90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:
PLEDGE NOW
‘Noah’ And The Great Flood

Noah’s Ark hits the big screen. We’ll talk with top theologians about the meaning of the story of Noah and the Great Flood.

In Darren Aronovsky's new film "Noah," Russell Crowe plays the titular biblical patriarch. (Paramount Pictures)

In Darren Aronovsky’s new film “Noah,” Russell Crowe plays the titular biblical patriarch. (Paramount Pictures)

In children’s stories, the story of Noah and his ark is almost sweet and appealing.  All the animals, two by two, going for a boat ride with a nice bearded man in a robe.  Then there’s a rainbow.  In the Bible, it’s a good bit darker.  God looks around, finds his creation is wicked, and decides to wipe it out with a flood.  On the big screen with Russell Crowe, Noah’s story is full-on apocalyptic.  Dark and raging, with battle scenes and giants.  And a bitter struggle over whether to end all humanity forever.  This hour On Point:  we’re digging in to the Biblical story of Noah and the Great Flood.

– Tom Ashbrook

Guests

Ingrid Lilly, Old Testament scholar. Visiting scholar at the Pacific School of Religion’s Graduate Theological Seminary. Executive producer of FloodOfNoah.com. (@FloodOfNoa)

Joel Baden, associate professor of Old Testament studies at the Yale Divinity School. (@JoelBaden)

From Tom’s Reading List

New York Times: Rain, Heavy at Times – “‘Noah’ is occasionally clumsy, ridiculous and unconvincing, but it is almost never dull, and very little of it has the careful, by-the-numbers quality that characterizes big-studio action-fantasy entertainment. The riskiest thing about this movie is its sincerity: Mr. Aronofsky, while not exactly pious, takes the narrative and its implications seriously.”

Los Angeles Times: Religious tide turns against ‘Noah’ – “Usually, though, the material’s devotees don’t believe the filmmakers will burn in hell if their ideas are ignored. (OK … maybe the Dark Knight crowd does. We all know they can get a little intense.)But that’s precisely the belief with ‘Noah,’ Darren Aronofsky’s $130-million retelling of the Old Testament account of apocalyptic deluge and a floating ark that opens on March 28. ”

TIME:  Russell Crowe Says Flood of Noah Complaints Not Drowning Him — “Some religious groups have decried Noah as an inaccurate and disrespectful portrayal of events in the Bible. The film was also banned in a number of Islamic countries. Given the criticism, Paramount Pictures has added a disclaimer to its marketing material to note that “artistic license has been taken.”

Watch A Trailer For “Noah”

Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on this site.
  • Joe KomaGawa

    I am trying to get my family to join me at a showing of Noah, here in Japan. I appreciate any opportunity to discuss religious themes, that would appeal to younger non-religious audiences. I assume there will always be people disappointed in the compromises Hollywood always makes to reach as many as possible. This is just a financial reality of movie entertainment. Secondly since a growing segment of the audiences for Hollywood’s products is not in the USA. For example part of the profit margin is here in Japan.
    We can think of the social roles of women in Old Testament times, compared to what we want to role model in the 21st century. People may argue that Noah is a marginal improvement. I haven’t seen the movie, so I can’t talk about specifics.
    I would like to have some comparisons on the value of Mel Gibson’s movie about the Christ, and Noah.

  • HonestDebate1

    From the reviews I’ve read it turns out Noah was a murder obsessed liberal. Who knew?

    • http://flustercucked.blogspot.com/ Frank TheUnderemployedProfessi

      Heh heh. And today’s Conservatives are obsessed with imposing Big Government in the Bedroom, go figure.

      • HonestDebate1

        Alrighty then.

  • Matt MC

    Loved everything Aronofsky has done so far. Going to trust him on this one. All the bad reviews from Bible thumpers had to do with the movie having ecological warnings, which goes against their beliefs about God loving oil companies, so I don’t really care what they think.

