Bill Maher Explains Noah...
 

On 3/28/2014 12:39 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2014 11:57:59 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/28/14, 11:49 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2014 11:03:29 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/28/14, 10:47 AM, wrote:

It is sort of like the number of people who think the bible gave
European Jews the right to invade and occupy Palestine after WWII huh?



I suppose it is possible you have no understanding or knowledge of
either the biblical or post-biblical history (not folk tale, history) of
that part of the Middle East.


How do a population of people who have lived in Europe for several
centuries suddenly decide they have a right to the land they
abandoned?

Would you feel the same way if a band of people said they were
descendants of the Piscataway indians and they really owned your
house, then they pulled guns and told you to get out?



They didn't abandon it...they were conquered and driven out by a
succession of more warlike peoples, and certainly have more claim on the
land than, say, the Europeans who came to the Americas, slaughtered the
native populations, and took the land and resources.

That should give the indians even more right to come take your house
shouldn't it?

The Jews in Europe are the ones who simply walked away from Palestine,
centuries ago and then decided they still had some kind of inherent
ownership after WWII because the bible told them so.

Geeze. They already grabbed one of Krause's houses. Do you think they
should take another one?

Bill Maher Explains Noah...
 

F*O*A*D wrote:
On 3/27/14, 10:21 PM, Bill McKee wrote:
On 3/27/14, 6:42 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 3/27/14, 8:51 PM, Gene Kearns wrote:
On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 10:04:17 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ld_tg4W7Hf8

Awesomely funny. And no comments? And no boating. WTF?



I thought Maher nicely combined the utter stupidity of those 60% of
Americans who think the great flood story is literally true
and...boating.

The Great Flood theory has a lot of basis. South Americans also tell of
a great flood in their tales. Lots of the coal deposits are all at the
same general elevation, and had to have huge piles of vegetation to make
the thick seams. May not have been a Noah, but there have definitely
been floods. Those major meteor collisions would cause flooding like
the tales tell of. Anything that altered the spin of the earth very
much would do the job. Theory that a lot of the Wooly mammoths in the
North were flash frozen by an earth wobble. Those frozen Mammoths are
found with undigested food in the stomach and flowers in their teeth.
They are big enough that if not flash frozen the stomach contents would
be fermented or digested. Get a small wobble and a temperature drop
below freezing and you would have -200 degree windchill factors. Say 10
Degrees F and a 200 mph wind. The inertia in the oceans would easily
cause the oceans to roll over the continents with a major speed change
or wobble.


Whether there was a "great flood" or a series of great floods or other
natural catastrophes or drastic climatic changes in earth's history isn't
what is being questioned by those who believe the "Noah story" is just more biblical hokey.


You are stating a great flood did not happen with your statements! English
major?

Bill Maher Explains Noah...
 

wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2014 13:59:35 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

F*O*A*D wrote:
On 3/27/14, 10:21 PM, Bill McKee wrote:
On 3/27/14, 6:42 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 3/27/14, 8:51 PM, Gene Kearns wrote:
On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 10:04:17 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ld_tg4W7Hf8

Awesomely funny. And no comments? And no boating. WTF?



I thought Maher nicely combined the utter stupidity of those 60% of
Americans who think the great flood story is literally true
and...boating.

The Great Flood theory has a lot of basis. South Americans also tell of
a great flood in their tales. Lots of the coal deposits are all at the
same general elevation, and had to have huge piles of vegetation to make
the thick seams. May not have been a Noah, but there have definitely
been floods. Those major meteor collisions would cause flooding like
the tales tell of. Anything that altered the spin of the earth very
much would do the job. Theory that a lot of the Wooly mammoths in the
North were flash frozen by an earth wobble. Those frozen Mammoths are
found with undigested food in the stomach and flowers in their teeth.
They are big enough that if not flash frozen the stomach contents would
be fermented or digested. Get a small wobble and a temperature drop
below freezing and you would have -200 degree windchill factors. Say 10
Degrees F and a 200 mph wind. The inertia in the oceans would easily
cause the oceans to roll over the continents with a major speed change
or wobble.


