it.)   Let’s play the Noah Game.

60 thoughts on “The Noah Game

  1. Bethany

    Luke 8:2
    “Now it came to pass, afterward, that He went through every city and village, preaching and bringing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God. And the twelve were with Him, and certain women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities–Mary called Magdalene, out of whom had come seven demons….”

    People didn’t complain because it’s in the Bible. It’s not a stretch at all. No, we don’t know for certain that she was at the feeding of the 5,000, but we do know she went through “every city and village” with Jesus. And that’s noted before the feeding of the 5,000, so it’s very likely she was there.

    What *is* unlikely is that God was angry about people picking flowers since the reason cited in the Bible is that “the earth was filled with violence. So God looked upon the earth and indeed it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth.”

    People are upset because Aranofsky traded violence in for environmentalism. They’re upset because he slandered Noah by making him out to be homicidal. They’re upset because they slandered Methuselah and made him do magic.

    Very few (if any) are upset at speculating whether or not Noah had doubts. Very few (if any) are upset about speculating about what plants looked like (Answers in Genesis would be all about that, I think). But if this isn’t just an imaginary story. If these are real people. They deserve to be treated with respect–even if they’ve been dead for thousands of year.

    Further, who God picks as His righteous representative says something about Him. When you say, “God picked a homicidal maniac as His main man,” that means something.

    It is good that the movie is causing people to take a second look at the story, but that doesn’t make the movie itself good. That’s just God working something bad for good, ’cause… that’s what He does.


    1. Bethany

      And, yes, I realize part of your response is going to be, “God picked a lot of really crappy people to work through, Bethany!” I get that. I just think we should go with the examples God gives us and not make up new ones.


    2. mrsmcmommy Post author

      Thanks for the thoughtful responses, as always, Bethany…

      First, I’ll get this out of the way: “God picked some really crappy people to work through!” 🙂 But I have two comments beyond that.

      1. I totally agree that Aranofsky was way off base in several areas. But my question is: what do we want instead? I mean, don’t we have enough strictly-Scriptural copies of the Noah story already?
      About ten days before Noah, I saw Son of God…and I’ll be honest, it was painfully boring. I really gave it a chance, but it was so utterly predictable. I’ve literally seen that movie a hundred times, with slightly different-featured Jesuses. Now, someone could make the case that it’s a heart issue–that I should pray and ask God to soften me again instead of expecting something “more” from His Holy Word. But, I think it’s actually my love for the Word that makes me such a critic of traditional Bible-films. Book lovers know the adaptation NEVER will be as good. (Let alone when you copy the exact same adaptation–over and over–for hundreds of years.) So, in order to get me thinking, in order to challenge me in a new way, I like the outrageous, fantastical, “between-the-lines” approach…

      2. What if God DID pick a homicidal maniac as a main man…? Because I’m not completely convinced He wouldn’t/didn’t. Or, as I interpreted the film, what if Noah was stable when God called him, but he struggled to balance God’s justice with the mercy we see more fully in the New Testament? What if the weight of his responsibility–and the nagging of his flesh–caused a type of breakdown at some point?


  2. bethagrace

    1. Defining a strictly Scriptural Noah movie as: One that sticks to the facts as much as we know and tries to keep with what was most likely when imagination time comes (because without some imagination, there wouldn’t be enough material for a movie)… I don’t know if we have any at all.

    Really. Back in the 90’s they made the one that combined Noah with Sodom and Gomorrah and had people surviving on rafts… with penguins. But when have we ever had a Noah movie where the people tried to stay faithful to the book? I don’t think I’ve ever seen one. Perhaps if we go into children’s movies, but… that’s not really the same thing at all.

    But here’s another thought: If we can’t make an interesting movie out of something while remaining faithful to Scripture… do we need to make a movie at all? What is our goal?