  • Ed75

    Probably a very dramatic movie. But why would they suggest that the purpose of God was to save the innocents – who were the animals? The Bible makes it clear I think that God chose Noah (as he later suggested to Moses on Sinai) that he would re-populate the human race through his family because the human race had become corrupt beyond help and he (and his family) were virtuous. Must have fit in the story. (Animals are innocent, without free will they can’t choose evil.)
    This movie, I’m told, was not done by people of faith, so it doesn’t quite have the power of ‘Son of God’ or Mel Gibson’s film in that way.

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    How about a movie on the Great Flood of Lousy Hollywood Movies? Start with Star Wars and work forward.

  • J__o__h__n

    How is a being that destroyed almost every living thing on the planet a protagonist? Space aliens and monsters have done less damages and were the villains.

    • warryer

      Because God is a righteous God. Sure it looks like He is evil from the altered eye. The altered eye alters all.

      This is a broken world in dire need of cleansing.

      Try reading the Bible without preconceptions, you might think differently.

      • J__o__h__n

        Try reading the Bible with reason and morality and you might think differently.

        • warryer

          Tell me. Where does this “morality” you have come from? What is it based on?

          • Benjamin Mulroney

            if you need a deity to dictate to you what morality is, then the the concept of morality loses all meaning because it is just anything god says.

          • warryer

            Again I ask, where do you base your morality? It has to be founded on something.

          • red_donn

            What are the perceptions of logic, matter, and linear time based on? These are perceptions of reality fundamental to human nature, well understood to be a particular perspective of the universe as a whole.

            What is the perception of good or bad art founded on? We do not require a belief in god to respond to Bach, after all. Our evaluative responses to actions can be seen in the same light.

            The study of the fundamental structure of human language helps to determine how the human mind is designed (has evolved, to be more accurate in terminology) to handle certain concepts. There is every reason to suggest we are well-suited to developing a sense of ethics on human terms.

            Finally, no attempt to derive an objective morality from religious texts holds up, at least in the Abrahamic tradition, because they are well-known to have contradictions. Both the Old and the New Testaments (Timothy, Ephesians, Luke) endorse slavery, and many Christians with a great faith in God, held this up again and again. You have a different, entirely relativistic, interpretation of the books.

          • Jack

            And yet, we have failed to do so. There are fundamental flaws in human centered, human developed forms of ethical philosophy. If you need an immediate example, just look at utilitarianism.

          • red_donn

            True, the task is immense in complexity and scope, and may never be within our reach to fully define. I appreciate Wittgenstein’s position that philosophy is fundamentally descriptive, serving a largely therapeutic purpose. Much of the work in ethics has attempted to lay out too much of a causal or proscriptive philosophy to date. This would be particularly true if my personal position, that ethics and aesthetics derive from at least some of the same drives, holds true, since it indicates that there can be no single explanation.

            To draw on your comment, I critique utilitarianism for emphasizing happiness. The manic-depressive genius is likely to experience less happiness than many people, certainly less than, say, a well-kept labrador, but we recognize that as a heightened life. In my opinion, a far superior position, if we are to attempt a universal criteria, is to maximize satisfaction. This reflects the inherent relativist nature of ethics.
            A non-human formulation, however, begins by giving up our own individual authority. Relgious, proscriptive ethics are the absolute antithesis of Emmerson’s Self-Reliance

          • red_donn

            I’ve attempted to post two replies to your comment, which have disappeared – at least one into a moderator’s queue. Hopefully one of them will publish tomorrow, otherwise I’ll rewrite and post them.

          • warryer

            Indeed human centered ethics/morality is certainly subjective. Josef Stalin is a favorite example of godless “morality.”

            Without God to tell us what is right and wrong it will become a battle over which man’s version of right and wrong is correct.

            You are calling slavery a bad thing? So you are therefore using a set of morals outside of the Bible to judge the Bible. No wonder.

            It is not relativistic when you are looking at it from the frame within the Bible. The Bible gives us the foundation from which we are to interact with the outside world. You are on the outside looking in when you should be on the inside looking out.

