homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: Noah (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  ...  9  10  11 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: Noah
Potweed
Apprentice
# 4417

 - Posted      Profile for Potweed   Email Potweed   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You're all going to burn in eternal damnation for suggesting that the bible is not the literal, exact word of God, and that it is literally precise in its meaning.

(gee that felt fun, I should do it more often)

Post Scriptum: go on, check my profile, you know you want to, what's an atheist doing saying such blatant flamebait? hmmmm? oh wait! perhaps he's not serious after all...

Posts: 31 | From: Perth, Australia | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Kelly Alves

Bunny with an axe
# 2522

 - Posted      Profile for Kelly Alves   Email Kelly Alves   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by OgtheDim:
quote:
Originally posted by markporter:
quote:
The Bible exagerates the extent of the flood inorder to make a theological point - why not also exagerate the size of the Ark?
I suppose because I'm a biblical inerrantist at heart [Confused]
Or maybe God likes telling stories.
Jesus certainly did. Called 'em parables.

What on earth is the problem with scripturally sanctioned folktales? Important, significant folktales with a meaning and a purpose? Doesn't effect my belief in Jesus at all.

--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.

Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169

 - Posted      Profile for Grits   Author's homepage   Email Grits   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It makes me a little sad and a little frightened when men start deciding which parts of the Bible are fact and which are fiction. Who draws the line? How do you keep it from becoming a tool to enforce whatever arena of reasoning you choose to believe?

I believe the flood happened just as it is recounted in Genesis. That Noah and his sons built a huge vessel of gopher wood, that the animals were gathered just as God instructed, that the heavens and earth were opened and it rained and flooded, that it covered the mountains, that it covered the earth, that everything outside the ark died, and that it will never happen again.

And I believe Jonah was swallowed by a big fish.

Do I think either of these events occurred without intervention by the hand of God? No. Whether or not it says God was involved, I believe He was. Who am I to limit what He does or how He chooses to do it?

Don't you think the essence of Christianity is faith? Simple, naive, no questions asked, faith? If our belief is based solely on what can be proven, either historically or scientifically, where's the glory to God in that?

--------------------
Lord, fill my mouth with worthwhile stuff, and shut it when I've said enough. Amen.

Posts: 8419 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Kevin Iga
Shipmate
# 4396

 - Posted      Profile for Kevin Iga   Author's homepage   Email Kevin Iga   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Lots of good points. That means this post of mine will be shorter than usual, since many of you took much of what I was going to say.

Personally, I would prefer to find some way of thinking of the flood story as referring to an actual historical event, and preferably for the details (which are argued about anyway) to somehow make sense once you see the details of the historical event. But that preference may be a character flaw in me.

Because I don't think that's what the purpose of the story is in Genesis. I'm actually not sure what it is, but I hesitate to think that the whole reason God put the story of Noah in Genesis is so that thousands of years later, someone can make a historical/paleontological/archaeological discovery that shows that God had it right all along. I just don't think God needs that kind of affirmation from us, who are so slow-witted in comparison.

I also don't think the reason is that God wants us to know paleontology. After all, the vast majority of geological time is given just a few verses in Genesis, if that. If God thought the Permian extinction was important for us to learn, He'd put it in the Bible. He doesn't even give us a good picture of how He created the first life form. I guess that's just not the point of the Bible.

So I must ask myself why God wanted the story there. And I just don't know. Having a picture for baptism is nice, but somehow the passage doesn't read like a parable, exactly. The geneaologies really muck things up too, as someone pointed out earlier. Now Job I can see as a parable. Aw, shucks, I guess whether or not you think it works well as a parable and a parable alone kind of depends on what you're used to, I guess. We'll just disagree on that and I don't see how we're going to settle that one. But I just don't feel like Genesis 1-8 feels like that.

I've started considering another alternative, but I haven't completely bought into this one yet:

As many of you know, many of the stories in Gen 1-8 have parallels in Mesopotamian literature. The creation story, the flood, long-lived people, etc. What if the purpose of these stories in the Bible is to give a God-centric version of the stories they knew? Just like nowdays you can find "politically-correct" parodies of children's stories (for humor value), perhaps the stories in Gen 1-8 are supposed to be "theologically-correct" parodies of Babylonian stories!

I mentioned the Tower of Babel on another thread in this vein. Imagine in Babylon a father telling his child that once, gods dwelled among mankind, and that even today, there is a bridge connecting heaven and earth: the tower Bab-il (Gateway to the High), where even today, priests offer sacrifices to the gods and the gods sustain us.

Hmm. Pretty good. It might capture the imagination of the sons of the Israelites. They might get confused, especially dazzled by the technological feats and splendor of the city.