    Like you said, the people who hate film adaptations are almost always the people who most love the book. I’m always half hopeful, half filled with dread when I find out they’re making a movie out of a book. Most of the time, I wish the film producers had never gotten their hands on the thing. Not only does it not tell the story I know and love, but it gives other people–who don’t know the story–a completely different picture. I feel the same way about the Bible: If we can’t tell the story right. If we can’t tell it well. Should we tell it in that medium at all? Does everything of value *have* to be made into a movie?

    2. I think I have to restate my previous point here. God picks sinners, yes. But who God picks says something about Him. If He lets His main representative go crazy, that says something. If He lets that person misunderstand and try to kill people, that says something. Maybe it’s good. Maybe it’s bad. But I think we should leave God’s messaging up to Him. To put words in God’s mouth or actions in His hand… that’s a fearful thing to do. I think it’s important to be careful about it.

    3. Also, just thought I’d take a moment to point out a couple holes (since people keep on using these as big arguments in favor of the film: First, God *told* Noah to take his sons and their wives on the ark (Gen. 6:18). So at least two of his sons would have had to have been married or else Noah would say, “What the snap, God? Only one of my sons is married. Maybe some other wives are hiding in his wife’s womb?”

    Also, I’ve heard a lot of people point out that the verse says that Noah was blameless “in his generation,” so maybe he was just good compared to his peers. But it also says that Noah “walked with God,” which isn’t something stated in comparison to others. So I think we can take that to mean he was a pretty good guy. Sinful, but not just a lesser version of terrible.

    And finally, God says He’s going to establish His covenant with Noah and his family, so how on earth would Noah get the idea that God wanted *all* of humanity to die? That would be a pretty bizarre conclusion.

    I know you said Aranofsky was off on things, I just… I have to get it out there.


    1. mrsmcmommy Post author

      In the other thread (on my dad’s blog) I said I wouldn’t be entertaining any more questions.

      But I could bend the rules a little by “answering” in the form of a video I watched several years ago, when I was really into the tiny, itty, bitty details of biblical history (as you seem to be).


      1. mrsmcmommy Post author

        You might find this enlightening:
        you’ve not given me a single fact or concept in any of our conversations that I haven’t already known.

        Have a great day!


      2. Arkenaten

        Well, it is always important in one;s search for truth to examine all sides. I do so why don’t you?

        By the way, you did not answer which Flood Model you adhere to? Embarrassed to say?


      3. mrsmcmommy Post author

        What I’m saying is that I HAVE examined all sides. That’s how I know there are people who believe Dr. Ross is a heretic.
        I’ve actually been called a heretic MYSELF before. So what?

        In the interest of honesty (which is a moral positive), I’m going to be blunt: I’m getting annoyed by the “Are you Embarrassed???” question all you Atheists seem to think is profound.

        The only embarrassment is that I’ve answered at least 4 or 5 questions of yours now, and you’ve not answered ANY of mine.


      4. Arkenaten

        I will willingly answer any and every question you put to me, you have my absolute word. I do not lie.
        But I struggle to make sense of the way you phrase some of your questions. This is my faulty I realise.
        Your previous one about ”Truth” is a good example.
        I even replied to that asking what exactly you meant by it?
        If you want to rephrase it in such a way that does not include any spiritual sounding rhetoric and sans the capital T I will do my level best to give you as honest, straightforward answer. I promise.

        So which flood model do you subscribe to?


    1. mrsmcmommy Post author

      What would you tell Clarence Darrow, if you had the opportunity to have coffee with him?
      Pretend I’m Clarence.
      Explain to me why I’m wrong about the two boys who killed another in cold blood. (Who are we to judge them for all the things which are out of their control?)

      It would be great if we could have this conversation under the original article, here:


      1. mrsmcmommy Post author

        No relevance.

        But you won’t get any answers from me about my worldview until you start answering some about yours.