          • red_donn

            You are essentially restating, with much less art, the famous line of Dostoevsky’s priest, “Without God, everything is permitted.”

            However, one can turn this notion on its head, “In the name of God, anything is permitted.” Or, as Hitchens put the matter, “It takes religion to make a good person do bad things.”

            I’d say that Hitchens was off by a bit, because it isn’t just a theistic religion, but any dissociative social construct, such as totalitarian governments, that lead to atrocities on a grand scale. The complicity of religions with the totalitarian states of this last century, as well as all previous incarnations of worldly power, does little credit to the notion of them as the source of objective morality.

            If you read my comment in response to Jack, you’ll note that I place weight upon the authority and subsequent responsibility of each individual. This does indeed mean that right and wrong are determined by the thoughts, words, and deeds of individuals – which is the simple state of the world. This notion scares people, by and large, who then take their fear of regression as evidence of the falseness of reality. However, the fact of history shows an evolution in ethics, bit by bit and with many falls back to our baser drives. For my part, I admire the slow, uncontinuous progress our species has made, and continues to make, because I have every reason to expect it will continue to advance us well after many more generations are dead and gone.
            You, on the other hand, explicitly state that the Bible takes precedence over actual experience and one’s own sense of the world. Claiming that the Bible is, in fact, an objective inner world, is completely non-sensical, as if children were born with knowledge of the story of Jepthah or some such. As a result, you give pardon to the Anglican and Baptist ministers of the slave states of America, who held up direct quotations of the Bible as the defense of slavery.
            I would appreciate, if you might offer directly an explanation as to why the “practical interpretations of the Bible’s objective morality,” as a believer might put it, have varied so greatly over history. If a slave-holding minister draws his morality entirely from the Bible’s singular message – what can we say about this message? What practical moral advice does it give us in objective form?

          • Benjamin Mulroney

            reason. the definition of morality.

      • red_donn

        The line of argument given here is, in fact, impossibly inconsistent. If the “altered” human perspective cannot accurately judge what is good or bad, then we cannot accurately refer to God as “good.”
        If you want to rest the entire matter on revealed knowledge, then I suggest abandoning the conflation of God’s good with humanity’s good and focusing on attempting to address how an altered eye can determine what is and is not revelation. That, at least, is an honest and useful project, with roots in every transcendental and mystic tradition – Equinus and Eckhart would be good references in Christianity.

  • gemli

    Like Matt MC, I’m a big fan of Aronofsky, but I’m also allergic to anything that gives aid and comfort to religion. Whether the movie is true to the story is sort of moot, since there was no flood, at least not in the real world where I spend most of my time. Still, it’s possible to enjoy such a film as one might enjoy a trip to the Creation Museum, as a purely head-shaking, eye-rolling ironic spectacle that celebrates human credulity. There’s not much difference between arcs full of animals and dinosaurs with saddles.

  • Coastghost

    Misleading representation in the lead-in: Gen 6:5 specifies that the Almighty “saw that the wickedness of man was great”–NOT that creation itself generically was evil, as the program’s lead-in plainly suggests, but SPECIFICALLY that the wickedness of humanity was the motive force.
    The text, the text, the text . . . .

  • MarkVII88

    Listening to this show today makes we want to watch Evan Almighty again.

  • Crozet_barista

    Talking religion is talking about stories sprung from the human mind. It is utterly disturbing that people still take for fact the allegories written in the many books bundled together to become a bible, -(wrongly) translated and modified over and over. Science and logical reasoning have been the driving force of great human advancement. Reiigion so far has been the driving force for regression and oppression, and keeping people ignorant.

    • Leonard Bast

      Well said.

      • malkneil

        The definition of science implies that its tenets can always be questioned and revised when further findings inevitably come to light (as perhaps we’re seeing in the first hour). Religion has always claimed to be an immutable set of laws.

    • Coastghost

      To hear Mighty Science speak with full unambiguous authority and a clear throat, go put your ear to the podcast for this morning’s first hour of “On Point” . . . .
      Applied technology giveth and applied technology taketh away: blessed be the name of applied technology.