Now we need a parody. A story that sets the record straight, as far as the relationship between God and man is concerned. History isn't the point. Okay, so here it is: One day people got together and said, "We've got to do something grand so we can be famous." Then they said, "I know! We'll build a big tower. It'll be so tall, it'll reach heaven!" They stared putting together clay bricks and tar and started building a tower to heaven. Now God comes down (He has to, to see this small thing they are building) and says, "Those silly people! What will they think of next?" And He changes their language so that no one can understand anything else. And so the silly tower went uncompleted, and the people were scattered. So they named the tower Babel (Balal="Confusion") and even when you go there today, there are all these different languages and everyone is just confused.

Now take the Flood. The Utnapishtim story in Gilgamesh, for instance, views the cause of the flood in terms of fighting between the gods. Just one family gets saved, Utnapishtim's, because he happens to have a patron god who gets something right for a change. The gods are responsible for the flood but are really ultimately powerless to stop it, just as combatants are powerless to stop war. By the skin of his teeth, Utnapishtim survives, together with the animals.

Okay, the Bible says, suppose a massive flood did take over the world. How would it happen? There's only one God, and He's in control. The only reason why bad things happen is not because of God, but because man is wicked. At some point, man just gets out of control, and the only thing available is for God to wipe the whole world clean. But God will always preserve a remnant that is faithful to Him. He plans ahead of time to keep them from harm, and only asks them to obey in faith. And God remembers them and has a new plan for them to repopulate the earth afterward.

Oh, and by the way, those heroes of old like Gilgamesh? They're really the offspring not of gods, but of god-like spiritual beings ("sons of Elohim" in the sense of "having the qualities of God") that just couldn't keep their hands off the lovely ladies. And those folks were nasty dudes. Actually, come to think of it, they're a big part of the "wickedness" that God wanted to wipe clean from the world. So don't try to act like Gilgamesh. God doesn't like that sort.

How's that for an idea?

Kevin

Oops, I guess I'm not capable of posting short posts.

--------------------
Presbyterian /prez.bi.ti'.ri.en/ n. One who believes the governing authorities of the church should be called "presbyters".

Posts: 521 | From: Pepperdine University | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Glenn Oldham
Shipmate
# 47

 - Posted      Profile for Glenn Oldham   Author's homepage   Email Glenn Oldham   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by gladiator:

... the Flood is a significant historical event, that could have happened as stated in the Bible. It has literary value, and should, or what was God's purpose in remembering it in the Bible. But it is not just a story, and not just a myth, and I feel that it can be taken quite literally. I know there are many who don't agree. To end I will close with saying, I believe, if God wanted to do something, He would find a way to accomplish it, He is not limited by time or the people or animals he designed.

Your argument really just boils down to: since God can do anything then anything described in the bible could be literally true. It is thus unfalsifiable and unanswerable and makes asking the question 'did the flood happen' unanswerable because no evidence we can point to means anything anymore. For example: the problem of the number of species gives us no evidence against the flood since "who says that all of the animals that exist today, existed then?" Since any of the laws and regularities we now observe could have been suspended by God then none is evidence for anything. The question 'did the flood happen?' is rendered unanswerable by pointing to evidence.

In the end, you believe in the flood because you believe that the Bible should be taken literally, or inerrantly. Why on earth you think that is so essential I do not know.
G

Posts: 910 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
markporter
Shipmate
# 4276

 - Posted      Profile for markporter   Author's homepage   Email markporter   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
I think many of the stories in the New Testament fall into the category of allegory.

Erm....think you'll find that most people disagree there, the whole purpose of a lot of the miracles is to demonstrate Jesus' authority over some aspect of the world....if they didn't happen, then he didn't have the authority. Also, Luke for example was clearly writing as a historian.
Posts: 1309 | From: Oxford | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Glenn Oldham
Shipmate
# 47

 - Posted      Profile for Glenn Oldham   Author's homepage   Email Glenn Oldham   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G.R.I.T.S.:
It makes me a little sad and a little frightened when men start deciding which parts of the Bible are fact and which are fiction. Who draws the line? How do you keep it from becoming a tool to enforce whatever arena of reasoning you choose to believe? ...

Well isn't that what you have done? You have decided that the line must be drawn as all or nothing. What do you base that decision on?

--------------------
This entire doctrine is worthless except as a subject of dispute. (G. C. Lichtenberg 1742-1799 Aphorism 60 in notebook J of The Waste Books)

Posts: 910 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by markporter:
the whole purpose of a lot of the miracles is to demonstrate Jesus' authority over some aspect of the world....if they didn't happen, then he didn't have the authority.

Umm, actually if they didn't happen all it shows is that Jesus chose not to exercise his authority.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
G.R.I.T.S. quoth:

quote:
Don't you think the essence of Christianity is faith? Simple, naive, no questions asked, faith?
In a word, no.

quote:
If our belief is based solely on what can be proven, either historically or scientifically, where's the glory to God in that?