Whether there was a "great flood" or a series of great floods or other
natural catastrophes or drastic climatic changes in earth's history isn't
what is being questioned by those who believe the "Noah story" is just
more biblical hokey.


You are stating a great flood did not happen with your statements! English
major?

I agree with Harry that the "all the animals 2 by 2" is pretty hokey.

I agree also. But Harry's statements were no great flood. I even put a
disclaimer on Noah in my first reply. But it my be nice to have Unicorns.
You tube Irish Rovers and Unicorn song.

Bill Maher Explains Noah...
 

F*O*A*D wrote:
On 3/28/14, 11:17 AM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2014 10:31:18 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:


I side with those scholars who believe the biblical tale of Noah had
its
origins in a huge flood of some sort some thousands of years ago in the
middle east, and that the spiritual leaders of that time embellished it
to fantastic proportions and used it to keep the more simple folk of
their time in line. The story was passed along, generation to
generation, and between the nomadic peoples of the region until the
Jews
picked it up and made it part of their bible.

Fine. Now STFU with your anti-religion crap.




Once again, Johnny...

rec.boats isn't the army, where someone mistakenly made you an officer
and gave you the feeling you had some clout. There's no bandwidth
limit here, so there is plenty of elasticity to hold my posts about
whatever subjects interest me and your posts about your seemingly
endless list of hobbies you use to fill the vacuum of thought in your
days.

It is a little interesting to me that you consider my posts
"anti-religion" when my many "religious" friends consider some of the
religious issues I raise on occasion with them worthy of discussion.
We've had some fun debates recently about Noah, what with the new
movie coming out.

What do you discuss with your friends? Barbecue rubs?



Trolling interests you? Paying your taxes interests me.

Bill Maher Explains Noah...
 

H*a*r*r*o*l*d wrote:
On 3/28/2014 12:39 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2014 11:57:59 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/28/14, 11:49 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2014 11:03:29 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/28/14, 10:47 AM, wrote:

It is sort of like the number of people who think the bible gave
European Jews the right to invade and occupy Palestine after WWII
huh?



I suppose it is possible you have no understanding or knowledge of
either the biblical or post-biblical history (not folk tale,
history) of
that part of the Middle East.


How do a population of people who have lived in Europe for several
centuries suddenly decide they have a right to the land they
abandoned?

Would you feel the same way if a band of people said they were
descendants of the Piscataway indians and they really owned your
house, then they pulled guns and told you to get out?



They didn't abandon it...they were conquered and driven out by a
succession of more warlike peoples, and certainly have more claim on
the
land than, say, the Europeans who came to the Americas, slaughtered the
native populations, and took the land and resources.

That should give the indians even more right to come take your house
shouldn't it?

The Jews in Europe are the ones who simply walked away from Palestine,
centuries ago and then decided they still had some kind of inherent
ownership after WWII because the bible told them so.

Geeze. They already grabbed one of Krause's houses. Do you think they
should take another one?
He doesn't own a house - for obvious reasons.

Bill Maher Explains Noah...
 

On 3/28/14, 10:34 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2014 16:07:37 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/28/14, 2:33 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2014 13:00:25 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/28/14, 12:39 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2014 11:57:59 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/28/14, 11:49 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2014 11:03:29 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/28/14, 10:47 AM, wrote:

It is sort of like the number of people who think the bible gave
European Jews the right to invade and occupy Palestine after WWII huh?



I suppose it is possible you have no understanding or knowledge of
either the biblical or post-biblical history (not folk tale, history) of
that part of the Middle East.


How do a population of people who have lived in Europe for several
centuries suddenly decide they have a right to the land they
abandoned?

Would you feel the same way if a band of people said they were
descendants of the Piscataway indians and they really owned your
house, then they pulled guns and told you to get out?



They didn't abandon it...they were conquered and driven out by a
succession of more warlike peoples, and certainly have more claim on the
land than, say, the Europeans who came to the Americas, slaughtered the
native populations, and took the land and resources.

That should give the indians even more right to come take your house
shouldn't it?

The Jews in Europe are the ones who simply walked away from Palestine,
centuries ago and then decided they still had some kind of inherent
ownership after WWII because the bible told them so.