  • J__o__h__n

    Maybe Bill Cosby can get a mention this hour too.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Awesome!

    • Coastghost

      Back-to-back: is he planning another comeback?

    • Jeremy

      Oh, he did. That is great!

    • 65noname

      he does

  • Coastghost

    Since the advent of the Flood favored the survival of aquatic species (the ark was no floating aquarium, after all), could the Almighty have been nudging us towards reverse evolution, a broad hint we seem not to’ve taken too seriously?

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Good timing with 6 inches of fresh rain in southern New England yesterday.

  • Ed75

    The topic of Noah is timely when we remembered what Jesus said about the end of time – “It will be like it was in the time of Noe.”
    Traditionally the time of Noah is seen as a time of rampant sexual immorality. And the Ark, of course, is the Church.

  • mairelena

    Do any of your guests approach the Noah story as myth or fable rather than history? If so, what is the point of the story, the moral of the story.

  • Ed75

    Noah gets drunk to deal with the task, he shows a lot of gentleness, not killing.
    Ham is punished for seeing his father.

  • Coastghost

    True or false for the Biblicist guests: Genesis 1 through 11 is the primordial account that it is of human animality, accounting for human bestiality with whatever success in explication.
    And that this is the source of the dispute between Judeo-Christian apologists and evolutionary biologists: the nature of human animality (the disputations of individual facts perhaps being less the issue than the summative view).

  • John_Hamilton

    Lost in this discussion is that the story of Noah’s Ark is at best a metaphor, and at worst magical thinking. “The” Bible was written by men, edited by men over a couple of millennia, and enforced by men, sometimes by burning at the proverbial stake.

    This being the case, the Noah story is fair game for Hollywood exploitation and reimagination. Some would like the progenitors to burn at a literal stake, but money trumps magical thinking.

    Of course, when money and magical thinking work together, great trouble ensues. It will be fun to watch.

  • T.J. Schley

    As an evangelical, young earth Christianist, it seems to me the two themes running throughout the canonical Noah story are: (1) the pervasive, extreme sinfulness of man -and- (2) the unmerited grace of God in choosing a man (and his family) to save. As long as this movie hits one or both of these, and doesn’t subvert either with some other agenda (environmentalist or otherwise), I will appreciate it as a piece of art.

    • jimino

      I can not fathom believing that killing every living person and all of creation except one family amount to a display of the “grace of God.” Were every one of those humans so sinful that they all deserved that fate?

      Help me understand how people like you think.

      • T.J. Schley

        “The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Genesis 6:5) + “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23) + “The wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). It seems pretty clear to me.

        • jimino

          That still clearly applies to “man” so I expect you’re down with giving everyone their just “wages”. Come to think of it, that’s exactly what the Taliban’s suicide killers think too, isn’t it? They believe they’re just doing their God’s work on Earth, kind of like Noah.

          • T.J. Schley

            If you were interested in actually understanding me or my beliefs, I would be must more interested in continuing this conversation.

        • JS

          All those evil little babies with their wicked thoughts, and don’t forget all the pregnant women with their evil sinning fetuses…

      • Benjamin Mulroney

        i can understand how just it is to kill all the terrible men, women, children, and babies upon the earth, but some of those women must have been pregnant. think of those poor and innocent fetuses that were drowned in the flood!

    • Close2TheEdge

      So in other words, the movie shouldn’t have an agenda. Unless of course, it is your agenda. Then it’s OK.

    • J__o__h__n

      “the unmerited grace” of choosing a man to spare from destruction he created? That is quite a spin.

  • Coastghost

    Why discount gestation during the period of confinement aboard the ark? The animals were enrolled for passage two-by-two: no clear sign they emerged simply in pairs.

