[Jordan]

There is probably a small grade on the decks of the USS enterprise (is that the name of the aircraft carrier?)

But a roof with a large slope would definately move runoff a lot quicker.

[civilian_number_two]

Yeah, it's called a roof.  A roof that is slanted on each side.  The water would runoff.  Whereas on an aircraft carrier, which is generally flat.  Would have a very big water problem.  (This is actually a response to Civ.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My response to you would be to go to weather.com and look at some photos of Hurricane Katrina. Note what happened to the wooden buldings there, and they were resting on solid ground, not moving rapidy over huge rolling waves in the biggest storm in the history of the planet. Flooding of that severity would be ridiculous. Note too that Katrina lasted a few days, not the more than a month that battered Noah's stone age boat. I really hope your faith in God isn't tied in to this story of Noah and the Ark, or even the great Flood, because it's just impossible. I hope your faith in God is instead tied to something more like "Sure it's impossible, but for God nothing is really impossible, so there." That sort of faith is a lot easier to live with.

As for the eaircraft carrier, yeah there is runoff, and the fact it's big and flat means it ought to be really hard to sink. Surface area counts for a lot when you're trying to make things float. All that said the alleged great deluge would sink the biggest, flattest aircraf carrier you could find. Might even sink a few subs!

[ion eon]

God what a guy *sigh*

[Zatoichi]

My response to you would be to go to weather.com and look at some photos of Hurricane Katrina. Note what happened to the wooden buldings there, and they were resting on solid ground, not moving rapidy over huge rolling waves in the biggest storm in the history of the planet.

Yeah, if they had foundations, they'd be screwed. They'd also be screwed because Houses aren't designed to float!

I really hope your faith in God isn't tied in to this story of Noah and the Ark, or even the great Flood, because it's just impossible. I hope your faith in God is instead tied to something more like "Sure it's impossible, but for God nothing is really impossible, so there." That sort of faith is a lot easier to live with.

My faith is tied with for God nothing is impossible (If He so chooses). But, when attempting to argue with people outside of faith, a problem that occurs is that you are forced to use "logical" conceptions. Normally, I wouldn't bother trying to explain any of it to anyone else, because it is what it is (or just following blindly if you will). Then again my way of stengthening my faith is to continually question it (gets me to do some thinking as well). Consequently, I can work on multiple levels, and combine them when neccessary. (I didn't mean to use a bunch of big words to sound smart ... or did I ) I think I have just managed to contradict myself. Maybe I'll come up with something better later.

I can't wait till we get to the New Testament, so much easier to do.

[barend]

wait till you get to the third testament...

it has wizards and unicorns...

its totally awsome!

[Spoon Poetic]

Barend, you could very well be talking about the Book of Mormon there...

[Jordan]

God isn't tied in to this story of Noah and the Ark, or even the great Flood, because it's just impossible. I hope your faith in God is instead tied to something more like "Sure it's impossible, but for God nothing is really impossible, so there." That sort of faith is a lot easier to live with.

SHit you sound like a pastor, man. That almost makes more sense. if you keep trying to justify the bible all the time, it's like you don't really believe, you're not using faith. But at the same time faith can't be blind you need some convincing.

[barend]

Barend, you could very well be talking about the Book of Mormon there... 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

oh yeah...

i forgot about that... i thought i was being random.


john smith is a pretty lame for a sorcerer though.

[Spoon Poetic]

... ^Joseph Smith

[Slade]

I thought he was talking about the Harry Potter series...

[civilian_number_two]

My response to you would be to go to weather.com and look at some photos of Hurricane Katrina.  Note what happened to the wooden buldings there, and they were resting on solid ground, not moving rapidy over huge rolling waves in the biggest storm in the history of the planet.

Yeah, if they had foundations, they'd be screwed.  They'd also be screwed because Houses aren't designed to float!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was more making a point about the wind ripping the walls off of buildings. That ark would have been screwed.

I can't wait till we get to the New Testament, so much easier to do.

Only if like the Old Testament you decide to ignore lots and lots of it. Like if it was the word of God, how come all the stories are diferent? Most commonly cited case in point: the story of the dudes crucified with Jesus. How many were there, and how did they behave? Read all 4 gospel stories before replying, please.

[Spoon Poetic]

Because they were all written by different people, and people are only human, and make mistakes. You try telling a story the exact same way as someone else that was there, without hearing each others' stories first. People will remember things differently. Sometimes people won't have noticed something someone else did, or will have noticed it in a different way, as their perspective is different. Also, people will try and change things on purpose sometimes for various reasons.

The gospels were also passed around for a few hundred years before the Edict of Milan made a standard set of the four gospels, and so things got changed passing from person to person, I'm sure.

One theory about the discrepancies in the gospels is that Mary Magdalene was one of the 12 apostles, but some people had a problem with that because she was a woman, and so things got changed around. One theory I read also went on to assert that John = Mary. The original name of that gospel wasn't even John, it was something like "Gospel of the Beloved," and there was one apostle often referred to as "The Beloved," usually taken as John, so they stuck the name John on it. But this person decided that Mary was the Beloved, perhaps because there was a little somethin' between her and Jesus, and she wrote the gospel of John and either she made herself be a man because she wanted her story to be taken seriously, or people later on changed it for her because they were sexist.

The Bible isn't meant to be taken literally as "The Word of God" as in he dictated to some scribes what should be there, in King James English, and pointed out which words should be colored red. The people who think so, and will not deviate from the KJV for that reason, are ignorant and stupid. (Jesus did not speak in red King James English. Grr.)

[barend]

...  ^Joseph Smith 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

oh whatever...

the dude who looked into a hat full of crystals and decided that people should always travell in pairs...

and that 'good' women will get to be men in heaven...

[civilian_number_two]

One theory about the discrepancies in the gospels is that Mary Magdalene was one of the 12 apostles, but some people had a problem with that because she was a woman, and so things got changed around.  One theory I read also went on to assert that John = Mary.  The original name of that gospel wasn't even John, it was something like "Gospel of the Beloved," and there was one apostle often referred to as "The Beloved," usually taken as John, so they stuck the name John on it.  But this person decided that Mary was the Beloved, perhaps because there was a little somethin' between her and Jesus, and she wrote the gospel of John and either she made herself be a man because she wanted her story to be taken seriously, or people later on changed it for her because they were sexist.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

None of the Gospels had titles, and the authors do not identify themselves. If I recall correctly, the author of "luke" wrote the Gospel as a letter to his buddy Theophilus, so this identifies him probably as the same guy who wrote Acts.

Too much is made of Mary Magdalene in pop culture. In the Gospel she is present at the cross and at the tomb and she is a woman from whom Jesus removed an evil spirit. She is not the woman in the Adultery story; she is not the woman who washes Jesus's feet, and Id say odds are pretty good she was not Jesus's girlfriend. Don't know where you heard the theory that she wrote "John;" that's not one I ever heard. In any event it's impossible to prove since she is such an insignificant character in the Gospels.

Glad to hear you don't take the Gospels literally, and that you accept discrepencies. But that challenge was really for Zatoichi.

[Jordan]

Mary has a good name- Mary Magdalene. Say it aloud. It sounds good.