Most of the Jews who were living in Israel during the Roman conquest
were either slaughtered or expelled by the Romans. The ones that were
still alive didn't "walk away," they were forced out at the point of a
sword. Some Jews returned during the subsequent conquests of Israel by
Muslims, Europeans, whatever, and substantial numbers of Jews returned
after escaping or being forced out of Christian Spain in 1492. Hundreds
of thousands of Jews resettled in the area between the late 19th Century
and the end of World War I.

After WW II, the area was partitioned, something the Muslims there did
not want to happen and once Israel declared its independence, the Arab
states initiated a war against Israel. The Arab states lost.

Your interpretation of how the modern state of Israel came about is,
well, simple minded.



This is a subject about which you know next to nothing.

The Romans may have been pricks and we know the nazis were but you
still have not explained how a million Jews who had lived in Europe
for centuries suddenly had a claim on land in Palestine.
It would have made a lot more sense to take land from ex nazis or nazi
sympathizers and give it to the Jews ... or simply to give them back
the land that was taken from them in the 30s and 40s along with other
reparations

I do know the real answer to that question, do you?



A substantial influx of Jews moved to Israel in the years just before
the US entered WW II to escape the Nazis. They came to Israel because
there literally was nowhere else for them to go, since even the United
States refused them entree. Hundreds of thousands of Jews got to Israel
that way before WW II. Immediately after the way, the Brits for the most
part shut down Israel to the remaining Jews in Europe who were trying to
find a place to go. Many of them ended up in Cyprus as refugees.

The really massive influx of Jews to Israel, however, did not take place
until after the State of Israel declared itself. It took 10 years for
the Jewish population of Israel to go from about a million to two million.

Why would the Jewish survivors of WW II in Europe want to live in the
cities the Nazis or the West destroyed under Christian governments with
2000 years of history of deporting or slaughtering them? I can't think
of a reason. Being in charge of their own destiny seemed reason enough
to escape to Israel.

You did a pretty good job of explaining why they wanted to go to
Palestine. You just never explained how they got the right to.

The allied leaders at the time simply had such a low regard for the
people who lived there that they had no reason to stop them.
If they went to Central Africa, South America or anywhere else with
brown people, they would have felt the same.



What an interesting take. The "allied leaders" didn't much care for the
Jews, either, since, even when Germany was slaughtering them, they
weren't allow to enter the allied countries in substantial numbers.

So, is what you are claiming similar to what has been said about the
United States, that we are a nation founded and built on the decimation
of one people, the "Indians," and the enslavement of another, the "blacks"?

--

Bill Maher Explains Noah...
 

On 3/29/14, 11:13 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 07:12:37 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/28/14, 10:34 PM, wrote:


You did a pretty good job of explaining why they wanted to go to
Palestine. You just never explained how they got the right to.

The allied leaders at the time simply had such a low regard for the
people who lived there that they had no reason to stop them.
If they went to Central Africa, South America or anywhere else with
brown people, they would have felt the same.



What an interesting take. The "allied leaders" didn't much care for the
Jews, either, since, even when Germany was slaughtering them, they
weren't allow to enter the allied countries in substantial numbers.

So, is what you are claiming similar to what has been said about the
United States, that we are a nation founded and built on the decimation
of one people, the "Indians," and the enslavement of another, the "blacks"?

Yeah pretty much.

Your hero FDR was racist and antisemitic, as was Churchill, de Gaulle
and Stalin.
It seemed like the perfect solution to let the displaced European Jews
invade and occupy a land owned by Arabs.


I'm sorry, Gregg, but I didn't know FDR. I know quite a bit about him
from reading and seeing historical depictions of his life, and I do
admire a lot of what he did for America and for the common man. But he's
not one of my heroes.

No offense, but with all the negative comments you've made about Jews
and Israel, it seems like the racist, anti-Semitic types are more likely
to be in your Closet of Heroes.

And once again, the "land" you claim was "owned by the Arabs" has spent
more time in more different beds than the average male hooker at a
Republican political convention. Lots of peoples and lots of countries
have "owned" that land temporarily.

