home
RSS
March 28th, 2014
01:22 PM ET

Does God have a prayer in Hollywood?

By Daniel Burke, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

Los Angeles (CNN) – Forgive Darren Aronofsky if he’s begun to identify with the title character of his new film, “Noah.”

Like the infamous ark-maker, the 45-year-old director has weathered a Bible-sized storm – and it’s not over yet.

Aronofsky’s epic, which stars Russell Crowe and boasts a $130 million budget (with marketing costs to match), rode a swelling wave of controversy into American theaters on Friday.

Despite fierce criticism from some conservative Christians, "Noah" was the top box-office draw last weekend, raking in $44 million in the United States.

Part Middle-Earth fantasy flick, part family melodrama, the film is an ambitious leap for Aronofsky, director of the art-house hits “Black Swan” and “The Wrestler.”

Both of those films were showered with praise and awards. “Noah,” on the other hand, has sailed into a stiff headwind.

Glenn Beck and megachurch pastor Rick Warren blasted the film. The National Religious Broadcasters insisted “Noah” include a disclaimer acknowledging the filmmakers took “artistic license” with the Bible story. Several Muslim countries have banned the movie, citing Islam’s injunctions against depicting prophets.

Even Paramount, the studio releasing “Noah,” has agitated Aronofsky, testing at least five different versions of his film with focus groups.

“I can understand some of the suspicion because it’s been 50 years since an Old Testament biblical epic has come to the big screen,” Aronofsky said recently. “And in that time a lot of films have come out of Hollywood that have rubbed people the wrong way."

Box office report: 'Noah' wreaks Old Testament havoc on its competitors

2014 is supposed to be the year Tinsel Town reversed that trend and finally got religion.

A decade after “The Passion of the Christ” surprised Hollywood, rankled liberals and raked in $600 million worldwide, big studios are backing a flotilla of faith-based films.

In addition to “Noah,” there’s “Son of God” from 20th Century Fox, which came out in March and is culled from the History Channel’s megahit miniseries, "The Bible."

In April, Sony Pictures will release “Heaven is For Real,” based on the bestselling book and produced by Bishop T.D. Jakes, a Texas megachurch pastor and multimedia entrepreneur.

The movie “Exodus,” directed by Ridley Scott and starring Christian Bale as Moses, is scheduled for December. So, too, is “Mary, Mother of Christ,” which is billed as a prequel to Mel Gibson’s “Passion.”

More biblical epics may be on the horizon. Steven Spielberg is reportedly in talks to direct another movie about Moses, and Warner Brothers recently bought a script about Pontius Pilate.

The box office hasn’t seen this many faith-based films since Charlton Heston delivered the “The Ten Commandments” in Technicolor. And that’s not even counting “God is Not Dead,” the indie sleeper that took in $8.5 million last weekend.

So what’s behind Hollywood’s religious revival?

“The biggest factor is the dynamic growth of the box office in international markets,” said Paramount vice chairman Rob Moore, one of the forces behind “Noah.”

MORE ON CNN: A flood of reviews for 'Noah'

Moore pointed to the $14 million his film has made in Mexico and South Korea, two of the more than 20 countries where “Noah” will run this year.

As Hollywood’s supply of comic-book heroes seems to run dry, studios know the Good Book comes with a built-in audience of billions. The Bible’s heroes and villains are jeered and cheered on nearly every continent. Its morally complex stories are rife with blockbuster-ready special effects like locust plagues, apocalyptic floods and talking donkeys.

But the controversy over “Noah” illustrates the promise and the peril of bringing the Bible to the big screen.

Yes, there’s a ready-made audience that loves the book, but will they tolerate a script that strays from Scripture? On the other hand, will increasingly secular young Americans flock to see films that look and sound like sermons?

"The earlier emphasis of faith-based films was to sacrifice quality for the message," Jakes said in a recent interview. "But it's dangerous to divide entertainment from evangelism. You're not going to connect with the average movie-goer if you're not putting out good stuff."

But even Jakes, a longtime pastor and film producer, said it's not easy to turn a religious text into a movie.

Megachurch pastor and multimedia entrepreneur Bishop T.D. Jakes' latest film, "Heaven is For Real," releases in April.

The author of "Heaven is For Real" has been adamant that the movie mirror the bestselling book. And Jakes cautions that the film's depiction of heaven does not comport with Christian orthodoxy.

"It's a little boy's vision of heaven," he said. "It's not a theological film by a council of scholars."

Like Jakes, Mark Burnett said he sees the silver screen as an evangelistic tool.

"We believe that over the next few decades, billions of people are going to see 'Son of God'," the reality-show producer said. "This is not just some film to us."

Burnett pitched his movie hard to religious leaders before its release. Evangelical pastors like Rick Warren rented out entire theaters, and Catholic bishops endorsed the film – which hews to the New Testament telling of Jesus’ life.

The Christian push lifted “Son of God” to No. 2 on its opening weekend in February when it made more than $26 million in the United States.

Since then, sales have fallen sharply. But Burnett cautions filmmakers against bowdlerizing the Bible to succeed at the box office.

“There’s a big price to pay for departing from the sacred text,” he said.

Just ask Universal Pictures, the studio behind Martin Scorcese’s “The Last Temptation of Christ,” which sparked outrage in 1988.

Not only did Christians boycott the movie, in which Jesus fantasizes about married life, some sent death threats to studio executives.

“These stories hit really sensitive areas,” said Elijah Davidson, director of the Reel Spirituality program at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California.

Noah’s tale is a prime example. Just four short Bible chapters, it’s more sketch than story: The protagonist doesn’t speak until the boat finally lands ashore.

“And yet it’s a foundational story for many Christians,” Davidson said.

For centuries, theologians have taught that God’s covenant with Noah and post-flood promise to be merciful prophesied Christ’s later arrival.

Building Noah’s arc

Aronofsky, who describes himself as culturally Jewish but not especially religious, said he respects how important the Noah story is for believers.

“We tried very hard not to contradict anything in the Bible,” the director said. “But we also wanted to bring the story alive for a 21st century audience.”

Wiry and intense, with a shaved head and a Brooklyn accent, Aronofsky looks like a man who’s just finished one fight and is girding for another.

“What’s been missing from the whole controversy is my personal passion for the film,” the director said. “I’ve been thinking about this for 30 years.”

"Noah" director Darren Arnofsky's previous films have included the art-house hits "Black Swan" and "The Wrestler."

When he was 13, Aronofsky’s middle-school class in Coney Island was asked to write about peace.

He penned a poem about Noah called “The Dove” that was recognized by the United Nations. (As a thank you for setting him on the creative path, Aronofsky gave his teacher, Ms. Fried, a bit part in “Noah.”)

Even as a child, the director said, the Noah story unsettled him.

Aronofsky didn’t see the happy tale of rainbows and doves told in children’s books. He saw the humans and animals consumed by the waters – the world drowning in the deluge outside the ark.