  • Fiscally_Responsible

    References to Noah and a global flood brought about by God’s judgment as well as other references to people and incidents in Genesis Chapters 1-11 are cited throughout the Old and New Testaments and cited by Jesus, Paul, Peter, and other writers. The Bible really hangs together or falls apart as it is one continuous narrative. Everyone is free to make their own decision with regard to believing or rejecting the Genesis 1-11 account of creation, man’s fall, death as a result of sin, etc. Believing certain portions of Jesus’ teaching while rejecting what He said about this and other unpopular subjects (Hell, marriage between a man and a woman as occurred with Adam and Eve, etc.), is really not an option. When you begin to pick and choose what parts of the Bible you will accept rather than seeing it as a unified whole, it falls apart.

    • JS

      “love one another as I have loved you”. Isn’t that Jesus’ only commandment, basically negating all that OT stuff?

    • brettearle

      But are there not certain parts that are allegorical and symbolic, while other parts are literal?

      If that’s true, then the refined confirmations as to validity (or, at least, to sharper understanding) sometimes becomes blurred, if not problematic.

      • Eric

        Trouble is, everyone has to make his own judgment as to which parts are symbolic and which literal. If God had been wise enough to label each part appropriately (say, with an “S” or “L”), or at least to impart that information to the bible-writers, he would have prevented a lot of heartache and indeed genocide down through the ages.

        • brettearle

          Intriguing, to say the least.

        • Jack

          I don’t think everyone “has” to make his or her own judgment; that is a typically individualist notion, that religion is a private affair pf the individual person. By contrast, Judaism states that it is a people and Christianity posits itself as a communion. If one accepts that the Bible is a religious text and then consequently decides, on one’s own, what is literal and what is symbolic without reference to the larger people or greater communion, then one is actually engaging in an act of pride, which everyone condemns as a sin.

          • Eric

            “…everyone condemns as a sin”? Most of the folks I hang out with think that the only real sin is intentionally causing undeserved harm to other human beings.

          • Jack

            So, you’re saying that amongst the people you associate with, an inflated sense of self and self-importance are acceptable? Ok, if you say say so, I will believe you, but I typically find that, whether religious or non-religious, pretty much everyone thinks poorly of self-important persons.

          • red_donn

            How can one assign belief in the communion, if not through one’s own authority? Where did the group opinion come from, if not from the exchange of interpretations between members? If all members surrender their faculties, then there can be absolutely no teachings beyond unexamined traditions. If you wish to posit that we are better off when we test our ideas in open debate and dialectic testing, with a full sense of history, then so much the better. Nevertheless, there must always be an individual assent to believe, even if it is to merely accept the group consensus.

            Indeed, if one cannot examine and critique traditions outside of the group, then one has no method by which to determine what group to belong to – this “humility” as you would likely term it, resigns one to live entirely by unexamined traditions of the group into which one is born.

            It’s worth pointing out that word prophet, in the Old and New Testaments, meant one who tells the truth. This, typically, took the form of a social critique – directly running against the interpretations of the scriptures offered by those who strayed. The individual held truth above the consensus, and was counted holy for it, or else a heretic and pariah.

            On the subject of philosophy one should know how and when to speak with authority, not like a scribe – or a sheep, for that matter. Count that as a sin and you attempt to preclude the only method we have to develop beliefs, including the belief in the communion.

          • Eric

            Red donn’s reply is expressed far better than I am capable of doing. I would just say that if by “self-important persons” you are referring to the egocentric or those who have an inflated estimation of their own knowledge or competence and are not embarrassed to display it, then I think I would agree with you. But I think you are conflating that personality type with those who believe, as an ancient Greek philosopher asserted, that “man is the measure of all things”. People who believe the latter are often quite modest, understated and aware of their own limitations, as are some religious people.

    • J__o__h__n

      It all falls apart. It isn’t even internally consistent.

      • Ray in VT

        “I even believe the stuff that contradicts the other stuff.” – Ned Flanders.

  • Scott B

    I’m with comedian Lewis Black in that the Jewish assemblers of the Torah took other stories, knowing they were just moral fables, and then the Christians came along and F’ed it all up by taking it all literally.