I don't fault the Jews who survived the holocaust and emigrated to
Israel after WW II. Why would they ever want to put their faith again
into the hands of the peoples who sold them down the river for the
previous 2000 years? If the Jews have learned anything, it is "Don't
Trust Gentiles."

Oh, and the European Jews weren't "let" into the position of occupying
Israel. The Brits and allies of the Brits kept most of them out for
years, before our involvement in WW II and after. After the war, Israeli
paramilitary and terrorist groups convinced the Brits it was time for
them to leave, and then four or five neighboring Arab nations initiated
a war against the new state.

Bill Maher Explains Noah...
 

On 3/29/14, 1:00 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 11:44:04 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/29/14, 11:13 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 07:12:37 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/28/14, 10:34 PM, wrote:


You did a pretty good job of explaining why they wanted to go to
Palestine. You just never explained how they got the right to.

The allied leaders at the time simply had such a low regard for the
people who lived there that they had no reason to stop them.
If they went to Central Africa, South America or anywhere else with
brown people, they would have felt the same.



What an interesting take. The "allied leaders" didn't much care for the
Jews, either, since, even when Germany was slaughtering them, they
weren't allow to enter the allied countries in substantial numbers.

So, is what you are claiming similar to what has been said about the
United States, that we are a nation founded and built on the decimation
of one people, the "Indians," and the enslavement of another, the "blacks"?

Yeah pretty much.

Your hero FDR was racist and antisemitic, as was Churchill, de Gaulle
and Stalin.
It seemed like the perfect solution to let the displaced European Jews
invade and occupy a land owned by Arabs.


I'm sorry, Gregg, but I didn't know FDR. I know quite a bit about him
from reading and seeing historical depictions of his life, and I do
admire a lot of what he did for America and for the common man. But he's
not one of my heroes.

No offense, but with all the negative comments you've made about Jews
and Israel, it seems like the racist, anti-Semitic types are more likely
to be in your Closet of Heroes.

And once again, the "land" you claim was "owned by the Arabs" has spent
more time in more different beds than the average male hooker at a
Republican political convention. Lots of peoples and lots of countries
have "owned" that land temporarily.

I don't fault the Jews who survived the holocaust and emigrated to
Israel after WW II. Why would they ever want to put their faith again
into the hands of the peoples who sold them down the river for the
previous 2000 years? If the Jews have learned anything, it is "Don't
Trust Gentiles."

Oh, and the European Jews weren't "let" into the position of occupying
Israel. The Brits and allies of the Brits kept most of them out for
years, before our involvement in WW II and after. After the war, Israeli
paramilitary and terrorist groups convinced the Brits it was time for
them to leave, and then four or five neighboring Arab nations initiated
a war against the new state.


Of course we "let" them invade and occupy.
We had just defeated the Germans for doing pretty much the same thing.
A rabble of refugees was not a military threat to any 1st world power
but they certainly had the edge on the people of Palestine and guys
like Begin had no problems using terrorist tactics against the minimal
resistance they got from the Brits.

Everyone had bigger fish to fry at the time and they assumed the Arabs
would just roll over and allow this.

I am not sure why we always make the same mistakes.

The things we did at the end of WWI pretty much assured WWII and it
looks like things we did at the end of WWII will assure WWIII.


I am out of this.


Oh, don't stop now...you're such a strong advocate for the peaceful
palestinians.

Bill Maher Explains Noah...
 

F*O*A*D wrote:
On 3/28/14, 3:32 PM, Califbill wrote:
wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2014 13:59:35 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

F*O*A*D wrote:
On 3/27/14, 10:21 PM, Bill McKee wrote:
On 3/27/14, 6:42 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 3/27/14, 8:51 PM, Gene Kearns wrote:
On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 10:04:17 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ld_tg4W7Hf8

Awesomely funny. And no comments? And no boating. WTF?



I thought Maher nicely combined the utter stupidity of those 60% of
Americans who think the great flood story is literally true
and...boating.