        One of the BIGGEST problems I have with Atheism is its inability to answer questions about right/wrong. So, you can go to the post about Clarence Darrow (where my question DOES have relevance) and you can tell me why Darrow was wrong.

        OR you can pretend not to understand the question.

        OR we can end this exchange until next time.


      2. Arkenaten

        Okay, fine. I have no problem at all laying out my worldview.

        1. I am an atheist. I do not believe in gods; not yours, Yahweh, or any of the thousands that abound in human history as the evidence presented so far can be dismissed with impunity.
        That is not to say there may be a creator deity/entity or whatever somewhere. But who could know? Certainly not I.

        2.I consider the bible almost entirely Historical Fiction, and most certainly all of the Pentateuch based on the work of( largely) secular scholars, historians and archaeologists. But also certain theologians who adhere to non- innerancy and accept evolution as fact. The Pope for example.

        3.Morality is part of evolution and has been demonstrated as such.
        There are numerous links to scientific articles and studies and I am sure you have read a few. ( and likely dismissed them).

        Other things.
        The Human Genome Project has demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt the belief in a biblical Adam and Eve as per the story in Genesis is fiction and could not have happened. Mitochondrial ”Eve” notwithsatanding

        Thus, no Original Sin and all that this implies.
        Moses, the Egyptian Captivity, Exodus and Conquest are all fiction. The archaeological evidence in Palestine shows an alternative history to that of the bible. No genuine archaeologist or scholar doubts the biblical tale is anything more than a geopolitical foundation myth.

        There is no evidence whatsoever outside of the bible for the character Jesus of Nazareth therefore I regard him as a narrative construct.
        Please feel free to offer any verified historical evidence for him if you have)

        If you feel this is not comprehensive enough please tell me what I may have missed and I will endeavor to fill in any blanks, no problem.

        Can you tell me now which Flood Model you adhere to? ( and why) Thanks


      3. Arkenaten

        I didn’t read the article/conversion, merely glanced at the post.
        I do not like going off track until I have cleared up what’s on my metaphorical plate first.
        I thought it was about morality. Hence my explanation where morality derives.
        Summarize the post or pose the question yourself – in brief if you can.

        I have a word doc open and am busy with some editing, so I am not specifically ”here on (your blog”.
        I am merely responding to your replies that appear in my drop down.
        Are you actually going to answer re: the Flood Model or not?


      4. mrsmcmommy Post author

        No, Darrow answered that question.

        “They killed him because they were made that way. Because somewhere in the infinite processes that go to the making up of the boy or the man something slipped, and those unfortunate lads sit here hated…

        . . . I know, Your Honor, that every atom of life in all this universe is bound up together. I know that a pebble cannot be thrown into the ocean without disturbing every drop of water in the sea. I know that every life is inextricably mixed and woven with every other life. I know that every influence, conscious and unconscious, acts and reacts on every living organism, and that NO ONE CAN FIX THE BLAME. I know that all life is a series of infinite chances, which sometimes result one way and sometimes another. I have not the infinite wisdom that can fathom it, neither has any other human brain.”

        I asked my question in the comments section there, and then repeated it here. Do you agree with Darrow’s defense of these killers. And, if not, what would you tell him?


      5. Arkenaten

        I actually don’t understand his defense. Is he trying to say they are blameless? If so that sounds a bit wacko to me.
        They were murderers and would have been tried as such, I presume, and their sentence would have depended on whether they were declared insane.


      6. mrsmcmommy Post author

        Right. Darrow’s philosophy is called “determinism,” and it’s the totally consistent and logical result of believing EVERYTHING we experience came from chance–with no over-arching purpose or intention or design…

        He’s saying that all emotions and all actions are just (really long) domino trails… All of nature is just blindly trying to survive. So, we’re like tress, being bent by the wind. You can’t BLAME a part of nature for doing what nature built us to do…

        My questions was: How would you explain to Darrow that his clients were WRONG?