    • http://flustercucked.blogspot.com/ Frank TheUnderemployedProfessi

      …No one said they were rocket scientists…

    • red_donn

      A great case in point, the story of Jepthah. Modern Christians try to justify Abrahamic genocides by saying that the neighbours of Israel were cannibals, sacrificers of humans, etc, so they try to disavow the story of an Israelite leader making a burnt offering of his own daughter to Jehovah. This involves logical inconsistencies and, particularly, an attempt to reinterpret the words on the page – with no respect to the original Hebrew or Aramaic.

      The Jews, who haven’t been insisting on fabricated defenses of genocides for the last few decades, just say, “The Book of Judges was a time of terrible morals in Israel due to the breakdown in the social fabric. Jepthah did something terrible…don’t do that.”

  • Coastghost

    Surely the Almighty depicted in Genesis 1 through 11 is no more capricious and no more and no less committed to the teleological suspension of the ethical than Mighty Science has become in recent centuries and decades?

    • jefe68

      Are you joking? So you’re comparing Bronze Age myths to science?

      • Coastghost

        The sciences certainly don’t need my services in spinning their numerous self-referential myths.
        The “God-as-empiricist” hypothesis is buried reasonably deeply in the separate hypothesis that we’re each and all functionalities within a vast simulation. Same difference. (Explanatory power comes and goes all the time.)

        • jefe68

          Science does not deal in myths.
          Theories are not myths.
          Next time your on a cliff try and walk off it and see if the myth about gravity is true.

          • Coastghost

            Pardon, but I think you might be beset with an overnarrow if not naïve view of myth. Myth seems ever to have a wide ledge of its own on the rim of every cliff. You might wonder, too, whether the sciences since their respective births have not been more than just a little envious of myth for its overarching ability to explain. Science aspires to that power all the time.

          • jefe68

            I don’t know about you, but I’m off to make an offering to Minerva. Hopefully if the Gods are on my side I will gain the strength to deal with the inanity that one is presented with… in so much abundance.

          • HonestDebate1

            And consensus is not science yet liberals view it as gospel.

          • Ray in VT

            Some people reject Newtonian physics, so we should probably not ascribe such a high value to it. Maybe we can find some people to teach alternate theories in the name of honest debate.

          • HonestDebate1

            Bizzarre.

          • Ray in VT

            Well, we have to have “honest debate” and give space to all views, no matter how unsupported they are by research. Maybe the Petition Project can get in on “intelligent falling”.

          • jefe68

            Yes, you are quite a fine example of the word.

          • jefe68

            Ah, so you agree that science deal in myths. So interesting that adult, seemingly modern educated men can be so driven by the Bronze age mythology.
            Even the Catholic church has come around and excepted evolution.

  • Scott B

    “Adam” wasn’t the name of the first human male. It’s a word that means “mankind” (spelled: “adm”). Again, religion, and man, getting twisting it.

  • jefe68

    This is interesting. A catastrophic event from around 5,000 BC might be the root to the biblical Noah story.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/evidence-suggests-biblical-great-flood-noahs-time-happened/story?id=17884533

    • Ray in VT

      Many ancient stories have at least some basis in fact. Troy existed and it faced wars, but it likely wasn’t over a runaway Greek queen.

      • jefe68

        You never know, wars have been fought for less.
        Speaking of ancient Greek queens, did you that Cleopatra spoke 7 to 8 languages.

        • Ray in VT

          It is certainly true that wars have been fought over what we might call trivial matters. I had not heard that about Cleopatra. Most of what I know about her is in the context of Egypt’s interactions with Rome during that period of time.

          • jefe68

            From what I’ve read about her she was a smart, very astute politician who played Rome well. She was no beauty either.

          • Ray in VT

            That’s been my understanding. It seems, though, that powerful men found her very compelling.