You misunderstand. I don't reject a literal belief in the flood story because it isn't proven, but because it is dis-proven.

Gladiator - I would take on your post flood hyper-evolution model, but I hear the ghostly neighing of a Mesohippus.

Oh sod it. This thread is full of fossilised proto-equines as it is.

It is not possible for the current genetic diversity of the entire dog family to be present in one or even seven pairs of dogs. Why? Well, you want to be a scientist so you should be able to get this:

Each individual diploid animal has two alleles (versions of a gene) at each locus (position on the chromosome), because it has two chromosomes. Therefore, if there were seven dogs on the ark, there were an absolute maximum of 14 alleles per locus.

Therefore, if all the current genetic diversity within the dog family came from these putative seven dogs, there would only be 14 alleles per locus today.

This is recognised as a problem - indeed the genetic problems are investigated he re on page 6.

We also have the problem of speed. Bear in mind that the animals known to say the ancient egyptians or chinese show the same diversity as today. So the hyperevolution of the "dog kind" into all the current canidae must have taken place in the time between the flood and the beginning of written records!. Given that chinese and egyptian records go right back (and indeed straight through, but that's another question) the period attributed to this Flood, that means the hyperevolution took place virtually overnight.

Observe that this is the same evolution that creationists will tell you ten seconds later couldn't possibly have happened even with the millions of years "evolutionists" (funny, I thought it would be geologists, but never mind) say the earth has been around for.

To be honest, my response to the hyperevolution model can be summed up as [Killing me]

I appreciate your calling your position "unscientific", Gladiator, but if you accept that, don't start pulling science in and suggesting scientific mechanisms. That doesn't fly.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ham'n'Eggs

Ship's Pig
# 629

 - Posted      Profile for Ham'n'Eggs   Email Ham'n'Eggs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Potweed:
You're all going to burn in eternal damnation for suggesting that the bible is not the literal, exact word of God, and that it is literally precise in its meaning.

Please supply evidence to support this statement, or withdraw it.

--------------------
"...the heresies that men do leave / Are hated most of those they did deceive" - Will S


Posts: 3103 | From: Genghis Khan's sleep depot | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
John Collins
Shipmate
# 41

 - Posted      Profile for John Collins   Author's homepage   Email John Collins   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ham'n'Eggs:
quote:
Originally posted by Potweed:
You're all going to burn in eternal damnation for suggesting that the bible is not the literal, exact word of God, and that it is literally precise in its meaning.

Please supply evidence to support this statement, or withdraw it.
I think it was a tongue in cheek remark - he did invite you to look at his profile which shows him to be Atheist.

--------------------
John Collins

Posts: 179 | From: Welwyn Garden City, Herts | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ham'n'Eggs

Ship's Pig
# 629

 - Posted      Profile for Ham'n'Eggs   Email Ham'n'Eggs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't for one minute believe that being an atheist automatically confers one incapable of reasoned debate (although in Potwood's case the evidence is not looking good).

I am merely applying the standard convention of that a poster in Purgatory should be prepared to substantiate what they say when challenged to do so. If he is not prepared to do so, then I shall draw the appropriate conclusion.

--------------------
"...the heresies that men do leave / Are hated most of those they did deceive" - Will S


Posts: 3103 | From: Genghis Khan's sleep depot | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by gladiator:
Well, who says that all of the animals that exist today, existed then? The DNA of animals contains genes that are not always expressed and these can have mutations, all the species we have now could have originated from a more common ancestor (this is not the same as evolution, and I am not going to start an agrument about that issue, though I have found myself in that one a lot!) 1 pair of wolves could become, foxes, coyotes, wild dogs etc, just as an example.

What do you mean by that? This precisely is evolution.

It isn't evolution of all known living things from one common ancestor, nor is is (perhaps) origin of species by means of natural selection, but it is certainly evolution.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
markporter
Shipmate
# 4276

 - Posted      Profile for markporter   Author's homepage   Email markporter   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't think that you'll find even creation scientists denying this sort of evolution......it's just where you find a dog turning into a cat that would disagree.....they admit evolution within limits.
Posts: 1309 | From: Oxford | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by markporter:
I don't think that you'll find even creation scientists denying this sort of evolution......it's just where you find a dog turning into a cat that would disagree.....they admit evolution within limits.

That's OK. No-one suggests that dogs do turn into cats.

But I can show you the common ancestor whose descendants are cats and dogs, if you're interested.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
markporter
Shipmate
# 4276

 - Posted      Profile for markporter   Author's homepage   Email markporter   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
go on then....
Posts: 1309 | From: Oxford | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ham'n'Eggs:
quote:
Originally posted by markporter:
so the Bible's lying?