      7. Arkenaten

        Ah, so morality, yes?
        This is the subjective /objective thing I presume?
        I have already answered this. Morality is part of evolution.
        What those boys did was an aberration.
        Human nature is replete with such examples.
        No further explanation to Darrow would be needed, and this is why we have a legal system.

        I can’t think of any other answer and I strongly suspect you may be fishing.
        I am a big lad and you don’t have to beat around the burning bush.
        Simply say what you want to say.


      8. mrsmcmommy Post author

        The statement “morality is part of evolution” makes no sense.
        You may be a big lad, but you’re a philosophical lightweight. I’m trying to get you to think about your foundations instead of just picking apart mine.

        Have you never thought about where all of these laws actually CAME FROM?

        What you mean by “going against human nature” is that the killers didn’t act like most humans do. But killers are humans, too. So they are acting on “human nature” just as much as a non-killer is.

        Are right and wrong just whatever the majority decides?


      9. Arkenaten

        Morality is part of human evolution.
        You seem to be pushing for a theological response. I don’t have one and don’t accept it either.
        It is as simple and straightforward as that.

        And for the record, I’m not going to spend oodles of megabytes laying out the science when real scientists have already done it.
        Go do the research. It’s all there.


      10. Arkenaten

        How dare you make such an outrageous and grossly ignorant assumption.

        All you are doing is exhibiting the classic behaviour of an indoctrinated christian fundamentalist who denies science.
        I actually feel quite sorry for your kids.
        Fortunately, creationism is not taught in schools.
        And you are a perfect example for why it never should.


      11. mrsmcmommy Post author

        It always ends the same way…
        But I don’t blame you…
        You’re just doing what the mindless chemicals and electricity in your brain have dictated for you to do.

        Seek the truth, Ark! It will set you free.


      12. Arkenaten

        LOl… ask a deconvert. Investigate the Clergy Project.Speak to someone qualified in neurology.
        The vast majority of Christians consider your ”version” of Christianity is mindless drivel, and you know this for a fact.

        You are a fraud, my dear. A frightened, ignorant little fraud.


      13. mrsmcmommy Post author

        I LOVE that you used the word “mindless.” hahahahaha!

        How do “minds” come from things without minds, by the way? (You know, according to evolution?) If you can tell me, I’ll pass the info on to my kids right now.


      14. mrsmcmommy Post author

        (By the way, is it a bad time to mention I’m teaching basic Arithmetic to my First Grader RIGHT NOW? *Laughs Maniacally*) 😉

        Not everyone recognizes that 2+2=4 can be religious… but I sure do.
        As Mathematician James Clerk Maxwell wrote:
        “I have looked into most philosophical systems and I have seen that none will work without God.” And: “Science is incompetent to reason upon the creation of matter itself out of nothing. We have reached the utmost limit of our thinking faculties when we have admitted that because matter cannot be eternal and self-existent it must have been created.”

        I can’t wait until my daughter is old enough to attempt wrapping her mind around Pi and imaginary numbers and “infinity” and all the other abstract concepts that make concrete reality possible.

        And, God willing, when we’re done with her formal schooling, she won’t be afraid of ANY facts. I pray she will learn to ask and answer good questions–and not just lash out when she’s in over her head.


      15. Arkenaten

        I look forward to the time to hear she has read the bible and laughed.

        Your little rants merely show how little confidence you true have in your position.

        The Scopes trial is over. Your side lost.



      16. mrsmcmommy Post author

        Quick question: am I allowed to teach my little ones about Robert Boyle?

        “God [is] the author of the universe, and the free establisher of the laws of motion.” –Boyle, founder of modern chemistry.

        Silly science-denier.


      17. mrsmcmommy Post author

        For the last time, the question “which God” is NONSENSE.

        It shows what happens when people take the name of God in vain and make it mean whatever they want. It’s what would happen if we started referring to everybody in a race as a “winner,” and then just called the person who finished first the “winner-winner.”

