Genocide for kids

I don't know about you, but when I was a little boy attending CCD, the way that certain passages were presented is rather disturbing when I think about it now. Take the stork of Noah's Ark for
example...

When I was taught the story of Noah and his floating zoo, it was actually told as a happy and joyous tale. A cartoon caricature at best. God comes to Noah, tells him to build a boat. Somehow the guy throws the craft together without a hitch and all these cute cuddly animals start walking in two-by-two. It rains, everybody on the Ark is all smiles, and then at the end a happy Dove finds a tree and everyone just walks out into a sunny happy place. But they always completely left out the part where God kills everyone and everything else...

Seriously? Talk about whitewashing and papering over a truly ghastly story! No, it isn't a story full of smiles and happiness. It's a story of murderous genocide! I suppose the point is somewhat moot, since the story the Bible tells never happened. But it genuinely bothers me that churches celebrate this story and try to spoon feed it to impressionable children like it's some sort of happy Pre-K cartoon.

If children's Bibles where honest.
www.awkwardmomentsbible.com

Where my picture book Bible showed smiling people and animals on the Ark as is floats on calm seas, the Biblical version is actually quite different. If this had actually happened the Ark would be surrounded by the floating bodies of the scores and scores of people and animals that God mercilously drowned. Why is it that the children's Bibles I had always left out the floating dead? Because it's gruesome? Because it's not appropriate for children? You know what? I actually agree. I agree because the Bible is not appropriate for children!

And what about when the Ark landed and God sent down a rainbow as the Ark landed on a green hilltop with the tree the Dove had found? Unsurprisingly, this is another fabrication and misrepresentation aimed at trapping young minds. If the flood actually happened, there would be no grassy hill or green tree on a hill. Remember, the Earth was supposed to have been flooded for an entire year. The grass would be dead, and the tree stripped bare and lifeless. Rather than there being a grassy green hill, there would have been a peak of muddy slop.

Pay no attention to the dead bodies strewn everywhere.

Also, lets not forget all those dead bodies. Noah wouldn't have found a clear green pasture, but the
randomly scattered and rotting carcases of man and beast alike. Funny that my CCD classes left out the piles of dismembered bloated corpses... I wonder why. Just think, we could see Noah find land, grab a push broom and start clearing a path through all the stinking death only to find his way blocked by the torn open carcass of a great whale. Smiles all around! Oh wait... scratch that... that would actually scare the hell out of a little kid. Dead bodies strewn all about isn't really G rated... Which is why the Bible shouldn't be forced on children!

Aside from the physical omissions, lets not forget the fact that I, and so many other were taught that God cruelly killed almost every person and animal on Earth... and it was a good thing. A good thing that we should all celebrate. Sorry, but I don't see how global genocide can be sugar coated into an act of kindness. I just can't. Even if this god that they were all sinful and beyond redemption, isn't that what he has Hell for? And what did they do that was so bad? God's standards aren't really all that great. Take the family he saved for example. He had Noah present him animal sacrifices after the flood, not to mention his plan for repopulating the earth post-flood was for nothing more than incest, incest, and more incest. Sorry, but at this point I have to call God's judgement into question. And what about all the dead animals? What the hell did they do? Or are we to just assume they are collateral genocidal damage?

World floods, Egyptians don't notice.

When you look at the ghoulish truth that is the Biblical story of Noah, I can't help but notice how stark the contrast is between the two. It's yet more lying to children simply to bolster their numbers. Here's a tip... If you have to lie about your beliefs in order make them appealing to potential converts, that should tell you something about how poor those beliefs are.




Bonus thought: How the hell did Sloth get to the Ark? Even if we are to assume a land bridge that allows travel in a straight line, it would take them years to get there. Sloth on average travel at 6.5ft/min. They likely had to travel somewhere around 7,500 miles. So if they don't stop for food drink or sleep, it would take about 11.6 years to cover that distance. But they sleep about 10hours a day. So without stopping for food or water, the journey would now take about 19.8 years. Then consider that Sloth live about 10-20 years in the wild (And that's with a fairly slow paced lifestyle. I imagine a life-long marathon would slash that figure dramatically.) and you see that they would already be up against their lifespan limits. Perhaps a

They say I walked how far?!?

creationist would say that the Sloth would reproduce on the go. And the offspring would continue the journey from there. It's an interesting argument. But we must remember that an adult Sloth is a sitting duck outside of a rainforest, let alone a juvenile one. It's very likely that they wouldn't survive even a fraction of the proposed journey. The idea that Sloth simply marched to the Ark and hopped on board is simply unreasonable.



-Brain Hulk

Please share, subscribe, comment and follow us on your favorite social networking sites!
facebook | google+ | twitter