What makes you think that the Bible is written in the language of 21st Century Western man?

Since the Bible was written, there have been several fundamental changes in world-view, and innumerable cultural changes. The language of the Bible is almost incomprehensible to modern man.

It isn't lying. It is speaking in a way that post-Enlightenment man is very badly equipped to tune into. It isn't a Maker's handbook written in a technical fashion - it is a lot of disparate texts heavily imprinted with the mannerisms of the humans who wrote them. But - with the numinous and aweful ruach of God heavy on every page.

[Not worthy!] [Not worthy!] [Not worthy!]

Ham'n'Eggs: Great post!
Said so well -- we agree much!
E'en Lewis-worthy!


[Not worthy!] [Not worthy!] [Not worthy!]

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
He's here:

Miacid

But I expect you want to know how we know that he is the ancestor of cats and dogs (and bears, and, weasels, and...)

Well, it's skull is doglike. However, it has retractile claws, like a cat.

Moreover, we have a series of transitional fossils linking the Miacids with modern carnivores; these are outlined briefly Here.

The Cat line goes from the Miacids through Haplogale (can't find an image) to the first "true" cat - ProtoailurusProtoailurus and so on.

A similar line of fossils links the Miacids to dogs, seals, weasels and so on.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Miacids -- so cute!
Want one of my very own!
--What? Extinct? Alas! [Waterworks]


--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
markporter
Shipmate
# 4276

 - Posted      Profile for markporter   Author's homepage   Email markporter   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
hmmm, not sure...doesn't look so cute to me, looks rather dangerous.....but then I'm scared of dogs and cats as well, so that could explain it.
Posts: 1309 | From: Oxford | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Great links Karl, but I am tempted to be pedantic.

No palaeontologist is likely to claim that those fossils are the ancestors of dogs and cats, just that they are from species very similar to those common ancestors.

3 main reasons for that:

1 - it is of course impossible to be sure that we have fossil representatives of all species alive at any time in the past - and bloody likely that we don't. So the real MRCA is probably not represented by any fossils.

2 - in the long run it is likely that few individual isolated species leave descendants. Most are probably evolutionary "dead ends". (Of course it is vanishingly unlikely that any individual fossil is anyone's ancestor at all)

3 - fossil evidence is not much good at supporting the kind of divisions of life into reproductively isolated species that we try to make for living organisms. But those reproductively isolated species are of course the unit of evolution. (Tautologically so - once two individuals are reproductively isolated they cannot both become ancestors of the same descendant - that's what reproductively isolation means)

So when we look at ancient fossils and assign them to species we are neccessarily using a different working definition of species than we might be in living species (in practice we often don't of course, even with living species)

If we use characters taken from more than once actual fossil assigned to the same species in phylogenetic analysis we have to realise that we are building in our assumptions about species boundaries into the resulting trees.

Of course fossil evidence isn't really why most biologists believe in the fact of evolution (although it powerfully supports it) it is more used to illustrate the course of evolution.

When working out "family trees" from fossils we have to use them the same way as we use characters from living species. The fossils, just like the living species, represent endpoints in a diagram, the twigs on the tree. We have to find what are their most likely relationships in terms of common ancestry. It doesn't work to treat them as nodes on the diagram, as if they were ancestors of the living species. They are dead twigs, not part of the trunk.

It is of course possible, and for very ancient species perhaps likely, that a fossil species might share more characters with the most recent common ancestor of that fossil and a living species, than the living species does. (I could post my 60-page undergraduate essay on the subject but it is unlikely that anyone would read it [Smile] )

The press likes to talk about actual ancestors being dug up. Especially in human fossils. They try to make science into a myth and tell stories of onward and upward progress, or some such crap, stories with a plot, and a hero (Man the Hunter! Home faber! Homo ludens! The Aquatic Ape! Little Lucy!) in which the losers go extinct and the good-guys get rewarded by becoming our ancestors.

Some publicity-friendly scientists use the same sort of language as well. They say that such-and-such a species or even fossil is our ancestor, which is of course nonsense.

No respectable scientist uses such language in scientific papers - at any rate, not since cladism cleaned out the stables a few decades back - but it is what gets into the press.

Then the YECcies get to hear of it, and look up the real stuff and come out with mendacious claims that the scientists have changed their mind, or don't really believe in evolution at all, or were lying to the public in the first place, or have some Secret Knowledge only available to the initiates, or disagree with each other so much that they aren't worth listening to.

They did it with cladism, they did it with mass extinctions, they did it with punctuated equilibrium.

The only way round it is to be honest & open and not compromise with the truth.

So - those miacid fossils are not the common ancestors of cats and dogs! They are another branch of the tree, which shares a common ancestor with cats and dogs, and is almost certainly much more like that common ancestor than cats and dogs are!