        I can’t help that you didn’t read the article about all people being religious and that you don’t understand what I’m saying.


      18. Arkenaten

        Capitals I see.
        And so you begin to have a tantrum? Oh dear, yet somewhat typical of the christian fundamentalist with nowhere to run when backed against the wall with the ”Truth”. ( I just know you’ll appreciate that little touch, yes?)

        I can’t help that you are indoctrinated.
        But there is a cure.
        ”Truth” .
        Tell me, as I have an insatiable curiosity when it comes to re-born Christians, was it from an early age or did you fall foul of some emotional dysfunction (drugs sex or rock and’ roll are often the usual suspects) that required you to fall to your knees and beg for forgiveness from a narrative construct?


      19. mrsmcmommy Post author

        “The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who – in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium of the masses’ – cannot hear the music of the spheres.”

        —Albert Einstein


      20. Arkenaten

        Except I am not fanatical and have said I am not rejecting the idea of a creator.
        I embrace free thinking and continually research Christianity, and for an atheist I know a fair amount about the history of your bible and your version of god-belief.

        My main reservation against religion is that it is simply erroneous nonsense and is indoctrinated into kids.
        If you did not indoctrinate your kids they would likely not embrace your religion at all.
        After all, you are indoctrinated so you know exactly what I am talking about.
        The danger of course is that religious indoctrination fathers cultish offshoots of extremism such as Young Earth Creationism and other vile idiocies such as Muslim extremism. Each is convinced that a god is responsible for their position.

        However, we are fortunate that in a few hundred years (maybe less) there is every likelihood that such religion will simply be a fading memory.
        And thank the gods for that right?

        Meantime… enjoy it while you can.

        Oh, and the correct flood model in the video was, based on historical records, the first one.


      21. mrsmcmommy Post author

        What sort of indoctrination causes a person to shoot angry accusations at someone they don’t even know?…

        “I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism.”

        “If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God.”

        —Lord William Kelvin,


      22. Arkenaten

        Oooh, and now you are playing the hard done by victim. Shame!
        What a little hypocritical god-believer you are.
        Funny, you do so enjoy quoting 19th century old men don’t you?

        And which god is this< one talking about?

        So, indoctrinated from childhood, or did your epiphany happen after you discovered how much of a naughty little sinner you were once you reached adulthood?
        Pray tell what it was.


      23. mrsmcmommy Post author

        It’s truly baffling to me that, rather than be excited by the idea that science and faith work side-by-side, Atheists get angry.

        It was 19th Century Old Men who helped build the foundation of knowledge you take for granted.

        “It may seem bizarre, but in my opinion science offers a surer path to God than religion.”

        “People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature-the laws of physics-are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they came from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.” -Paul Davies


      24. Arkenaten

        Smile. You really are trapped in your delusion aren’t you?

        Every age has it ”heroes”.

        Interesting that you don’t quote people like Carrol, or De Grasse Tyson, or Krausse, or some of the 85% of top scientists who also happen to be atheists.
        Your dad cited Peter Atkins. Why didn’t you?
        Herews a good list to start with.

        Religion is anathema to truth.
        Amazing, you quote Davies hoping to score kudos yet you are a creationist who believes in Flood geology?

        What a rather silly, and somewhat disingenuous person you truly are.

        So, were you indoctrinated as a kiddie or did you ”Come to the Lord” when you were a adult ( I hesitate to say grown up).
        And you never did say what was your sin you felt compelled to seek salvation from. Alcohol, drugs?
        Sigh …there are just so many naughty things we humans do. I am sure Yahweh just wrings his hands in despair, don’t you think?


      25. mrsmcmommy Post author

        I’ll quote anything that’s true… Do you have a suggestion?

        “The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.” -Werner Heisenberg


      26. Arkenaten

        Good grief you dont give up do you?
        Quote anything that’s true?
        Really? Okay … try this.