As he began his film career, the director grew obsessed with telling the Noah story from that perspective – and employing the power of modern special effects to portray Earth’s first apocalypse.

“It’s one of the oldest and most famous stories in the world,” Aronofsky said. “And yet it’s never been told on the big screen.”

There are good reasons for that. After all, it’s a dark story.

God, distressed at human wickedness, decides to hit the cosmic reset button. His waters wipe all life from the planet, except for the fortunate few on the ark. After the storm, Noah gets goodly drunk – perhaps the first known case of survivor’s guilt – and curses the descendants of his son Ham to slavery.

To understand Noah, and to give his character a story arc, Aronofsky and his co-writer, Ari Handel, spent 10 years poring over the Book of Genesis and the midrash – stories written by rabbis to fill out the Bible’s narratives.

They also read texts like the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Book of Jubilees and the Book of Enoch, a work ascribed to Noah’s great-grandfather. Handel, who studied neuroscience, is known as an obsessive researcher. The script’s bibliography runs five pages long, single-spaced.

“We had to figure out how Noah and his family would get through this, and what it would feel like,” Aronofsky said.

The studio also hired a Christian consultant for the film. John Snowden is a former youth pastor at Vineyard Christian Fellowship Church, where Moore, the Paramount executive, is a member.

Snowden, who was pastor to Moore's son, said the filmmakers’ questions ranged from the sublime (Why did God create human life?) to the ridiculous (Would Christians be upset if Noah wears pants?).

“I gave them a sort-of manifesto of Christian theology,” said Snowden, 38, who now lives in Nepal. “The most important part of the story is why God created humanity, which is basically to reflect God’s glory. Those are the kind of conversations we would have.”

Script or Scripture? 

Several evangelical leaders have posted positive reviews of the film, and, with the help of a Christian marketing firm hired by Paramount, are spreading the word that nothing in "Noah" belies the Bible.

But others aren’t so sure.

On March 16, megachurch pastor Rick Warren tweeted this message to his 1.3 million Twitter followers:

Director of new “Noah” movie calls it “The LEAST biblical film ever made" then uses F word referring to those wanting Bible-based [films]

For the record, Aronofsky said he’s made the “least biblical biblical film ever made.” That is, don’t expect the camel-and-sandals settings of last century’s Bible movies.

“We wanted to smash those expectations, Aronofsky said. “We are reinventing the biblical epic for the 21st century.”

Count conservative broadcaster Glenn Beck among the unimpressed.

Before he even saw the movie, Beck, who is Mormon, called “Noah” a “slap in the face” to religious people.

“It’s dangerous disinformation,” he told his 10 million radio listeners.

After Paramount screened “Noah” for Beck last weekend, he acknowledged that blasting the film sight unseen was “kind of a dirtball” move.

Then he blasted the movie again, calling it a “$100 million disaster.”

Beck’s biggest problem with “Noah” was Noah himself, whom Mormons believe is the angel Gabriel in human form.

“I always thought of Noah as more of a nice, gentle guy, prophet of God,” Beck said, “and not the raving lunatic Paramount found in the Bible.”

MORE ON CNN: Is 'Noah' film sacred enough?

Jerry Johnson, president of the National Religious Broadcasters, said he has the same problem with Aronofsky’s depiction of Noah.

The Bible calls Noah a “righteous man,” Johnson said. In the movie, his character is much more complex.

Noah begins the film as a rugged environmentalist who teaches his family to respect the Creator and all of creation. As he becomes increasingly zealous, Noah seems bent on destroying life rather than saving it.

“I understand that the writers want to create tension and resolve it, but they push it to a spot where if you haven’t read Genesis, you wouldn’t know whether Noah is really a man of faith or not.”

Moore, the Paramount executive, said focus groups had similar questions: How much of the film is from the Bible and how much was invented by Aronofsky?

At Johnson’s urging, Paramount agreed to include a disclaimer before the opening credits and in marketing materials stating that the film is “inspired” by the Bible and true to its values but takes certain liberties with the story. (The language mirrors Dreamworks' disclaimer for “The Prince of Egypt,” which was based on the Book of Exodus.)

“People needed to know upfront that this is not a literal re-telling of Scripture,” Moore said. “It helped set their expectations for a movie about a guy who goes on an intense journey. This is probably not the Noah they remember from Sunday school.”

Aronofsky and Handel insist, however, that their film never directly contradicts Genesis, and even takes pains to remain faithful to it. The ark, for example, is built to the Bible’s specifications, down to the last cubit.

Ultimately, though, the director has little patience with literalists on either side of the believer-atheist divide.

It's ungenerous to insist, as some Christians do, that there is only one way to interpret Genesis, according to Aronofsky. But it's also pointless to argue, as some atheists have, that no ark could possibly hold all the animals.

The story of the flood has lasted for millennia not because it’s "right" – or wrong – but because it’s deep and alive and unsettling, the director said.

The artist's job, like Noah's, is to make sure those kinds of stories survive – to prepare us for the next storm.

- CNN Religion Editor

Filed under: Art • Bible • Business • Christianity • Media • Money & Faith • Moses • Movies

soundoff (2,089 Responses)
  1. Vic

    ♰ ♰ ♰ Jesus Christ Is Lord ♰ ♰ ♰

    Pi (π) and the Story of Noah & the Ark in the Bible

    Pi (π) is the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of any circle. The most common value approximation used is the two decimal point precision of 3.14 while the actual precision is an infinite series, that is an infinite number of decimal places (3.14159265359...) There is a point of contention regarding who discovered it first.

    Some claim ancient Egyptians but that's not proven. Meanwhile, the Bible clearly mentions that ratio in 1 Kings 7:23 & 2 Chronicles 4:2, that is a circumference of 30 cubits and brim to brim diameter of 10 cubits, hence the ratio 30/10 which equals 3. Now many argue that is a good ballpark for introducing the concept, while others go further along by using a more accurate approximation of the cubit to show a more accurate Pi. At any rate, the mention in Bible is not intended for geometrical accuracy; meanwhile, it is without a doubt an OUTSTANDING record of Pi.

    p.s. Using Hebrew Gematria, the Bible verses about Pi reflect an accurate 3.14 value!

    March 28, 2014 at 3:33 pm |
    • Ryan

      Valid point.

      March 28, 2014 at 3:36 pm |
      • hotairace

        Vic is correct – The Babble can't even get simple measurements and division right.

        PS: ♰ ♰ ♰ Jesus Christ Is Lord ♰ ♰ ♰ is 100% Bullshit!

        March 28, 2014 at 4:00 pm |
    • Vic

      "Pi (π) in the Bible"

      "The Story of Noah & the Ark in the Bible"

      Titles for two separate posts mixed up, sorry about that.

      March 28, 2014 at 4:02 pm |
    • ausphor

      Vic
      The odds on jesus not being sentenced to crucifixion by Pontius Pilate were also 3 to 1 at the local bookie. Doe this also prove a biblical Pi?