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Warning! Thread drift! Thread drift!

Reader Alexis

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Quite correct ken. I shouldn't have over simplified really.

The miacids represent either the common ancestor or a very close relative of it. The actual species depicted there is almost certainly not ancestral itself; this is quite true. Indeed, all the animals mentioned in the transitional fossils FAQ cannot be definitely stated as ancestral to the next animal; rather they represent a species around at the time that was either ancestral or very closely related to one that was.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G.R.I.T.S.:
It makes me a little sad and a little frightened when men start deciding which parts of the Bible are fact and which are fiction. Who draws the line?

But it is impossible to read - to read the Bible or any other book - without interpreting in such a way. It is part of the interactive discourse that all readers have with any text.

Drawing those lines is an inevitable part of reading.

We know that Jesus talked in parables - so we have to be able to distinguish parables from other stories.

We know that Jesus, and other Bible characters, sometimes talked in metaphor and exagrerration - just as millions of people do today.

We know that words and laguage change their meaning, and even have different meanings for different speakers at the same time.

We know that finding the literal meaning of a word, or its original root is often a very bad clue as to how it is used. If you are "horrified" does your hair really stand on end? (that's the original meaning of the word) Does your paragraph that I quoted above imply that you are happy for women to make such decisions? (you only mentioned men) You call yourself a "Girl raised in the South" Are you below the age of puberty? (the literal meaning of the word "girl" in most English language contexts)

It's pretty obvious to us what you mean by those words ("pretty" = "beautiful in a frilly sort of way"?) But if someone were to read this thread in 3,000 years time it might not be to them. If they attempted to read your words for their plain meaning, or literally, they might make all sorts of silly mistakes.

"The fool says in his heart: 'there is no God'"

So it says in the Bible that 'there is no God' does it? No, because the fool says it.

"A man was going up from Jericho to Jerusalem" - It wasn't a fool who said that, it was the Lord. So it it true? Well, I don't know. My guess is it is a story with a point, a parable, not a piece of history. Same as the prodigal son & the wise and foolish virgins.

The people in it are archetypes - like the poor, the Good Samaritans, the Prodigal Sons, and the Wise and Foolish Virgins, will always be with us.

Does it make a difference if Jesus did or didn't have individual people in mind when he told the story?

Is the book of Jonah intended to be read as parable or history? It sure looks like a parable to me - a short narrative full of folky repitition and little jokes. It doesn't say it is history anywhere. It wasn't put in with the Prophets until centuries after it was written (neither, for that matter, was Chronicles, which was treated as a different class of scripture to Kings) - it is a story with a prophet in it (and not much of a prophet at that) rather than the book of a prophet.

Was the story of Noah meant as a parable? Or history? Or something else? I'm not sure.

Actually, to me it looks like it probably was meant as history. But we can't say that it is "sad" or "frightening" to make those choices. We always make those choicesa whenever we read anything. If we think we aren't then we are making them unconsciously and unreflectively which is probably not a good way to make choices.

quote:

How do you keep it from becoming a tool to enforce whatever arena of reasoning you choose to believe?

We can't help but make such choices when reading the Bible. Does "eretz" (land, earth) in the story of Noah mean the whole world, or just the land Noah was living in? We have to make up our minds, or at least acknowledge that there may be different interpretations.

If we think we aren't making up our minds, if we just trust the text, in practice we will be trusting the traditions of our teachers.

The Bible contains the Word of God, and is more authoritative for Christians than tradition is. (& no Ham & Eggs, this is not the place for me to support that assertion!)

Therefore, because of that, not in spite of that but because of that, we need to re-engage intelligently with the text of the Bible in each generation, and in each church. If we don't we will be merely reproducing our own traditions.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mad Geo

Ship's navel gazer
# 2939

 - Posted      Profile for Mad Geo   Email Mad Geo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G.R.I.T.S.:
It makes me a little sad and a little frightened when men start deciding which parts of the Bible are fact and which are fiction. Who draws the line? How do you keep it from becoming a tool to enforce whatever arena of reasoning you choose to believe?

GRITS. You should not be sad, for in fact "Men" have been deciding which parts of the bible are fact and fiction and drawing lines, well, forever. Or at least for as long as the bible has been with us. Moreover, "men" have been enforcing whatever arena of reasoning they chose to beleive, forever. If you doubt this, why the heck do we have all these denominations and religions? Because man draws lines and reasons which parts of the bible he/she wants to listen to.

This of course is not a surprise and not a problem. Reason? God is in control and knows our hearts. He also can add other forms of inspiration or guidance. If God cannot overcome a little questioning and interpretation to lead us to him, how wimpy a god has he become, no?

quote:


I believe the flood happened just as it is recounted in Genesis. That Noah and his sons built a huge vessel of gopher wood, that the animals were gathered just as God instructed, that the heavens and earth were opened and it rained and flooded, that it covered the mountains, that it covered the earth, that everything outside the ark died, and that it will never happen again.