  • Oh bummer

    Listening to this episode couldn’t help but make me think of the History Channels documentary, ‘The Bible’, where an actor, bearing a resemblance to Obama, acted out the role of Satan.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_djBIixS8w

    Some people believe that Obama is the anti-Christ. I don’t believe that. You’d think that the prince of darkness would be smart enough to know that there are only 50 US states, and not 57 states, as Obama has claimed to have visited.

    • hennorama

      Bum Homer, Jay, (Un)Informed American — you can use different monikers, but you still type the same ol’ nonsensical non sequiturs.

      • Oh bummer

        I see you can’t handle criticism of Obama, can you Chicken-Brain?

        • Crozet_barista

          sounds like pure slander, not criticism to me

          • Oh bummer

            President Obama was the one who claimed to have “visited 57 stares”.

            Are you calling the President a liar?

          • Benjamin Mulroney

            obama’s mention of 57 states was clearly a mistake to anyone who is not a total moran [sic]

          • Oh bummer

            ‘Morons’? Please try and show a little respect for Obama’s followers

        • jefe68

          Oh grow up already.

          • Oh bummer

            Go back to sleep.

  • http://flustercucked.blogspot.com/ Frank TheUnderemployedProfessi

    The Noah’s Ark story encapsulates the real nature of the Christians’ deity — a homicidal mass murderer. Most believers also fail to realize that their belief that those who “sin” or don’t follow the God’s dictates burn in hell (suffer eternal torture) is also completely sadistic and akin to something Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, or Mao might inflict on their political prisoners.

    If you’re a true believer, exactly what kind of deity are you worshiping?

  • Benjamin Mulroney

    did you complain that the last movie with santa claus was not true to the santa claus story too?

  • FrankensteinDragon

    ioel baden makes a good opening remark.

    to ignore Sumerian myth, Gilgamesh and utnapishti is bias and inaccurate–thus religious. Noah is utanapishti and much older than the bible. He was rewarded with immortality.

    i think a sci-fi type story would be better. If you consider the scenario and the possibilities it requires advanced technology–knowledge of DNA and cells and genes. The Bible in its correct translation clearly says there is not just one “god”–”we created man in our image” this is a story about ancient aliens and climate change–rising seas. it is not about virtue. religious people see what they want.

    when will i be able to pirate this film?

    • Oh bummer

      Pirating this film would be a waste of electricity.

  • FrankensteinDragon

    Why Russel crowe? not my first choice. i think more people would come to this film if it WASN’T Russel.

    an so what if you do contradict the bible–bible thumpers dont have copyright on spirituality or history or myth?

    • jefe68

      Box office.

    • Agni Ashwin

      Why Crowe?

      Read Genesis 8.

  • FrankensteinDragon

    the only character in the bible who is NOT a homicidal maniac is Christ–and its possible the censors omitted his crimes. to believe the bible compendium of ancient myths is complete and untainted is moronic

  • Crozet_barista

    wonderful example of the pathology of religion!

  • Sy2502

    The whole story of the Flood is so ridiculous on so many levels, I never cease to be amazed by how many people still take it seriously. I don’t know what’s worse, a clumsy god who throws tantrums (and kills a whole bunch of poor animals just because some humans are having too much fun for his taste) or the thought of a poor family drowning in animal excrement for 40 days and 40 nights.

  • Benjamin Mulroney

    god is a terrible person.

    • brettearle

      How would you know?

      Simply because there is terrible suffering in the world?

      • Benjamin Mulroney

        from reading the stories about the terrible things god is proudly responsible for.

        • brettearle

          `Terrible’ is defined by our perception and recognition of pain and suffering.

          Yes, it is VERY awful.

          I believe God exists but my God is non-sectarian. What’s more I do NOT worship God.

          What I think is true is the following:

          We may not be able to understand that things are the way they are for reasons that will always be beyond our genuine and real understanding..

    • jefe68

      God’s away on business.

    • Oh bummer

      Go back to washing dishes Benji.

  • Eric

    I very much appreciate your comment, Ashley.