      March 28, 2014 at 4:05 pm |
    • Dyslexic doG

      ♰ ♰ ♰ Jesus Christ Is Written ♰ ♰ ♰

      March 28, 2014 at 4:14 pm |
    • dashvader

      The first evidence for anyone actually figuring out the approximate value of pi was Aristotle, if I remember correctly, and if not him then someone in ancient Greece, not in Palestine.

      March 29, 2014 at 7:54 pm |
  2. colin31714

    Here are a few of the many, many reasons why we know the Noah story is sheer nonsense.

    Of first and most obvious importance is the fossil record. The fossil record is much, much more than just dinosaurs. Indeed, dinosaurs only get the press because of their size, but they make up less than 1% of the entire fossil record. Life had been evolving on Earth for over 3 thousand million years before dinosaurs evolved and has gone on evolving for 65 million years after the Chicxulub meteor likely wiped them out.

    Layered in the fossil record are the Stromatolites, colonies of prokaryotic bacteria, that range in age going back to about 3 billion years, the Ediacara fossils from South Australia, widely regarded as among the earliest multi-celled organisms, the Cambrian species of the Burgess shale in Canada (circa – 450 million years ago) the giant scorpions of the Silurian Period, the giant, wingless insects of the Devonian period, the insects, amphibians, reptiles, fishes, clams, crustaceans of the Carboniferous Period, the many precursors to the dinosaurs, the 700 odd known species of dinosaurs themselves, the subsequent dominant mammals, including the saber tooth tiger, the mammoths and hairy rhinoceros of North America and Asia, the fossils of early man in Africa and the Neanderthals of Europe.

    Indeed, the fossil record shows a consistent and worldwide evolution of life on Earth dating back to about 3,500,000,000 years ago. There are literally millions of fossils that have been recovered, of thousands of different species and they are all located where they would be in the geological record if life evolved slowly over billions of years. None of them can be explained by a 6,000 year old Earth and Noah’s flood. Were they all on the ark? What happened to them when it docked?

    Not only did a Tyrannosaurus Rex eat a lot of food, but that food was meat- which means its food would itself have to have been fed, like the food of every other carnivore on the ark for the entire 360 odd days Noah supposedly spent on the ark. T-Rex was not even the largest carnivorous dinosaur we know of. Spinosaurus, Argentinosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus were all larger and ate more even meat. Even they were not large enough to bring down the largest sauropods we know of, many species of which weighed in at close to 100 tons and were about 100 feet long. This is in addition to the elephants, hippopotamus, giraffes, and other large extant animals (not to mention the millions of insects, bacteria, mites, worms etc. that would have to be boarded). A bit of “back of the envelope” math quickly shows that “Noah’s Ark” would actually have to have been an armada of ships larger than the D-Day invasion force, manned by thousands and thousands of people – and this is without including the World’s 300,000 current species of plants, none of which could walk merrily in twos onto the ark.

    Coming on top of that, of course, there are the various races of human beings. There were no Sub-Saharan Africans, Chinese, Australian Aboriginals, blonde haired Scandinavians, Pygmies or Eskimos on the Ark. Where did they come from?

    Oh, second, there are those little things we call oil, natural gas and other fossil fuels. Their mere existence is another independent and fatal blow to the creationists. Speak to any geologist who works for Exxon Mobil, Shell or any of the thousands of mining, oil or natural gas related companies that make a living finding fossil fuels. They will tell you these fossil fuels take millions of years to develop from the remains of large, often Carboniferous Period forests, in the case of coal, or tiny marine creatures in the case of oil. For the fossils to develop into oil or coal takes tens or hundreds of millions of years of “slow baking” under optimum geological conditions. That’s why they are called “fossil fuels.” Have a close look at coal, you can often see the fossilized leaves in it. The geologists know exactly what rocks to look for fossil fuels in, because they know how to date the rocks to tens or hundreds of millions of years ago. Creationists have no credible explanation for this.

    Laughingly, most of astronomy and cosmology would be wrong if the creationists were right. In short, as Einstein showed, light travels at a set speed. Space is so large that light from distant stars takes many years to reach the Earth. In some cases, this is millions or billions of years. The fact that we can see light from such far away stars means it began its journey billions of years ago. The Universe must be billions of years old. We can currently see galaxies whose light left home 13, 700,000,000 years ago. Indeed, on a clear night, one can see the collective, misty light of many stars more than 6,000 light years away with the naked eye, shining down like tiny accusatory witnesses against the nonsense of creationism.

    In fourth, we have not just carbon dating, but also all other methods used by scientists to date wood, rocks, fossils, and other artifacts. These comprehensively disprove the Bible’s claims. They include uranium-lead dating, potassium-argon dating as well as other non-radioactive methods such as pollen dating, dendrochronology and ice core dating. In order for any particular rock, fossil or other artifact to be aged, generally two or more samples are dated independently by two or more laboratories in order to ensure an accurate result. If results were random, as creationists claim, the two independent results would rarely agree. They generally do. They regularly reveal ages much older than Genesis. Indeed, the Earth is about 750,000 times older than the Bible claims, the Universe about three times the age of the Earth.

    Next, fifth, the relatively new field of DNA mapping not only convicts criminals, it shows in undeniable, full detail how we differ from other life forms on the planet. For example, about 98.4% of human DNA is identical to that of chimpanzees, about 97% of human DNA is identical to that of gorillas, and slightly less again of human DNA is identical to the DNA of monkeys. This gradual divergence in DNA can only be rationally explained by the two species diverging from a common ancestor, and coincides perfectly with the fossil record. Indeed, scientists can use the percentage of DNA that two animal share (such as humans and bears, or domestic dogs and wolves) to get an idea of how long ago the last common ancestor of both species lived. It perfectly corroborates the fossil record and is completely independently developed.

    Sixth, the entire field of historical linguistics would have to be rewritten to accommodate the Bible. This discipline studies how languages develop and diverge over time. For example, Spanish and Italian are very similar and have a recent common “ancestor” language, Latin, as most people know. However, Russian is quite different and therefore either did not share a common root, or branched off much earlier in time. No respected linguist anywhere in the World traces languages back to the Tower of Babel, the creationists’ simplistic and patently absurd explanation for different languages. Indeed, American Indians, Australian Aboriginals, “true” Indians, Chinese, Mongols, Ja.panese, Sub-Saharan Africans and the Celts and other tribes of ancient Europe were speaking thousands of different languages thousands of years before the date creationist say the Tower of Babel occurred – and even well before the date they claim for the Garden of Eden.

    Seventh, lactose intolerance is also a clear vestige of human evolution. Most mammals only consume milk as infants. After infancy, they no longer produce the enzyme “lactase” that digests the lactose in milk and so become lactose intolerant. Humans are an exception and can drink milk as adults – but not all humans – some humans remain lactose intolerant. So which humans are no longer lactose intolerant? The answer is those who evolved over the past few thousand years raising cows. They evolved slightly to keep producing lactase as adults so as to allow the consumption of milk as adults. This includes most Europeans and some Africans, notably the Tutsi of Rwanda. On the other hand, most Chinese, native Americans and Aboriginal Australians, whose ancestors did not raise cattle, remain lactose intolerant.

