The Atheist's Book of Bible Stories - Ch. 12

potleg

Good work! I always thought the polar icecaps were the strongest natural evidence against a literal flood, but I never connected the dots as far as angelic sexuality, I like it. How would the Borg get around this?

fri

FLOOD MY ASS!
(Everest is 8,850 meters in height, if it rained for 40 days =960 hours. Now, if we divide 8,850 meters height by 960 hours of the 40 days ((enough rain to cover the highest mountain)) that means it would rain at about 9 meters of water per hour. Could any boat survive all that rain even Noah’s ark????

AllAlongTheWatchtower

I am an atheist, so I put no stock in it, but as a kid I had some children's bible books that had pictures in them, in the chapter(s) that dealt with the flood, the picture that went with the story showed not only rain, but geysers bursting forth from the ground like Old Faithful. Does anyone know if there is a biblical basis for picturing geysers, or were they just trying to make up for the inadequacies of a purely rain-based worldwide flood? (Or even more likely, simply a paid artist's rendition that had more to do with the artist's imagination than anything else.)

Dazz_C

Another great post. As a dub the horny angels puzzled me and I never really got a good answer. The angels (made or spirit or energy or whatever) should be as sexually attracted to humans (made of dirt) as we are to air or water.

The best I could do was that the angels wanted to be godlike and create life and have their own offspring, like lowly humans could do and they couldnt, not fair that so they did something about it.

And they became men cause in a patriarchal world why be a woman.

Bit of stretching and ignoring bits that dont fit but you get used to that in the troof.

Cheers

RunningMan

Here is how the concept of angel sexuality was explained to me: The angels were able to observe humans. They saw humans, particularly the males, having a jolly good time regarding sex. Therefore, they decided to get in on it - sort of as a detached experiment regarding what they were missing. Now, this explanation has a couple of problems with it.

First of all, this is not what the text says. The text says that they found women attractive.

Secondly, based on this logic, there would be no reasons for angels to take on human form. Based on my keen observations around the barnyard, bulls seem to enjoy sex every bit as much as humans, and considerably more frequently. If angels just wanted to go slumming, they would have been better off to join the cattle family. Now, that would have changed the texture of the story considerably.

Legolas

Rolly 3 Rolly 3 Rolly 3 Rolly 3 Rolly 3 Rolly 3 Rolly 3 Rolly 3 Rolly 3 Rolly 3 Rolly 3 Rolly 3 Rolly 3

hooberus

I am an atheist, so I put no stock in it, but as a kid I had some children's bible books that had pictures in them, in the chapter(s) that dealt with the flood, the picture that went with the story showed not only rain, but geysers bursting forth from the ground like Old Faithful. Does anyone know if there is a biblical basis for picturing geysers, or were they just trying to make up for the inadequacies of a purely rain-based worldwide flood? (Or even more likely, simply a paid artist's rendition that had more to do with the artist's imagination than anything else.)

"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." Genesis 7:11 KJV http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/flood12.asp

The Atheist's Book of Bible Stories - Ch. 12 - The Flood