  • Guest

    God made man upright but man went in search of many schemes.
    So you think perhaps man should not have free will? Or perhaps God should intervene every time something bad is about to happen? Have you ever really thought about that? Imagine you are a hunter gatherer. If you don’t get food your family will sicken and possibly die. However, if a goat just miraculously appeared on a spit over your fire every time you got hungry you would not need to hunt. If one follows that obvious logic it is not difficult to see that we would not have left primitive life. We’d still be living in huts.

    • The poster formerly known as t

      We will end up gong back to living in huts over the next few hundred years, because that sort of lifestyle is much, much, much more sustainable than what we have now.

  • David Brogan

    God made man upright but man went in search of many schemes.
    So you think perhaps man should not have free will? Or perhaps God should intervene every time something bad is about to happen? Have you ever really thought about that? Imagine you are a hunter gatherer. If you don’t get food your family will sicken and possibly die. However, if a goat just miraculously appeared on a spit over your fire every time you got hungry you would not need to hunt. If one follows that obvious logic it is not difficult to see that we would not have left primitive life. We’d still be living in huts while the Great Enabler came and wiped our runny noses for us.

  • The poster formerly known as t

    or it’s probably humans all collectively remembering the last serious change in global climate–when the ice age glaciers retreated.

  • ExcellentNews

    The biblical stories are just that – stories. But like most stories, they have a seed in the real world. For instance:

    1) DNA “paleontology” indicates that humans underwent a “restriction event” about 0.5MYA, meaning the population was reduced to a very small number of individuals, possibly a dozen or so, from who we all descend.

    2) The Mediterranean basin was largely dry during the last Ice Age, and was flooded with sea water in a relatively rapid manner. Gibraltar must have been the world’s most impressive waterfall.

    Of course, these findings based on science do not make the biblical stories anything more than stories. But the fact than an upright ape can push molecules through gas chromatographs and get such insights into the world is a miracle enough it itself…

ONPOINT
TODAY
Jul 23, 2014
In this Saturday, July 12, 2014, photo, migrants walk along train tracks and boxcars after getting off a train during their journey toward the US-Mexico border, in Ixtepec, southern Mexico. (AP)

Crisis at the US border. What do Latinos on this side of the border have to say? We’ll ask our special roundtable.

Jul 23, 2014
Actor Wallace Shawn attends special screening of "Turks and Caicos" hosted by Vogue and The Cinema Society at the Crosby Street Hotel on Monday, April 7, 2014 in New York.  (AP)

From “The Princess Bride” to “My Dinner with Andre “and “A Master Builder,” actor and writer Wallace Shawn joins us.

RECENT
SHOWS
Jul 22, 2014
Lt. Col. James Howard Williams, aka "Elephant Bill," is the hero of Vicki Constantine Croke's new book, "Elephant Company." (Courtesy Random House)

We’ll travel to the jungles of Burma for the remarkable true story of Billy Williams—aka “the elephant whisperer”—and his World War II heroism.

 
Jul 22, 2014
Smoke rises after an Israeli shelling at the Shijaiyah neighborhood in Gaza City, Monday, July 21, 2014. The top Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip signaled Monday that the Islamic militant group will not agree to an unconditional cease-fire with Israel, while Israel's defense minister pledged to keep fighting "as long as necessary," raising new doubt about the highest-level mediation mission in two weeks. (AP)

The escalated Gaza offensive. We’ll get the views from both sides and the latest developments.

On Point Blog
On Point Blog
Our Week In The Web: July 11, 2014
Friday, Jul 11, 2014

As we prepare for a week of rebroadcasts, we reflect on Facebook posts, misplaced comments and the magic of @ mentions. Internet, ASSEMBLE!

More »
Comment
 
Two Former Senators, One Fix For US Democracy?
Thursday, Jul 10, 2014

Former US Senators Tom Daschle and Olympia Snowe joined us today with a few fixes for American political inaction.

More »
Comment
 
Future Radio Interns Of America: On Point Wants YOU!
Thursday, Jul 10, 2014

On Point needs interns for the fall. Could YOU be one of them?

More »
2 Comments