    I could go on and elaborate on a number of other disciplines or facts that creationists have to pretend into oblivion to retain their faith, including the Ice Ages, cavemen and early hominids, much of microbiology, paleontology and archeology, continental drift and plate tectonics. Even large parts of medical research would be rendered unusable but for the fact that monkeys and mice share a common ancestor with us and therefore our fundamental cell biology and basic body architecture is identical to theirs.

    In short, and not surprisingly, the World’s most gifted evolutionary biologists, astronomers, cosmologists, geologists, archaeologists, paleontologists, historians, modern medical researchers and linguists (and about 2,000 years of accu.mulated knowledge) are right and a handful of Iron Age Middle Eastern goat herders copying then extant mythology were wrong. Creationists aren’t just trying to swim upstream against the weight of scientific evidence; they are trying to ascend a waterfall.

    All this is probably why evolution is taught in every major university and college biology program in the World. Not 99% of them, but EVERY one. Universities with extensive evolutionary biology departments include Oxford University, Cambridge University and the Imperial College in England, the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität in Germany, the École Normale Supérieure and École Polythecnique in France and Leiden University in the Netherlands and the Swiss Federal Insti.tute of Technology in Switzerland. This is just a sample. ALL university and colleges in Europe teach evolution as a fundamental component of biology.

    The number of universities and colleges in Europe with a creation science department: ZERO. The number of tenured or even paid professors who teach creation science at any of these universities or colleges: ZERO

    In the United States, the following Universities have extensive evolutionary biology departments staffed by thousands of the most gifted biologists in the World; Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Colombia, Duke, the Massachusetts Insti.tute of Technology, Brown, Stanford, Berkley, and the University of Chicago. These are just some of the more prestigious examples. Again, ALL university and colleges in the USA with tertiary level biology classes teach evolution as a fundamental component of biology.

    The number of universities and colleges in the United States with a creation science department: ZERO The number of tenured or even paid professors who teach creation science at any of these universities or colleges: ZERO

    In Australia and Asia, the following universities and colleges have extensive evolutionary biology departments manned by more of the most gifted biological scientists in the World; Monash University in Melbourne, The University of New South Wales, Kyoto University in Ja.pan, Peking University in China, Seoul University in Korea, the University of Singapore, National Taiwan University, The Australian National University, The University of Melbourne, and the University of Sydney.

    The number of universities and colleges in Australia and Asia with a creation science department: ZERO The number of tenured or even paid professors who teach creation science at any of these universities or colleges: ZERO

    The most prestigious scientific publications in the Western World generally accessible to the public include: The Journal of the American Medical Association, the New England Journal of Medicine, Scientific American, Science, New Scientist, Cosmos and Live Science.

    Every month, one or more of them publishes a peer reviewed article highlighting the latest developments in evolution. The amount of any creationist science articles published in ANY of these prestigious publications; ZERO.

    I could repeat the above exercise for the following disciplines, all of which would have to be turned on their heads to accommodate creation science – paleontology, archeology, geology, botany, marine biology, astronomy, medicine, cosmology and historical linguistics.

    Nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, have issued statements rejecting intelligent design and a peti.tion supporting the teaching of evolutionary biology was endorsed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners.

    Number of creation science Nobel Prize winners: ZERO

    The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society with more than 130,000 members and over 262 affiliated societies and academies of science including over 10 million individuals, has made several statements and issued several press releases in support of evolution.

    Number made n support of creation science: ZERO

    According to The International Federation of Biologists, there are more than 3 million biological scientists globally who rely on the laws of hereditary and Darwinian evolution for their jobs every single day. Try getting a job today promoting Bronze Age Jewish mythology!!

    March 28, 2014 at 3:21 pm |
    • shelama

      Ancient myth isn't nonsense it's just ancient myth. Believing in the 21st century that the story of Noah is literal history is nonsense of course, but since so much of religion – including Christianity – isn't rational to begin with that there's not much sense in making rational arguments against it now.

      The only way that virtually anybody ever enters into Christianity in the first place is either thru childhood inculcation or else while still profoundly ignorant of the Bible itself. Virtually nobody enters into Christianity based on the conclusions of honest, serious, critical study of the Bible.

      There are some good movies rooted in the Bible. Just not many that won't offend a lot of Christians is all. And none that include a virgin birth or empty tomb. Noah looks like a good movie.

      March 28, 2014 at 4:10 pm |
    • believerfred

      Colin
      Great you have finally caught up to the early 1800's when most scientists realized the earth is old. Even church fathers, Origen and Augustine were way ahead of you. But, it is encouraging to see your education is paying dividends.
      Now if you could only remember that the Bible does not give a time period for Noah or the formation of the world. Six days of creation are periods of time as is the day of rest on the 7th. For all we know these are spiritually related periods and given the attributes of God there are no boundaries on creation including time periods.

      March 28, 2014 at 6:58 pm |
      • hotairace

        I hope, 'cause prayer doesn't work, that Colin takes it easy of fred, that he isn't hateful. But the entertainment value should be excellent!

        March 28, 2014 at 7:05 pm |
      • G to the T

        "Now if you could only remember that the Bible does not give a time period for Noah or the formation of the world. Six days of creation are periods of time as is the day of rest on the 7th. For all we know these are spiritually related periods and given the attributes of God there are no boundaries on creation including time periods."

        Yes – because "days" only mean 24 hours when it makes sense (Jesus rose after 3 days) but not 24 hours when it doesnt (7 days of creation).

        I'm sorry but this is quite possibly the lamest apologetic argument out there.

        March 31, 2014 at 3:32 pm |
  3. unsername1

    Hollywood makes movie, not for educating people.

    March 28, 2014 at 2:42 pm |
  4. Francis

    Nicely written and also very informative about the upcoming movies out of Hollywood!

    Kudos, Daniel!

    March 28, 2014 at 2:36 pm |
    • Akira

      But wouldn't it be idolatry?

      March 28, 2014 at 2:40 pm |
    • unsername1

      If you love movie reviews, I recommend you to read " ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY"

      March 28, 2014 at 2:58 pm |
  5. Reality

    Why Islam? Hick says it best:

    Only for the new members–

    John Hick, a noted British philosopher of religion, estimates that 95 percent of the people of the world owe their religious affiliation to their god to an accident of birth. The faith of the vast majority of believers depends upon where they were born and when. Those born in Saudi Arabia will almost certainly be Moslems, and those born and raised in India will for the most part be Hindus. Nevertheless, the religion of millions of people can sometimes change abruptly in the face of major political and social upheavals. In the middle of the sixth century ce, virtually all the people of the Near East and Northern Africa, including Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Egypt were Christian. By the end of the following century, the people in these lands were largely Moslem, as a result of the militant spread of Islam.