And I believe Jonah was swallowed by a big fish.

Do I think either of these events occurred without intervention by the hand of God? No. Whether or not it says God was involved, I believe He was. Who am I to limit what He does or how He chooses to do it?

Don't you think the essence of Christianity is faith? Simple, naive, no questions asked, faith? If our belief is based solely on what can be proven, either historically or scientifically, where's the glory to God in that?

Do I beleive the essence of Christianity is faith, yes. It has to be. Cause no other method, science, bible studies, nature can "prove" God. Only faith.

Simple naive, no questions asked faith? Heck NO. Do you not think that God gave us an inquiring mind for a reason? If we are in his image and we quest for knowledge and understanding than questioning are DEFINITELY in order. It's required!

If our belief is based solely on what can be proven, either historically or scientifically, where's the glory to God in that? The glory of God is in the glory of God. Science and history cannot speak to that. The bible can certainly speak to the glory of God, and it can guide us. As can nature. But it does not have to be the literal absolute written down word of God to speak to us.

People love certainty. Afraid it isn't gonna happen on this world.

--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"

Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
People love certainty. Afraid it isn't gonna happen on this world.

Yes, but can you be sure of that?

Reader Alexis

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174

 - Posted      Profile for J. J. Ramsey   Author's homepage   Email J. J. Ramsey   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Glenn Oldham:


quote:
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
...
The problem is that the flood story is presented as if it were history. Now it may be that when the flood story was originally told, it was understood as just a story with a point to it. However, the author of Genesis, however, seems to have taken it to be factual, not even letting the story "float" as some disconnected event in the past, but trying to stitch it into the timeline by genealogies. The Noahic flood may be a myth, but it's a myth that was relayed to us as history, so it will not do to simply say that it was never meant to be taken literally.

Yes, but a couple of points here

  • "it's a myth that was relayed to us as history" some mistake surely, since the original writers/redactors of Genesis were not writing for 'us'

I am well aware that Genesis was not written for us moderns; that's why I used the term "relayed," since we are the umpteenth-hand (as opposed to firsthand) recipents. Still, in the modern world, there are enough historians, scholars, and whatnot who know enough to figure out with what "semantic contract" ancient readers had read Genesis, whether they would have taken it literally, figuratively, etc.
quote:

  • "the author of Genesis, however, seems to have taken it to be factual" the redactor's views on the extent of the factuality of the story are unknown - we can guess at them but concepts of history were different then to now ('history' is not a single timeless genre), so it is unclear what his attitude would have been.

Of course, we can't read the redactor's mind. That does not mean that the redactor's attitude is unclear to the point that one cannot make an educated decision as to what it is. Literary genre gives enough clues to determine how the text was meant to have been understood.
quote:

  • '"Ancient prose is generally meant to be taken literally; ancient poetry is given far more license"' is an incredibly vague rule which leaves us asking 'was it meant to be taken that way in this case?

"Incredibly vague" is an overstatement. Obviously which ancient culture and time period was not spelled out here for the sake of brevity, and of course, it is an rule with exceptions. However, it is a good starting point and indicates what the initial working assumptions should be. The question "was it meant to be taken that way in this case" is also not without an answer. Unless there are "giveaways" that the text is not meant to be interpreted quite by the rules of its apparent genre, either from clues in the text or from knowledge of how the text was received by its contemporaries, then one should assume that the typical "semantic contract" of the genre holds.
quote:

However these questions are answered it is clearly not possible for us to take the story literally now, or rather to do so requires an absurd degree of rationalistion and ingenuity.

True. However, whether or not our sources for the story took the story literally may have a bearing on how we should interpret the story and neighboring stories in the text.

--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.

Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200

 - Posted      Profile for Og: Thread Killer     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
People love certainty. Afraid it isn't gonna happen on this world.

Yes, but can you be sure of that?

Reader Alexis

Og begins to sing in his usual overly zealous baritone:

For I know whom (breathe)
I have believed, (breathe)
and am persuaded (breathe)
that he is able (breathe)
to keep that(breathe)
which I have committed (breathe)
unto him (breathe)
against that daaaaaay. (breathe a lot)

--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."

Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mad Geo

Ship's navel gazer
# 2939

 - Posted      Profile for Mad Geo   Email Mad Geo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
People love certainty. Afraid it isn't gonna happen on this world.

Yes, but can you be sure of that?

Reader Alexis

Are you asking me if I can be certain that certainty isn't gonna happen in this world. As in Irony?

Or are you asking something deeper?