The Great Flood theory has a lot of basis. South Americans also tell of
a great flood in their tales. Lots of the coal deposits are all at the
same general elevation, and had to have huge piles of vegetation to make
the thick seams. May not have been a Noah, but there have definitely
been floods. Those major meteor collisions would cause flooding like
the tales tell of. Anything that altered the spin of the earth very
much would do the job. Theory that a lot of the Wooly mammoths in the
North were flash frozen by an earth wobble. Those frozen Mammoths are
found with undigested food in the stomach and flowers in their teeth.
They are big enough that if not flash frozen the stomach contents would
be fermented or digested. Get a small wobble and a temperature drop
below freezing and you would have -200 degree windchill factors. Say 10
Degrees F and a 200 mph wind. The inertia in the oceans would easily
cause the oceans to roll over the continents with a major speed change
or wobble.


Whether there was a "great flood" or a series of great floods or other
natural catastrophes or drastic climatic changes in earth's history isn't
what is being questioned by those who believe the "Noah story" is just
more biblical hokey.


You are stating a great flood did not happen with your statements! English
major?

I agree with Harry that the "all the animals 2 by 2" is pretty hokey.

I agree also. But Harry's statements were no great flood. I even put a
disclaimer on Noah in my first reply. But it my be nice to have Unicorns.
You tube Irish Rovers and Unicorn song.



I didn't there there weren't floods or other huge natural catastrophes.
Read for content. I said the Noah story was just biblical hokey.



There there? No you hokeyed a great flood. You should write what you
mean. You write just like the major media does theses days. Bad.

Bill Maher Explains Noah...
 

On 3/30/14, 10:52 AM, Califbill wrote:
F*O*A*D wrote:
On 3/28/14, 3:32 PM, Califbill wrote:
wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2014 13:59:35 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

F*O*A*D wrote:
On 3/27/14, 10:21 PM, Bill McKee wrote:
On 3/27/14, 6:42 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 3/27/14, 8:51 PM, Gene Kearns wrote:
On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 10:04:17 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ld_tg4W7Hf8

Awesomely funny. And no comments? And no boating. WTF?



I thought Maher nicely combined the utter stupidity of those 60% of
Americans who think the great flood story is literally true
and...boating.

The Great Flood theory has a lot of basis. South Americans also tell of
a great flood in their tales. Lots of the coal deposits are all at the
same general elevation, and had to have huge piles of vegetation to make
the thick seams. May not have been a Noah, but there have definitely
been floods. Those major meteor collisions would cause flooding like
the tales tell of. Anything that altered the spin of the earth very
much would do the job. Theory that a lot of the Wooly mammoths in the
North were flash frozen by an earth wobble. Those frozen Mammoths are
found with undigested food in the stomach and flowers in their teeth.
They are big enough that if not flash frozen the stomach contents would
be fermented or digested. Get a small wobble and a temperature drop
below freezing and you would have -200 degree windchill factors. Say 10
Degrees F and a 200 mph wind. The inertia in the oceans would easily
cause the oceans to roll over the continents with a major speed change
or wobble.


Whether there was a "great flood" or a series of great floods or other
natural catastrophes or drastic climatic changes in earth's history isn't
what is being questioned by those who believe the "Noah story" is just
more biblical hokey.


You are stating a great flood did not happen with your statements! English
major?

I agree with Harry that the "all the animals 2 by 2" is pretty hokey.

I agree also. But Harry's statements were no great flood. I even put a
disclaimer on Noah in my first reply. But it my be nice to have Unicorns.
You tube Irish Rovers and Unicorn song.



I didn't there there weren't floods or other huge natural catastrophes.
Read for content. I said the Noah story was just biblical hokey.



There there? No you hokeyed a great flood. You should write what you
mean. You write just like the major media does theses days. Bad.



In the context of these posts, Bill, "the Great Flood" story is a tale
in connection with the various "Noah" sagas, including the one that
appeared in the bible.

There is plenty of evidence various parts of the earth that are now bone
dry were once covered by oceans and lakes and rivers. There have been
massive continental shifts. There have been massive floods. No one is
denying that.

The "biblicals" claim the Noah story of "the Great Flood," and the ark
and the rest of that nonsense is for real and happened as depicted in
the bible. There is nothing to back up that story, and the claims made
on behalf of Noah and his family and the ark and the parade of animals
in the biblical story are just absurd.