    The Situation Today

    Barring military conquest, conversion to a faith other than that of one’s birth is rare. Some Jews, Moslems, and Hindus do convert to Christianity, but not often. Similarly, it is not common for Christians to become Moslems or Jews. Most people are satisfied that their own faith is the true one or at least good enough to satisfy their religious and emotional needs. Had St. Augustine or St. Thomas Aquinas been born in Mecca at the start of the present century, the chances are that they would not have been Christians but loyal followers of the prophet Mohammed." J. Somerville

    It is very disturbing that such religious violence and hatred continues unabated due to randomness of birth. Maybe just maybe if this fact would be published on the first page of every newspaper every day, that we would finally realize the significant stupidity of all religions.

    March 28, 2014 at 2:35 pm |
  6. Reality

    As with Abraham and Moses, Noah is simply more Jewish scribe fiction. Added details available upon request.

    March 28, 2014 at 2:28 pm |
  7. CS

    That is what makes mythology and fantasy so fun. Generation after generation can grow that fictional universe with stories and even introduce new characters while always using or perhaps just winking to the stories and characters of the past.

    Fairy Tales are wonderful and the bible is full of great jumping off points. It is a shame the movie makers feel they must cater to the religious. I would love to hear new stories about the characters in the bible.

    March 28, 2014 at 2:16 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      I'd love to see Bruce Campbell star in a movie based on the book of Revelation.
      How awesome would it be to see Ash yell "This is my BOOM STICK" at the Four Horsemen?

      March 28, 2014 at 2:24 pm |
      • Akira

        That would be most excellent!

        March 28, 2014 at 2:46 pm |
      • lunchbreaker

        Groovy.

        March 28, 2014 at 4:12 pm |
    • ausphor

      CS
      Movie makers do not cater to religions, they cater to profit and religions cater to both prophet and profit, both are businesses.

      March 28, 2014 at 3:27 pm |
      • CS

        Well, there it is Austi-Toph. And it's too bad.

        March 28, 2014 at 3:34 pm |
        • ausphor

          CS
          Cecil B De Mille has been credited with saying, give me a few verses of the bible and I can create an epic. A movie like Ben-Hur by William Wilder was total fiction with a little brush with the Christ story, mega hit based on delusion.

          March 28, 2014 at 3:56 pm |
  8. Dyslexic doG

    [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xggQqUyLrCM&w=640&h=360]

    March 28, 2014 at 2:12 pm |
    • Dyslexic doG

      soooooo funny!

      March 28, 2014 at 2:20 pm |
  9. Francis

    [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhMiugUcUtQ&w=640&h=360]

    March 28, 2014 at 2:06 pm |
    • Francis

      That's the cutest rendition of the story of Noah!

      How big was the ark? 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, 30 cubits tall. A cubit was the length of a man's arm from his elbow to his fingertips, so about 18 inches.
      This means the ark was about the length of four and a half football fields (450 feet), 75 feet wide and three stories tall (45 feet.)

      Multiplying out the length times the width gives about 33,750 square feet per floor, or about 101,250 square feet in total –
      more than the floor space in 20 regulation-sized basketball courts or roughly the available volume of more than 550 modern railroad stock cars

      March 28, 2014 at 2:07 pm |
      • Francis

        What animals were on the ark? Seven pairs of each kind of clean animal and two pairs of each kind of other animals were taken on the ark,
        Gen. 6:19-20; 7:2-3. "Clean" means that the animals were acceptable for sacrifice to God. It wasn't until AFTER Noah and his family left the ark that using animals for food was permissible for mankind,
        Gen. 9:3. "Clean" animals are also permissible for human food purposes.

        March 28, 2014 at 2:07 pm |
        • Francis

          Noah (/ˈnoʊ.ə/[1]) or Noé or Noach, (Hebrew: נֹחַ,‎ נוֹחַ, Modern Noaẖ Tiberian Nōăḥ; Syriac: ܢܘܚ Nukh; Ancient Greek: Νῶε) was the tenth and last of the pre-flood Patriarchs.
          The story of Noah's Ark is told in the Hebrew Bible in the Genesis flood narrative. Besides the book of Genesis, Noah is also mentioned in 1st Chronicles, Isaiah, Ezekiel, the Gospels of Matthew and Luke,
          the book of Hebrews and the 1st and 2nd Epistles of Peter. He was the subject of much elaboration in later Abrahamic traditions.

          March 28, 2014 at 2:08 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          Are you suggesting that humans were herbivores before the flood and omnivores after? Does that mean that god is a herbivore? Does that mean that god made dental upgrades to the humans on the Ark?

          March 28, 2014 at 2:32 pm |
      • observer

        Francis

        "This means the ark was about the length of four and a half football fields (450 feet)'

        COMPLETELY WRONG. A football field is 100 YARDS long. So the ark was about 1 1/2 football fields and SUPPOSEDLY held MANY THOUSANDS to MILLIONS of animals in this science fiction story.

        March 28, 2014 at 2:42 pm |
  10. Dyslexic doG

    more asinine foolishness from the cult of asinine foolishness. Why am I not surprised?

    March 28, 2014 at 1:53 pm |
  11. revrickm

    Quoting from the article, “People needed to know upfront that this is not a literal re-telling of Scripture,” Moore said.
    Well, since scripture should not be taken literally, why would we expect a movie producer to do so? It's a freaking Hollywood movie for goodness sake! Christians are upset for one reason, and Muslims are upset for another. No wonder none of us can get along.

    March 28, 2014 at 1:52 pm |
  12. Jim

    The greatest revelation to mankind from God through the story of Noah is the revelation of the RAINBOW.

    March 28, 2014 at 1:50 pm |
    • bostontola

      lol

      March 28, 2014 at 1:52 pm |
    • observer

      Jim,

      Something has to make up for all the science fiction in it.

      March 28, 2014 at 1:59 pm |
    • G to the T

      Rainbow – know why it's called a rain "bow"? It's because in some of the versions of the story it is literally Yahweh's bow that he hangs in the sky as a sign to his people. Very mythic stuff...

      March 28, 2014 at 1:59 pm |
    • TruthPrevails1

      Look Jim, maybe this will help you understand that rainbows have nothing to do with god: http://kids.discovery.com/tell-me/curiosity-corner/weather/how-do-rainbows-form

      March 28, 2014 at 2:01 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      "The rainbow will be a sign of my frienship with men" (smirk)

      And so it became.

      See the Ricky Gervais video further up the page. It's funny.

      March 28, 2014 at 4:21 pm |
  13. Akira

    Christian Bale as Noah? First an American Psycho, the the Dark Night, now Noah. Huh. Quite the diverse actor.

    March 28, 2014 at 1:49 pm |
    • bostontola

      Did you mean Bale is going to be Moses?

      March 28, 2014 at 1:52 pm |
      • Akira

        Yes, of course. Sorry.

        March 28, 2014 at 2:39 pm |
    • CS

      Did you see him in "The Vagina Monologues"? Fabulous.

      March 28, 2014 at 1:52 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Noah is being played by Maximus.

      March 28, 2014 at 2:21 pm |
  14. hotairace

    I'm happy to report that I have not seen a single one of these fictional comedies.

    March 28, 2014 at 1:47 pm |
  15. Akira

    Wouldn't any Christian who went to see this be guilty of idolatry?

    March 28, 2014 at 1:44 pm |
  16. bostontola

    “The most important part of the story is why God created humanity, which is basically to reflect God’s glory."

    Apparently God did such a crappy job reflecting His glory that he had to destroy it. If God is omnipotent, He would have known that from the get go. If God is omnipotent he would have created Adam and Eve so that the Great Flood would not have benn necessary. These kind of inconsistencies were hard to detect by the early bible authors so they slipped through. Apologists have been working overtime ever since.

    March 28, 2014 at 1:44 pm |
    • bostontola

      The first omnipotent SB omniscient.

      March 28, 2014 at 1:45 pm |
    • new-man

      the question to ask is how does one reflect God's glory?

      if you truly seek to find the answer to this, you'll have unveiled the mysteries to godliness.

      March 28, 2014 at 2:07 pm |
      • Doc Vestibule

        A mirrored Bible?

        March 28, 2014 at 2:20 pm |
        • new-man

          a man that's in darkness; a man that's without Light, cannot reflect God's glory.

          March 28, 2014 at 2:49 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there.

          March 28, 2014 at 3:02 pm |
        • new-man

          DV,
          you're correct, theology cannot help you. There is no life or light in theology.

          Only Jesus can help you. He is the WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE.
          why?
          because: In Him was Life, and the Life was the Light of men.

          March 28, 2014 at 3:21 pm |
        • sam stone

          "god's glory"....what tripe

          March 28, 2014 at 3:46 pm |
        • sam stone

          new-man: you got a lot of trite phrases that are just christian bumper sticker philosophy. try coming up with something concrete, rather than quotes from iron age comic books

          March 28, 2014 at 3:52 pm |
        • G to the T

          Newman – "because: In Him was Life, and the Life was the Light of men."

          You do realize you just presented a theological statement as a rebuttal to theological statements in general?

          March 30, 2014 at 9:01 am |
      • hotairace

        No, the question to ask is why can't people shed belief in childish myths for which there is no actual evidence.

        March 28, 2014 at 3:04 pm |
        • new-man

          you can only speak of your reality which obviously bears no evidence of God according to you.

          However, I assure you not every one shares your reality. I, like countless others have evidence of God, and that evidence in borne out in our reality.

          March 28, 2014 at 3:29 pm |
        • sam stone

          belief is not evidence, new-man. unless you be,lieve that a muslim's belief is evidence for allah, a hindu's for krishna, or a dude-ist for jeff bridges

          March 28, 2014 at 3:54 pm |
        • hotairace

          Your personal undoc.umented experiences, delusions and hallucinations are not actual evidence of anything other than perhaps mental illness. Get back to us when you have objective, verifiable, independent, factual evidence.

          March 28, 2014 at 3:55 pm |
  17. Dyslexic doG

    Christianity:
    if you say you don't believe what they do, you get to see Christians turn on you in the meanest and nastiest way.
    if you make a movie differing in any way from what they believe, you get to see Christians turn on you in the meanest and nastiest way.
    No, Christianity is not a religion based on love at all. It is a cult like any other and produces cultish behavior in all of its followers just like any other.

    March 28, 2014 at 1:41 pm |
  18. Doc Vestibule

    They should've gone to the source material and made Gilgamesh into a movie instead.

    March 28, 2014 at 1:39 pm |
    • believerfred

      Given the source for Noah was oral tradition how could you possibly determine origin of the flood story?

      March 28, 2014 at 1:47 pm |
      • Doc Vestibule

        You're right.
        It could be that the flood epics of Ziusudra or Atra-hasis came first.
        The Biblical flood is less likely to be the source material since floods were common in mesopotamia but rare in Israel. Flood stories probably came from cultures that experience them with some regularity.
        Fragments of the Gilgamesh story were found in ancient Israel – which isn't surprising since Babylonia was the dominant culture back then.

        March 28, 2014 at 2:01 pm |
      • hotairace

        if you can't determine the origin of the story, how can you determine its validity? Are you suggesting we should discard the old testament?

        March 28, 2014 at 2:03 pm |
        • believerfred

          Although there is more evidence for some of the Sumerian Kings than the Kings found in Abrahams day as recorded in Genesis the source for oral tradition was before Abraham. The assumption is that God gave Moses clarity when he wrote Genesis. Yes, belief in source is totally faith based as I have not seen any commanding evidence.

          March 28, 2014 at 2:32 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          Except that neither God nor Moses wrote Genesis.

          (And there were multiple authors whose works were blended.)

          March 28, 2014 at 2:47 pm |
        • believerfred

          Gopher
          The entire Bible is blended work that points in a consistent direction. I could even line up some of the great truths from Jesus (most of which is Old Testament), with the 8 pillars of Islam, Buddhism and have body of basic truths that bring you too the pinnacle of spiritual wonder. Islam and the rest of the faiths seem to be offshoots from these truths. These truths work as promised in the present so why doubt they would not work in what cannot be seen in this life? Why focus on what the pen was made out of when it is life manual we need?

          March 28, 2014 at 3:35 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          Indeed, why worry about the book at all let alone the author if you consider that from a comparative religious assessment that all religions essentially say "be excellent to one another".

          You might as well worship Bill and Ted by that logic. (By the way, it would do less harm than Christianity, Islam, etc, if more people did.)

          March 28, 2014 at 4:07 pm |
        • believerfred

          GOPHer
          That is the difference between being "in Christ" and just going through the motions. The principles of God operate whether you believe in God or not which is why can use the proverbs of Solomon as to diligence to produce excellent work ethic. We can do as Jesus said and love our neighbor but how do you love God and how is the Word of God divine relative to other similar truths. It requires a knowledge coupled with an emotive assurance in something greater than self and or mankind.
          To claim an unknown source for Genesis is empty of love and reveals hopelessness. The source is God speaking into your soul and if that voice presents itself through the Moses or Abraham baggage and all matters not. I am not sure if you have ever felt the presence of God but it is over powering with emotive assurance. Russell Crow my be another Hollywood Charles Heston image of a Bible hero and my even elicit thoughts of common religious truths but they do not have the voice of God. They do not present divine truths only words. Divine truth has the living power of God with it. Divine truth is why after 200 years of atheist nonsense there will not be a godless man elected to the office of president of the United States. The Divine truth was what Abraham, Moses, David......and Saul of Tarsus heard and loved with all their heart mind and strength.
          Now, if you want to see how to love your neighbor you must first love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and strength. That is Divine love and you will never see your neighbor in the same light after that moment.

          March 28, 2014 at 4:52 pm |
        • observer

          believerfred,

          "Divine truth is why after 200 years of atheist nonsense there will not be a godless man elected to the office of president of the United States."

          We also haven't had a Jewish president. But we have had at least one president who wasn't a Christian. It's just a matter of time before we have a Jewish or atheist president.

          March 28, 2014 at 4:58 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          "To claim an unknown source for Genesis is empty of love and reveals hopelessness."

          Nonsense. We know it was written by multiple people we just don't know their exact names. Plus different chapters were written at different times. Genesis 1 and 2 were written perhaps 350 years apart. Genesis 2 was likely written first by the way. Monotheism in the Judaic tradition only dates from around 600 BCE around the time Geneis 1 (along with Leviticus) is created.

          March 28, 2014 at 5:00 pm |
        • believerfred

          observer
          That is pure speculation. Even science for the past 200 years has said we will prove no god needed and have not. All the evidence and study points to the fact man cannot prove no god needed. Yet, you say given enough time. This is the same nonsense that claims a rock will turn into intelligent life given enough time (inorganic matter becoming organic matter and evolving). Well you have had 14 billion years..............how much more time do you need

          March 28, 2014 at 5:54 pm |
        • believerfred

          GOPer
          I thought we were assuming Abraham was a historic figure. Abraham was born in 2166 BC and as an adult believed in one God.
          Ok, now you want to assume everybody lied and nothing is true except what you can believe. If I assume you don't know what exists in space and time after your organic matter no longer responds to chemicl stimuli then you do have a certain hopelessness about you.

          March 28, 2014 at 6:02 pm |
        • observer

          believerfred

          "That is pure speculation."

          Nonsense. It's coming. It's just like the huge swing to support gays. All kinds of prejudice are diminishing.

          If someone told you 15 years ago that we'd have a black president now, I'd bet you would have said they were crazy.

          March 28, 2014 at 6:02 pm |
        • Doris

          lol – oh it finally hit me that fred is replying to not(GOPer). at first I thought he had some how channeled Topher.

          March 28, 2014 at 6:08 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          I thought we were assuming Abraham was a historic figure. Abraham was born in 2166 BC and as an adult believed in one God.

          For the sake of discussion I was happy to stipulate that Abraham was historical (though this is a matter of serious academic debate), and if you want to go with the second millenium BCE, that's fine. None of these stories was written down contemporaneously. What you see in the Bible are stories that were revised several times until their more-or-less final Hebrew form in the Torah.

          The God in earlier versions of the Abrahamic story (before Judaism becomes monotheistic) is the Canaanite El Elyon, "God most high". Even the Exodus stories were originally pantheistic – hence the 'requirement' for the second commandment references to other Gods of the Caananite pantheism like Baal and Ashehrah, the wife of El Elyon.

          March 28, 2014 at 6:27 pm |
        • believerfred

          observer
          "If someone told you 15 years ago that we'd have a black president now, I'd bet you would have said they were crazy"
          =>perhaps if you said a black Muslim president with a clown for vice president who was a biden by Catholicism

          March 28, 2014 at 7:04 pm |
        • believerfred

          Doris
          "lol – oh it finally hit me that fred is replying to not(GOPer). at first I thought he had some how channeled Topher."
          =>he is changing baby diapers

          March 28, 2014 at 7:08 pm |
      • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

        If you believe Abraham is historical and that he came from Ur (in ancient Sumerian/Babylonia) wouldn't he have brought his cultural baggage (ie stories etc) with him?

        March 28, 2014 at 2:08 pm |
        • believerfred

          Not only Abraham but I wonder if Moses had problems separating the baggage of being raised by Pharaoh. Moses did go after all his fathers gods to show his God was greater that the gods of Pharaoh. Overall the Bible does not attempt to make its hero's look perfect and most actually had a lot of issues. From Abraham to Saul of Tarsus these great leaders had problems. To me that makes the Bible more realistic.

          March 28, 2014 at 2:45 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          Fred, the point is (stipulating for the sake of discussion that Abraham is an historical figure) he brought the Gilgamesh stories from Sumer/Babylon with him when he emigrated from Ur into Caanan.

          Logically, these stories are the basis of the Noah story – they have far too many of the same elements not to be.

          March 28, 2014 at 3:00 pm |
        • believerfred

          Well, given Abram was a few hundred years after Gilgamesh it is possible the gods and stories we part of the culture. Abram broke free of his country and followed God to a place he did not know called the promise of God or eventually the promised land. This promised land may have more to do with hope that is of a spiritual nature than land which after all is a desire of man.
          As I said Moses probably heard the stories of the Hebrews that were in bondage to Egypt as well as those of the Egyptians. I don't know how we could assess how much of what he wrote came from those stories and how much of it came by revelation of God.

          March 28, 2014 at 3:21 pm |
      • Akira

        Chinese telephone?

        March 28, 2014 at 2:19 pm |
        • believerfred

          That would explain why the serpent in the Garden was the wisest of creatures when he asked Eve "did God really say that"

          March 28, 2014 at 2:36 pm |
        • Akira

          Does it explain why God needed the tree in the first place? He knew everything, after all...

          March 28, 2014 at 2:43 pm |
        • believerfred

          God did not need the tree. There were two trees in the Garden yet man chose the one that filled their desires not God's. At the base of the tree was doubt and the fruit of the tree is deception. Everything is innocent, pure and in perfect unity with God until one is attracted by that which is outside of Gods will. It happened with the greatest of created angelic beings and it happened with man. That tree is necessary for created beings to reveal any darkness within that could bring separation. That it does.
          The other tree is the tree of life which Adam and Eve did not bother with because they already were with God. That tree of life is also called the light of man.
          In short the Bible speaks to separation of light and dark (good and evil). The tree is necessary to separate such that the kingdom of god remain eternally pure when souls have capacity to choose between good and evil. Almost fits in with Darwin where only the fittest souls, those with a desire to worship and be eternally unified with love survive in the kingdom of God.

          March 28, 2014 at 3:06 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          The tree of the knowledge of good and evil (apart from it's obviously being purely metaphorical) is completely unnecessary in the garden.

          It's sole purpose (even as metaphor) appears to have been to trick humans. How could the human proxies know that disobedience is sin without first tasting of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?

          March 28, 2014 at 4:14 pm |
        • believerfred

          GOPher
          Interesting you mentioned taste. God said you must not eat or even touch it you will surly die. There was nothing that was not clear as far as what we were told. Eve understood death because the serpent said "you will not surly die". Death was separation from God and as you rightfully said they did not know sin never before took it in or touched it. They only saw what was very good which is the presence of God.
          What a shock they only saw each other through the pure love of God up to that point. Now ashamed and afraid because they saw what they really look like outside of pure love. Perhaps they were hairy stinky hominids we don't know but they were now in the presence of deception without God.
          The tree was necessary to reveal they would reject God regardless of a clear word of death, regardless of never tasted consequence of the forbidden. Likewise we ignore God and words that attempt to describe separation from God (hell etc.)yet prefer the unknown to the clear voice of God.
          The tree story was necessary as a clear warning to all future generations of mankind. The flood story is a clear warning, Exodus, Babylonian captivity ......etc. right down to the perfect picture of what sin in man does to man in the crucifixion of Jesus. It turns what is Good into an unrecognizable suffering. We not only have done it to ourselves we do it to God.

          That was not a trick it is what exists outside of God or as the New Testament put it when we are not in Christ.

          March 28, 2014 at 5:50 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          So God lied to them?

          Genesis 2:3 "... you must not touch it or you will die"

          I guess they died eventually. Are we to suppose they were intended to be immortal?

          March 28, 2014 at 6:06 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          Oops Gen 3:3.

          March 28, 2014 at 6:07 pm |
        • believerfred

          GOPer
          The first occurrence of death in the Garden was when God killed an animal and put animal skins on the them to cover their nakedness. This perhaps set the tone for a blood sacrifice required to cover sinful man.
          As to physical death of Adam and Eve they must not have been immortal. At the close of Genesis 3 they are kicked out of the garden before they can eat from the tree of life and live forever with this new knowledge

          March 28, 2014 at 7:20 pm |
      • sam stone

        good luck with that, hotairace

        March 28, 2014 at 4:31 pm |
        • hotairace

          I knew it was a long shot. Every once in a while, it seems that fred is recovering from christianity (he has admitted he believes stuff for which there is no actual evidence), but it looks like he has regressed.

          March 28, 2014 at 5:57 pm |
        • believerfred

          You believe consciousness is tethered to your physical presence without any evidence whatsoever. Loved ones remain in your thoughts long after their passing as do hated ones for some people.

          March 28, 2014 at 7:28 pm |
        • hotairace

          We may think it, we may even believe it, but we don't say it's absolutely true and make up all kinds of silly stories about it. And we especially don't try to use our silly beliefs without evidence to make others believe as we do or to limit others rights.

          March 28, 2014 at 7:35 pm |
        • believerfred

          hotairace
          Are you kidding me? It was atheists who took the credit for getting prayer out of schools.

          March 28, 2014 at 8:32 pm |
        • hotairace

          fred, you missed the "silly beliefs without evidence" bit.

          March 31, 2014 at 3:40 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      I agree, same story – but no push back from the fundies.

      But not gonna happen in Hollywood, given the historically Jewish influence in executive management there.

      March 28, 2014 at 2:06 pm |
  19. Rynomite

    The Bible is full of fun fiction that would be great on the big screen!

    March 28, 2014 at 1:35 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      As if a switch had been turned, as if an eye had been blinked, as if some phantom force in the universe had made a move eons beyond our comprehension, suddenly, there was no Ark! There was no flood, no God, no thing called "Noah" to be followed.
      Then who, or what, has landed here? Is it here yet? Or has the cosmic switch been pulled? Case in point: The line between middle-eastern mythology and science fact is microscopically thin! You have witnessed the line being shaved even thinner! But is the menace with us? Or is the monster gone?

      (Closing lines from the first draft of the film, enti/tled "Noah A Go Go")

      March 28, 2014 at 1:44 pm |
      • Akira

        "Noah A Go Go." Fantastic!

        March 28, 2014 at 1:47 pm |
      • G to the T

        I was thinking more like a Waterworld prequel.

        March 28, 2014 at 2:01 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Thanks a lot –
          I had managed to suppress my memories of that cinematic abortion.
          Now I'm having flashbacks to Kevin Costner drinking his own urine.
          I'll send you my therapy bill.

          March 28, 2014 at 2:15 pm |
        • G to the T

          Sorry but you have to admit seeing Dennis Hopper with his smokers steaming in on the Valdez to raid the ark would be pretty sweet.

          March 31, 2014 at 3:34 pm |
  20. lookatuniverse

    Quran says (Islamic Scripture)

    “The example of Jesus, as far as GOD is concerned, is the same as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him, "Be," and he was.” Quran [3:59]

    “It does not befit God that He begets a son, be He glorified. To have anything done, He simply says to it, ‘Be,’ and it is.” [19:35]

    “No soul can carry the sins of another soul. If a soul that is loaded with sins implores another to bear part of its load, no other soul can carry any part of it, even if they were related. ... [35:18]

    “They even attribute to Him sons and daughters, without any knowledge. Be He glorified. He is the Most High, far above their claims.” Quran [6:100]

    “Recall that your Lord said to the angels, "I am placing a representative on Earth." They said, "Will You place therein one who will spread evil therein and shed blood, while we sing Your praises, glorify You, and uphold Your absolute authority?" He said, "I know what you do not know." [2:30]

    “They say , "We live only this life; we will not be resurrected. If you could only see them when they stand before their Lord! He would say, "Is this not the truth?" They would say, "Yes, by our Lord." He would say, "You have incurred the retribution by your disbelief." [6:30]

    “We have honored the children of Adam, and provided them with rides on land and in the sea. We provided for them good provisions, and we gave them greater advantages than many of our creatures.” Quran [17:70]

    “O children of Adam, when messengers come to you from among you, and recite My revelations to you, those who take heed and lead a righteous life, will have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve.” Quran [7:35]

    “O children of Adam, do not let the devil dupe you as he did when he caused the eviction of your parents from Paradise, and the removal of their garments to expose their bodies. He and his tribe see you, while you do not see them. We appoint the devils as companions of those who do not believe.” Quran [7:27]

    “Losers indeed are those who disbelieve in meeting God, until the Hour comes to them suddenly, then say, "We deeply regret wasting our lives in this world." They will carry loads of their sins on their backs; what a miserable load! [6:31]

    Thanks for taking time to read my post. Please take a moment to visit whyIslam org website.

    March 28, 2014 at 1:23 pm |
    • CS

      Please visit: http://www.wikipoops.com

      Thank you.

      March 28, 2014 at 1:28 pm |
    • Reality

      Why Islam?

      "John Hick, a noted British philosopher of religion, estimates that 95 percent of the people of the world owe their religious affiliation to their god to an accident of birth. The faith of the vast majority of believers depends upon where they were born and when. Those born in Saudi Arabia will almost certainly be Moslems, and those born and raised in India will for the most part be Hindus. Nevertheless, the religion of millions of people can sometimes change abruptly in the face of major political and social upheavals. In the middle of the sixth century ce, virtually all the people of the Near East and Northern Africa, including Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Egypt were Christian. By the end of the following century, the people in these lands were largely Moslem, as a result of the militant spread of Islam.

      The Situation Today

      Barring military conquest, conversion to a faith other than that of one’s birth is rare. Some Jews, Moslems, and Hindus do convert to Christianity, but not often. Similarly, it is not common for Christians to become Moslems or Jews. Most people are satisfied that their own faith is the true one or at least good enough to satisfy their religious and emotional needs. Had St. Augustine or St. Thomas Aquinas been born in Mecca at the start of the present century, the chances are that they would not have been Christians but loyal followers of the prophet Mohammed." J. Somerville

      It is very disturbing that such religious violence and hatred continues unabated due to randomness of birth. Maybe just maybe if this fact would be published on the first page of every newspaper every day, that we would finally realize the significant stupidity of all religions.

      March 28, 2014 at 2:38 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.