Having personally experienced a relatively full range of opinions and experience with regards to biblical literality, I find a fixed "bible is literal hand of God" to be a less functional position than when I started my religious journey, as opposed to a more open view of the "Bible is allegorical/mythical/story that serves to guide us".

The latter solves any number of nasty little problems with how God allegedly acted in the past.
Amongst other things.

--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"

Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Glenn Oldham
Shipmate
# 47

 - Posted      Profile for Glenn Oldham   Author's homepage   Email Glenn Oldham   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G.R.I.T.S.:
... Don't you think the essence of Christianity is faith? Simple, naive, no questions asked, faith?

"Simple, naive, no questions asked, faith?" is ludicrous. Suppose I took you seriously and decided to have that sort of faith, I would not know where to start! What is it that I am supposed to have faith in? Oh dear there appear to be lots of faiths on offer, which should I accept naively? If I choose this one, why should I not choose one of the others? But whoops, there I go again asking questions and not being a 'naive, no questions asked' believer.

A much more holistic, mind affirming faith is far far better than this approach!
Glenn

Posts: 910 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
People love certainty. Afraid it isn't gonna happen on this world.

Yes, but can you be sure of that?
[Killing me] [Killing me] [Killing me] [Killing me]

I am quite certain that we are moving in the direction of certainty. I think that the future will look back on this age and wonder why we were so stupid. [Disappointed]

I believe in Isaiah's prophecy: "The earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea" (Isaiah 11). [Angel]

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mad Geo

Ship's navel gazer
# 2939

 - Posted      Profile for Mad Geo   Email Mad Geo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oh course we're moving in the direction of certainty, oh except for little things like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. [Roll Eyes] [Big Grin]

I agree that the future will look back and think we were quite stupid, that's the nature of progress and hindsight. But we are not wholesale heading into certainty. Modernistic thinking that science will have all the answers have proven to be misguided. There is no upper limit to knowledge, and therefore always uncertainty, if history (and quantum mechanics [Wink] ) are any guide.

--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"

Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Are you asking me if I can be certain that certainty isn't gonna happen in this world. As in Irony?

Or are you asking something deeper?

Definitely the former. Freddy knew, bless his little Swedenborgian heart.

Reader Alexis

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mad Geo

Ship's navel gazer
# 2939

 - Posted      Profile for Mad Geo   Email Mad Geo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ah well, I can be dumb as a rock when it comes to irony, and that may be appropo considering my occupation....

--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"

Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I hope that working around rocks doesn't tend to make you as dumb as one. I work around salesmen....

Reader Alexis

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mad Geo

Ship's navel gazer
# 2939

 - Posted      Profile for Mad Geo   Email Mad Geo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
ROFLOL

[Killing me] [Killing me] [Not worthy!] [Not worthy!]

I needed that.....

--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"

Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169

 - Posted      Profile for Grits   Author's homepage   Email Grits   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
"Simple, naive, no questions asked, faith?" is ludicrous. Suppose I took you seriously and decided to have that sort of faith, I would not know where to start! What is it that I am supposed to have faith in? Oh dear there appear to be lots of faiths on offer, which should I accept naively? If I choose this one, why should I not choose one of the others? But whoops, there I go again asking questions and not being a 'naive, no questions asked' believer.

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen... By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God... By faith Noah, being warned by God about things not yet seen, prepared an ark for the salvation of his household..." (Hebrews 11)

"There is ONE body and ONE spirit... ONE Lord, ONE FAITH, ONE baptism, ONE God and Father of us all who is over all and through all and in all." (Ephesians 4)

Start here.

--------------------
Lord, fill my mouth with worthwhile stuff, and shut it when I've said enough. Amen.

Posts: 8419 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Um, start there and do what?

Reader Alexis

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169

 - Posted      Profile for Grits   Author's homepage   Email Grits   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Suppose I took you seriously and decided to have that sort of faith, I would not know where to start!
In response to Glenn Oldham's quote above about where to start having "that sort of faith". I guess I just don't find it so hard to believe that it's spelled out fairly simply.

Of course, I understand that the parables were just that -- stories that Jesus told about everyday people and circumstances in order to teach a specific lesson. That's a "given". I would be more hesitant to affirm that about other Biblical accounts that are not set forth as allegorical or symbolic, as in the Revelation. Apparently Paul accepted and believed the Old Testament stories about the great men and women of faith, without picking and choosing which may have really happened and which were simply folktales.

I suppose anything in life can be picked apart to the point that it has no meaning at all. I just choose not to do that with the Bible. This website is about sharing opinions, ideas, beliefs, n'est pas? So I'm choosing the "all or nothing" option here, and be gentle! I have neither the skill nor the desire to delineate otherwise. I study, I read, I learn, and I continue to be fascinated by the myriad of beliefs out there that are so well represented on these pages. I appreciate the serious, thoughtful, intelligent and sincere words that appear in every thread. And I'm convinced the funniest people in the world are posting here! It is always a joy to "tune in", and see what's on the agenda.