        ”… god is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance.”

        de Grasse Tyson.


      27. mrsmcmommy Post author

        Which God is he talking about?…

        “Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.”

        —Charles Darwin


      28. Arkenaten

        Yahweh, I am sure.The same one you genuflect to.

        Enough of sparing quotes. It’s boring.
        Let’s look at evidence shall we?

        Have you got any for:
        Adam and Eve, the Exodus and the flood?
        Oh, and the character Jesus of Nazareth too.


      29. mrsmcmommy Post author

        Wow, you know that Tyson was talking about YHWH??? For sure???

        Well, if we know for sure that we don’t need YHWH… then what is Supreme? What’s your standard for Truth? What’s the thing upon which you build everything else you know?

        “The ultimate reason of things must lie in a necessary substance, in which the differentiation of the changes only exists eminently as in their source; and this is what we call God.”

        “Whence it follows that God is absolutely perfect, since perfection is nothing but magnitude of positive reality, in the strict sense, setting aside the limits or bounds in things which are limited.”

        –Gottfried Leibniz


      30. Arkenaten

        You still use that rather childish term Truth with a capital T.
        Maybe you could drop the pretense just for once, behave like a grown woman and use straightforward English?
        If this is not beyond your intellectual capabilities that is?


      31. mrsmcmommy Post author

        It’s childish to spell truth with a capital T? I was just trying to show respect for something that is so important to all of us.

        I didn’t mean to upset you. So I can drop the capital if it’s too distracting…


      32. Arkenaten

        And you still haven’t told me of what your particular sin was that caused your fall from grace. How bad could it be?
        I truly am interested and would love to read your testimony. I find them fascinating!


      33. mrsmcmommy Post author

        Oh, please, I wasn’t born yesterday… Even if there were a big, awful sin I was guilty of, I would have no reason to share it with you.

        Plus, I already told you there hasn’t been a silver bullet for me. There was no Come to Jesus moment. I’m just insatiably curious and good at asking questions.
        Like, if I were you, I’d ask myself whether it’s possible that the human race has evolved to the point where (unlike trees) we now KNOW how pointless life is… could this be the last stage before our species dies by its own hand because we have no good reason to voluntarily keep e existing? (I’ve wrestled with that before…)

        “I believe that a full understanding of this remarkable human capacity for scientific discovery ultimately requires the insight that our power in this respect is the gift of the universe’s Creator who, in that ancient and powerful phrase, has made humanity in the image of God (Genesis I: 26-27). Through the exercise of this gift, those working in fundamental physics are able to discern a world of deep and beautiful order–a universe shot thorough with signs of mind. I believe that it is indeed the Mind of that world’s Creator that is perceived in this way. Science is possible because the universe is a divine creation.” -John Polkinghorne, Quantum Physicist


      34. mrsmcmommy Post author

        Okay, Ark, here’s the deal: there have been tornadoes blowing through my town all afternoon. My power is out, and I don’t want to waste any more of my phone battery on this. (I’d rather watch what happens in the newest post on my dad’s blog… Or, you know… keep track of the weather…) 🙂

        I’ll leave you with this:
        To know the mighty works of God, to comprehend His wisdom and majesty and power; to appreciate, in degree, the wonderful workings of His laws, surely all this must be a pleasing and acceptable mode of worship to the Most High, to whom ignorance cannot be more grateful than knowledge.” –Copernicus

        So keep on pursuing textual criticism! Keep testing ideas with the scientific method! Keep depending on logic and discovering secrets in this orderly, reasonable universe!

        You’re fulfilling your purpose as a human to reflect God when you do! 🙂


      35. Arkenaten

        But I have explained to you: Your god is Yahweh, a man made Canaanite deity adopted by the Israelites who features in the Pentateuch, a literary work of Historical Fiction.
        He even had a consort at one time.
        But if you wish to worship this make believe deity then that is your choice as an adult.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s