I believe Noah was the skipper of the first ship of fools.

--------------------
Lord, fill my mouth with worthwhile stuff, and shut it when I've said enough. Amen.

Posts: 8419 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G.R.I.T.S.:
I believe Noah was the skipper of the first ship of fools.

But he had to shovel a lot more s*** than our skipper does. [Big Grin]

Reader Alexis

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169

 - Posted      Profile for Grits   Author's homepage   Email Grits   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G.R.I.T.S.:
I believe Noah was the skipper of the first ship of fools.
--------------------------------------------------

But he had to shovel a lot more s*** than our skipper does

And a quite thorough job he did of it, too!

--------------------
Lord, fill my mouth with worthwhile stuff, and shut it when I've said enough. Amen.

Posts: 8419 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Just imagine the film of zoodoo that must have been on the face of the waters....

Reader Alexis

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169

 - Posted      Profile for Grits   Author's homepage   Email Grits   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
But he had to shovel a lot more s*** than our skipper does
Of course, that's a whole other thread: If the story of Noah is literal and true, just how DID he manage all those animals?

Literal? Allegorical? Discuss amongst yourselves.

--------------------
Lord, fill my mouth with worthwhile stuff, and shut it when I've said enough. Amen.

Posts: 8419 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G.R.I.T.S.:
quote:
But he had to shovel a lot more s*** than our skipper does
Of course, that's a whole other thread: If the story of Noah is literal and true, just how DID he manage all those animals?

Literal? Allegorical? Discuss amongst yourselves.

He couldn't.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G.R.I.T.S.:
If the story of Noah is literal and true, just how DID he manage all those animals?

Well, considering that there are a million species of animals they would have been very crowded. [Confused]

But according to all the pictures I've ever seen of the ark, the only animals that were included were: elephants, giraffes, camels, pigs, horses, ducks, doves, ravens, goats, sheep, lions, tigers, bears and snakes.

They wouldn't be so hard to take care of. Except maybe the lions and tigers and bears. [Ultra confused]

All the other animals evolved from them, and were, by my estimates, mostly in place by the time the Tower of Babel was built. After that, of course, people started speaking different languages, so most of the original names were forgotten anyway. [Frown]

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Glenn Oldham
Shipmate
# 47

 - Posted      Profile for Glenn Oldham   Author's homepage   Email Glenn Oldham   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by markporter:
I'm wondering what people think about the Genesis flood, .......if it was local, then why was the ark so huge,...?

The ark described in Genesis is about 450 feet long 75 feet across and 45 feet deep. If each of teh three decks was 450 feet by 75 feet we end up with an area of 11,250 square yards which is an area of 106 yards by 106 yards which is about two football pitches in size.

Now try to fit into that just the insects, other arthropods and minor invertebrates; molluscs; reptiles; birds; mammals. The current numbers of described species of these is:

Insects -751,000
Other arthropods and minor invertebrates -132,461
Molluscs -50,000
Reptiles -6,300
Birds -9,198
Mammals -4,170
Total of the above -953,129

(Source: How Many Species? McNeely, J. A. et al. 1990. Conserving the World's Biological Diversity.)

Multiply all of the above by two (or by however many sexes or sexual forms the species might have!) and we have 1,906,258 species. All this on two football pitches! Even considering the mammals alone the 8,340 of them would have had an average of 1.3 square yards each.

Glenn
[Eek!] [Killing me]

Posts: 910 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Glenn Oldham
Shipmate
# 47

 - Posted      Profile for Glenn Oldham   Author's homepage   Email Glenn Oldham   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Glenn Oldham:
... we have 1,906,258 species

Not 'species', sorry, 'individuals.'

--------------------
This entire doctrine is worthless except as a subject of dispute. (G. C. Lichtenberg 1742-1799 Aphorism 60 in notebook J of The Waste Books)

Posts: 910 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481

 - Posted      Profile for Bonzo   Email Bonzo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You forgot the food [Killing me]

--------------------
Love wastefully

Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
But according to all the pictures I've ever seen of the ark, the only animals that were included were: elephants, giraffes, camels, pigs, horses, ducks, doves, ravens, goats, sheep, lions, tigers, bears and snakes.

Sorry, I forgot cows. [Embarrassed]

Thanks, Glenn, for the precise figures. [Cool]

According to my calculations, however, if the species were restricted to the ones I have mentioned, then each animal would have a spacious 375 square yards to roam around in. That's huge!

As I see it, some of that could be used for storage, thus eliminating the food problem that Bonzo noticed. [Wink]

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Here is one of my favorite pictures. [Angel]

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  ...  9  10  11 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools