San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, April 18, 2014

The Government Should Let People Die At Sea

Have you heard the story of Eric and Charlotte Kaufman?  They are the folks who took their two daughters, ages 1 and 3, on an attempt to sail a 36 foot boat around the world.  Two weeks into the journey the boat had a mechanical failure which rendered them incapable of steering (is that a proper nautical term?) it properly.  At the time of their departure the younger of the two children was suffering from bronchitis, an upper respiratory infection and salmonella poisoning.  Her parents were administering government approved drugs to her and they expected her to make a full recovery.  By the time the boat was becoming inoperable the little girl was beginning to experience a deterioration in her health, developing a fever and a skin rash.  The parents had a satellite phone on board the boat so they radioed the SDA Coast Guard and requested a rescue.  The Coast Guard responded and picked them up about 1000 miles off the coast of Cabo San Lucas.  I think those are all the relevant details in the case.  So, what do you think about it?
The behavior of the parents has set off a mild firestorm of protest.  It seems as if the majority of those writing blogs and posting articles to their Facebook pages believe that the parents are inhumane monsters who should be prosecuted for child abuse.  Many angry citizens of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika believe the children should be forcibly removed from their parents by the government and given to more responsible citizens who don't take what most people deem to be absurd risks.  The Kaufmans are aware of the criticism and have responded to it.  That has been like throwing fuel on the fire.  As Robert Navarette of the Washington Post Writers Group has written, "The couple failed to show any public contrition for putting their children at risk or publicly apologize to the folks who rescued them, not to mention the taxpayers who will have to pick up the $663,000 bill.  Once rescued, the Kaufmans issued a series of arrogant statements that suggested the couple had learned nothing from the harrowing ordeal."
Well there you have it.  A majority of the people who have an opinion about this event have weighed in with their opinions and the decision has been made.  The Kaufmans are unfit parents and arrogant, egotistical monsters.  In a manner that is typical of life in the SDA these days, Mr. Navarette believes that the parents need to express regret and contrition to the general public even though the lives of the general public were never put in danger.  He does not explain why the Kaufmans have to apologize to me because they made the decision to take their young children on an around-the-world sail trip.  Navarette also believes that the parents need to issue an apology to the Coast Guard.  Why?  Is it not the job of the Coast Guard to rescue SDA citizens who are in desperate circumstances on the open seas?  Why should someone who has availed himself of those services be required to apologize for doing so?  That is akin to declaring that anyone who goes to an emergency room, fully intending on taking advantage of the medical services provided to the indigent, owes the hospital, the doctors and the general public an apology for doing so. 
Navarette concludes by writing, "What is wrong with these people?  They'll accept help but not criticism?  They made one bad choice after another.  And they lack the character to admit it...they don't think they did anything wrong."  Mr. Navarette, what, precisely, did the Kaufmans do wrong?  What was their sin?  Describe it in precise detail.  How did they harm anyone?  When did they engage in malicious activity with evil intent?  For Navarette, and the majority who agree with him, I have a couple of questions.  Why is this any of your business?  What qualifies you to judge the behavior of another?  What allows you to issue a moral condemnation against two people you know nothing about?  I understand that you do not like what the Kaufmans did.  I understand that you would not have done what the Kaufmans did.  But that is not the issue.  Your position on the matter is irrelevant.  This is not about you.  This is about the Kaufmans.  The issue is what sin did the Kaufmans commit?  I would posit that they committed no sin and should be let alone.
Now please allow me to qualify the previous statement.  The SDA Coast Guard should not be in the business of bailing out every seafaring vessel that runs into trouble.  The Coast Guard exists to protect the SDA coasts from invasion and attack.  That is what it should be doing.  Doing anything other than that is an immoral waste of taxpayer dollars.   Critics of the Kaufmans have a point that an alleged $665,000 of taxpayer dollars were immorally spent on their rescue.  They should not have been rescued.  They knew the risks they were taking when they departed on a worldwide journey in a small sailboat.  Even if they didn't know the risks associated with such an adventure there is a price to be paid for ignorance and stupidity.  They should have been left to die.  We should have never heard from them again.
There is a funny thing about government.  When government engages in activities it has no business engaging in it creates dependency in the citizens under that government.  King Obama is fully aware of this principle of human behavior and has skillfully used it to ensnare millions of citizens in taxpayer financed government programs that rob them of initiative and make them government dependent.  The principle applies to the Coast Guard as well.  When people know that the Coast Guard will rescue them when they run into trouble on the high seas, they will make no other provision for rescue other than carrying a phone to call the Coast Guard.  If all sailors were aware in advance that the risks they assume on the world's oceans are their own, the free market would provide a viable and moral solution to the free-rider problem created by government intervention.
In the absence  of government rescues the free market would come forth with insurance policies for around the world travelers.  For a market based price the boatmen could purchase a policy that would pay for the costs associated with their rescue in the event of a problem at sea.  Private, profit seeking companies would spring up to provide rescue services and the Coast Guard could go back to guarding our coasts from the advancing hoards of terrorists we all know are lingering just offshore.  For those who are unwilling or unable to pay the premium for rescue insurance, they assume the cost of bearing those risks for themselves.  If that means their death at sea, then so be it.  If that means young children die, then so be it.  But that is their business, not mine.  I will concentrate my thoughts and activities upon the things I do and leave other people alone to pursue their interests.  How they chose to manage the risks associated with their activities is none of my business.  Nor is it the business of the government.

Thursday, April 17, 2014

Dead Dogs And Denver Cops

A local news story about a dying dog and a Denver cop dramatically illustrates much of what is wrong with the activities of law/rules enforcement personnel in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika today.  Let me tell you the story.  The Denver Post reported the following story a couple of days ago, "A furious back and forth between some members of the community and the Denver Police unfolded on social media on Friday after neighbors complained that police officers would not allow them to help a dying dog struck by a car Wednesday night...a dog without tags lay in the street for 90 minutes before eventually succumbing to its injuries.  Officers on the scene did not allow neighbors to help the animal, one person was even threatened with arrest...the reason people were kept at bay by officers is they feared for the safety of everyone because they did not know how the dog would react."
So let me get this straight.  The Supreme Court has previously ruled that officers of the law/rules are under no legal or moral obligation to protect or defend the lives and property of any citizen of the SDA. So please, let us immediately dispense with the fiction that these brave men in blue are there to protect us from evil people and dangerous situations.  Furthermore we have all learned from the dozens of massacre situations we have witnessed around the country in recent decades that the police are very good at setting up a perimeter around a massacre site but very bad about actually entering into that massacre scene.  There is a good reason for this apparently cowardly behavior.  In fact there are two very good reasons for this cowardly behavior.
First, all law/rules enforcement officers follow their prime objective.  The prime objective is never do anything that could get you hurt.  They are not shy about telling us this truth.  Read any story about the cops and they will readily admit that their number one goal is "officer safety."  Everything they do in every situation they encounter is designed to protect them and keep them safe from harm.  It is impossible to have both officer safety and officers charging into dangerous situations so guess which behavior never takes place?  But it gets even worse.  Not only do officers do everything and anything to ensure their safety, they also justify their frequent acts of violence against ordinary citizens on the grounds that they "felt threatened" by something the citizen was doing. All sorts of police misbehavior has been justified by means of the "feeling threatened" defense.  Let me give you a simple public safety tip.  Anytime you see a cop acting like he is feeling threatened, hit the ground and plead for mercy.  If you do not you could find yourself in the midst of a hail of bullets.
Second, law/rules enforcement officers are under no legal or moral obligation to prevent crime.  Their job description is quite clear and concise.  The cops exist to investigate criminal events and make arrests.  Their job is to "enforce the law", not to keep the law from being broken.  They are under no obligation to prevent criminal events, even if those events are taking place right under their noses.  There are some bizarre realities associated with this function of the law enforcement regime.  In the process of investigating crimes and making arrests the cops routinely entrap innocent citizens by concocting elaborate schemes designed to get a normally law abiding citizen to do something arrestable.  Undercover cops and other shady types draw unsuspecting innocents into their traps and then arrest them the moment they do something they believe can be used against them in an SDA court.  In order to entrap these innocent citizens the cops are empowered to lie, cheat, steal and do just about any illegal thing they want to.  In these situations, where they are in total control, the cops show inordinate amounts of bravery.  Go figure.
So what does all of this have to do with a dead dog?  A lot, as it turns out.  A dog gets hit by a car and lies dying in the street for an hour and a half.  Its mournful cries draw the attention of neighbors who, unlike the brave men in blue, are filled with compassion for a suffering beast.  As several of them move to assist the dog the brave officers of the rules/law step between them and the dog to assert their authority.  What authority do they have in this situation?  None whatsoever.  Assisting a dog that has been hit by a car is not against any law.  That did not keep these brave men from asserting their unlawful authority to make pronouncements and bossing the caring citizens around.  As one of the citizens attempts to go around the cop to help the ailing dog he is informed by the courageous and heroic officer that any further attempt to aid the dog will result in his arrest.  Arrest for what?  It is not illegal to help a dying dog.  Ah, but the cops always have an answer to that one.  The man would be arrested for failing to obey the direct order of a police officer.
You now see why I have chosen this example for today's post.  This is what our heroic protectors have become.  They do not care about human beings.  They do not care about dying animals.  They do not care about anything but themselves and their ability to issue ridiculous orders and boss people around.   The scoundrels who populate the ranks of the enforcers of the laws/rules of the SDA are generally nothing more than a bunch of insecure bullies who get their jollies ordering people around.  We all know this is true.  We all have been on the receiving end of those unjust and ridiculous orders.  We have all complied because we were afraid of being arrested for doing something that was neither illegal nor immoral.
The Denver Police, of course, immediately announced that they had prohibited the citizens from helping the dog because they "feared for the safety" of the people who were approaching the dog.  To that I ask, why is it the business of the Denver cops if someone wants to assume the risks associated with helping an injured dog?  Why do the citizens of Denver need to obtain the advance permission of the Denver rules/law enforcers prior to doing anything those enforcers might consider "dangerous?"  Since when have the cops become the monitors of our behavior, empowered to determine what is dangerous for us and what is not?  Since when have the cops become our nannies?  Does anyone besides me find this entire situation repulsive?  These thugs mascarading as our protectors refuse to do anything to really protect us but are happy to pretend to be protecting us when all they have to do is order us around and gleefully watch as we comply with their every dictate. 
Why do we comply with this sadistic show of pure, brute force?  Because we have been taught that refusing to comply could bring about deadly consequences.  The cops are wolves and we are the sheep.  It is their job to terrify us and our job to cower.  Pity the fool who does not cower properly.  He will not be with us for long.  This is what we have become in the SDA.  This is the state of citizen/police relations in the SDA.  Personally I do not believe there is anything we can do about it.  I also believe things will get worse.  My advice is simply to avoid all contact with enforcers of the law/rules.  Do not talk to them. Do not visit them.  Do not tell your children they are heroes.   Do not look at them.  Do not thank them for their service or praise them for their bravery.   And, for goodness sake, never call one of them.  Learn to defend and protect yourself and leave the grotesque bullying of innocent citizens to the professionals. 

Wednesday, April 16, 2014

Everyone Innately Knows Christianity Is True

There is a strange thing about the Christian religion that people are universally loath to admit.  Can you guess what it is?  No, it is not some particular doctrine.  No, it is not some secret codeword or handshake that only Christians know.  Oddly, both professing Christians and God-haters (the only other category of person according to the Bible) agree that this truth should never be proclaimed.  Well, I am here to break the code of silence.  The thing about Christianity that everyone in the universe knows is that Christianity is true.  Shocking, isn't it?  Allow me to prove my point.
Christian theologians and apologists have struggled for two thousand years to prove that God exists and that Christianity is the only true religion.  Despite their best efforts at evangelizing the heathen members of this world, nobody has ever come to faith as a result of those arguments.  Talk about a colossal waste of time.  Wildly ironic about the entire situation is the fact that everyone already knows that Christianity is true.  The problem with non-believers is not insufficient knowledge.  Non-believers in Christianity are not in their condition because they do not know enough.  Non-believers remain non-believers because they hate God and they are suppressing what they know about Him on a daily basis.  This truth is described in the book of Romans where the author says that all human beings know that the God of the Bible exists and has made a moral claim on their lives but they make the conscious decision to suppress that truth and live as if He does not exist.  So when it comes time to prove that God exists, all efforts to do so are a total waste of time.  Everyone knows that He exists and only those who obey Him acknowledge that truth.  The problem with non-believers is not intellectual, it is moral.
How do I know that what I have just written is true?  Simple.  It is true because God says it is true.  I don't have to go beyond that.  Both believers and non-believers know that what I have written is true.  The only difference between the two groups is that believers acknowledge what I have written is true and non-believers hypocritically deny that what I have written is true, although they know full well that it is.  This argument, of course, is not going to be enough to satisfy the non-believers among us.   They will demand "proof" even though the only proof they need is inside their own heads.  But I am feeling magnanimous today so I will provide additional proof that everyone knows Christianity is true.
There was an article in today's Denver Post that caught my eye.  It was entitled, "Lamborn tells Air Force to relax its rules on religion."  The article, in part, said this, "US Rep Doug Lamborn penned a letter signed by 21 of his colleagues demanding that the Air Force relax its rules on religious expression.   It's the latest fallout of March's 'whiteboard gate', an incident in which a cadet penned a Bible passage on a message board outside  a dorm room and voluntarily erased it in the face of complaints of religious intolerance."  Maybe you heard about "whiteboard gate."  After the cadet was forced to erase the Bible passage he had posted on the whiteboard outside his dorm room a spontaneous revolution transpired in which other Christian cadets posted similar Bible passages on their whiteboards.  Tensions rose, people yelled at each other and a nervous truce was declared when everyone agreed to put down their pens and attempt to get along.  Lamborn's letter is a call to the Air Force to standardize rules about what may or may not be posted on a cadet's whiteboard.
I don't care what the Air Force decides on this issue.  Frankly, no Christian should be at the Air Force academy to begin with.  Whatever a pagan, imperialistic, government controlled military academy decides to do about this issue is OK with me.  What interests me in this matter was the fact that the simple act of writing a Bible verse on a public whiteboard was deemed to be an act of "intolerance."  Now how could that possibly be the case?  If a Buddhist had put up a slogan from the Buddha do you believe anyone would have described that as an act of intolerance?  If a Hindu had put up a verse from the Bhagavad Gita do you think anyone would have complained?  If a feminist had put up a quote from Helen Gurly Brown do you believe anyone would have described that as being intolerant?  The answer to all of these questions, of course, is a resounding NO.  Nobody would have cared.  But then, suddenly, when a Christian does something it is immediately labeled "intolerant."  Interesting.
When a heterophobe spews hate filled statements about heterosexuals does anybody ever accuse that person of being intolerant?  I have never seen it.  Yet when a Christian says something negative about a homosexual it is immediately labeled intolerant.  When a homosexual refuses to patronize a Christian business it is simply the way it is.  When a Christian businessman refuses to serve a homosexual it is an act of gross intolerance the requires the remediation of the State.  When an abortion activist demands the right to steal money from her employer to pay for her abortion her actions are deemed heroic and empowering.  When a Christian employer refuses to pay for the immoral abortions of his employees he is called intolerant.  Does anyone see a pattern developing here?  More importantly, do you know why this pattern has developed?  I do, and that is the secret.
Nobody is ever offended when they hear something they know is not true.  I could walk down the 16th Street Mall in Denver this afternoon proclaiming myself to be the Messiah who has returned to take my people home and nobody will pay me the slightest attention.  On the other hand, if I carry a sign declaring my intention to oppose abortion, or if I carry a sign declaring my intention to not serve homosexuals, or if I write a Bible verse that indicates I believe that Christianity is the only way to make peace with God, I will be met with dozens of expressions of moral outrage.  Now why do you think that is?  Why is it that I can say anything I want, provided it is not true, and nobody will give a hoot but the moment I declare something we all know to be true, but are pretending that it is not, I have violated the unwritten rule and now must be suppressed for my alleged acts of intolerance?
Anytime someone tells me that I am behaving intolerantly I know one thing for sure....I am declaring the truth and we both know it.  They hate it, of course.  They hate me for pointing it out.  They hate me even more when I point out that they hate me and my message because they are suppressing the truth that they are fully aware is true.  But I don't consider that to be any of my responsibility.  The truth is the truth.  It stands without my help.  The hatred expressed towards the truth by God-haters is their problem, not mine.  If they choose to use the brainless tactic of labeling something as "intolerant" simply because it convicts them of the truth that they are suppressing, that is their business.  For you see the fact of the matter is that everyone knows Christianity is true.  No amount of suppression will ever change that simple truth.

Tuesday, April 15, 2014

Just Another Day In The SDA

Life in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika is rarely boring.  Every day greets me with new tales of extreme hypocrisy, gross immorality, rampant statism and political rent-seeking.  Why just today I sat down to breakfast with my Denver Post and I was able to tear out four articles that tell a perfect tale of an ordinary day in the SDA.  Let me tell you about the four articles.
Article # 1:  The Associated Press reported that Illinois Senator Dick Durbin is very upset that the Food and Drug Administration has not taken action to enact an outright ban on e-cigarettes.   At the very least he wants the FDA to write reams of regulations for the relatively new product that will ensure very few people will be able to buy them.  I am sure you know what an e-cigarette is.  As the article described, "they are battery powered devices that heat a liquid nicotine solution and create vapor that is inhaled."  So I ask, what could possibly be wrong with that?  Nicotine is a well known stimulant with many positive impacts upon the human body, especially the brain.  Its horrible reputation is derived from the fact that most nicotine users obtain their doses by means of inhaling cigarette smoke, a decidedly unhealthy behavior.  You would think our rulers would rejoice at the opportunity to promote a safe way of delivering nicotine to those who use it.  Imagine the benefits to be derived by the public health system of the SDA by decoupling nicotine from tobacco smoke.  The free market, doing what it always does, comes up with a product designed to deliver a nice dose of nicotine to a user without any of the harmful side effects.  You would think that the anti-tobacco crusaders in government would be applauding that fact.  You would be wrong.  Politicians and anti-tobacco crusaders hate e-cigarettes because they represent the free market developing products that people want to use and selling those products to customers for a price they are willing to pay.  That will not do!
Political hypocrisy is on wonderful display because Senator Durbin says nothing about caffeine or sugar.  Both substances are known stimulants.  Both substances are drugs.  Both substances have many more people addicted to them than the number of people addicted to nicotine.  Both substances have far reaching socioeconomic impacts upon the SDA and its public health system.  After all, don't forget we are in the middle of an obesity "epidemic."  Regardless, those products are not related to the pariah class of people known as smokers and any efforts to regulate them would bring about political blow back that no career politician is willing to face.  Meanwhile, beating up on smokers is just business as usual in the SDA. 
Article # 2:  Another branch of the Beast is busy tormenting onion farmers in Georgia.  Vidalia onions are reputed to be so sweet they can be eaten like an apple.  Farmers who produce and sell Vidalia onions have a vested interest in maintaining a good reputation for their product.  They want to preserve the mystique about their onions so they can command a top price for them.  Decisions about when to plant, how to raise, when to harvest and how to ship the onions would seem to be best left in the hands of those who plant, raise, harvest and ship the onions.  At least that is what common sense would dictate.
Enter the Georgia Agriculture Commission.  The commissioner has decided that he knows what is best when it comes to harvesting and shipping Vidalia onions.  He has just created a new law that fines onion producers for "shipping their onions too early", whatever that means.  The commissioner claims that he knows better than the farmers who produce them when the best time to harvest the onions happens to be.  So he has written a slew of rules that all onion farmers are expected to follow, under penalty of law for non-compliance, that will guarantee, at least in his mind, that Vidalia onions maintain their reputation for sweetness.
Why it should be the business of a state government bureaucrat as to when an onion is harvested is not explained. Why a government bureaucrat should be able to enforce penalties against farmers for not harvesting their products according to a government created time table is not described.  Why any of this is the business of the government is not elucidated.  We are all just expected to concur with the presupposition that whatever a government official does is always in our best interest and it is our moral duty to obey his every dictate.  That is just life in the SDA.
Article # 3:  Did you read the story about the Utah woman who murdered six of her children shortly after giving birth to each of them?  According to the report, "between 1996 and 2006 she gave birth to at least seven babies at her former home in Pleasant Grove and all but one of them were born alive.  She said she killed them all immediately after they were born, and put their bodies inside the boxes found in the garage."  The woman, Megan Huntsman, is being charged with six counts of murder. 
I don't know any of the particulars about the woman, although I am sure they will come out as the story develops.  This is just the kind of story the press loves to trumpet.  I am guessing she is a sexually promiscuous Mormon who could not bring herself to use birth control.  As a result she was continually getting pregnant.  As a good Mormon she could not get an abortion so she simply delivered the babies in her home and suffocated them shortly thereafter.
What makes this story so fascinating is that if she had simply conspired with a medical agent of the government (called an "licensed doctor" by some) to kill those babies just prior to giving birth to them she would be called an empowered and dynamic female.  She would be considered to be a sterling example of modern feminism, living her life on her own terms and availing herself of her constitutional rights to kill particular people on her own authority.  Instead, because she tarried, she is now classified with the murderers and will likely never see the light of day as a free woman ever again.  How corrupt is the world in which we live.
Article # 4:  My fourth story is about Chelsea Manning.  You may remember her as the lady who gave classified US Government documents to the WikiLeaks website some time ago.  She was tried in a military court and found guilty of what I suspect would be called treason.  She was sentenced to 35 years in prison for what she did.  Well, yesterday an Army general upheld the conviction and sentence of Ms. Manning.  In doing so he upheld "the longest prison sentence ever given by a US court for leaking government secrets to the media."  So, you are wondering, just what is wrong with this story?  Let me tell you.
Enough time has passed for us to find out about the nature of the leaked information.  Thanks to Ms. Manning we all know that the government is spying on everything that moves.  The SDA security apparatus is spying on our emails and phone calls.  The SDA spying apparatus is watching every move of our political "allies" around the world.  There is nothing they do not know.  Every part of your 4th Amendment right to be left alone has been violated by the actions of the SDA's "national security" organizations.  Ms. Manning, like Ed Snowden, should be hailed as heroes for what they have done.  They have exposed the rank hypocrisy of the military/political conspiracy to spy on our every move.  Even Congress became angry when its members discovered that they too had been on the receiving end of the federal goverment's spying activities.
So, what does the SDA do with Ms. Manning?  It gives her the most severe punishment in the history of the SDA for exposing the illegal and immoral activities it has been conducting.  Now where is the justice in that my friends?  I found it laughable that a part of the reasoning for the long sentence was the fact that she "leaked government secrets to the media."  Do you have any idea how often the government itself is the source of "leaked information to the media?"  Career politicians and spies within the federal government play the media like a fiddle every day.  Media lackeys are constantly hanging around in search of some choice tidbit of "leaked" information.  And they usually get some.  It is all a part of the government's never ending campaign of propaganda designed to advance the global war on a noun.  When government agents "leak information" it is a patriotic act worthy of a medal.  When an SDA citizen does the same thing it is worthy of 35 years in prison.
Today is an ordinary day.  Today is just like any other day in the SDA.  Today the lives of free citizens in this land will be destroyed by career politicians, bureaucrats and the military/industrial complex. The newspapers may write some short stories about how these lives have been destroyed but they will never use terms like I have here.  Instead we will be told how our handlers have protected us from evil people and our own amazing stupidity.  We will be instructed to praise those who are better than us and thank them for their protection.  Meanwhile the temperature of the water continues to rise.  It will soon reach the boiling point and not one in a hundred of us will even be aware we are being cooked.

Monday, April 14, 2014

My Take On "Noah"

Noah, in case you haven't heard, is a movie allegedly depicting the events that transpired during the life of the biblical character by the same name.  Russell Crowe stars as Noah.  Anthony Hopkins plays his grandfather, Methuselah.  When the movie was first announced the Christians that I know were excited about the potential for Hollywood to produce a movie that accurately portrays a biblical story.  Alas, that hope has turned to something less powerful and more like moderate despair.  The movie does not even come close to telling the biblical tale of Noah.  Instead, it tells a completely different tale.
Dr. Brian Mattson has written a piece in his blog where he shows what the original source material was for the movie about Noah.  Apparently the writers of the movie decided to use ancient Gnostic and Kabbalic texts in formulating their tale.  You can go here to read his post.  As a result of their choice of original source material, the movie depicts many of the factual details about the life of the biblical Noah but they are all changed in one fashion or another to comply with the religious beliefs of Jewish Gnosticism.
If you have read other reviews on this movie from a Christian perspective I might be covering familiar territory here.  If not, you might find this insightful.  First off, if you have not already seen Noah I would not waste the money on going to see it.  The movie runs well over two hours and, as many critics have already pointed out, is insufferably boring.  How someone could take such a dramatic tale and turn it into a total yawner is beyond my comprehension but that is what has happened here.  The soundtrack for the movie treats you like an anvil, with it being the sledgehammer.  Whenever we come to a point in the movie that is supposedly dramatic, the soundtrack becomes noticeable in that it is nothing more than a serious of heavy, dark chords played very loudly.  Each time it happened I felt like my ears were under assault.  One rule of thumb that I use for movie soundtracks is that if I notice it, it is not good.  I noticed the soundtrack a lot in Noah.
I have no issue with the quality of the acting in the film.  The characters are asked to play roles that involve tremendous amounts of pain, anguish and sorrow.  After all, we are talking about the extermination of the human race here.  As a result they all seem to be running around, wringing their hands and shedding streams of tears throughout most of the movie.  The problem is not with the acting but with the script the actors were required to bring to life.  It is terrible.
The Bible tells us that Noah was a "preacher of righteousness" who walked intimately with God on a daily basis.  The Noah of the movie hardly knows who God is and only relates to Him through self-perceived mystical experiences and bad dreams.  The movie Noah is never quite sure if it is God who is speaking to him or if he just ate a bad piece of food before turning in for the night.  Once Noah concludes that God has called him to be a part of the plan to exterminate the human race he becomes a one man wrecking crew, intent upon destroying every human being alive, including his own family and himself.
You got that right.  Noah builds the ark for the animals, not to save mankind.  Noah believes that he and his progeny are worthy of death and intends to build the ark, seal the animals in it and then drown along with the rest of mankind when the flood waters rise. Although the real Noah walked closely with God, the movie Noah does not even know His name.  God is constantly spoken of as the "Creator."   Indeed, it is the only term ever used in the movie to describe the God who is about to wipe out most of humanity. 
As the movie Noah tries to figure out how God is going to wipe out mankind he departs on a journey to a lonely mountain to have a conversation with his grandfather named Methuselah.  Methuselah spends most of his days sitting around a dingy cave dreaming about how nice it would be to have a fresh strawberry to eat.  Every time someone visits him he asks them if they have brought any strawberries.  He is always disappointed when they have not.  His role in the movie culminates when we find him, crawling about on his hands and knees in search of a strawberry,  finally joyously finding a fresh strawberry and picking it just in time to be hit face first by the wall of water that immediately drowns him.  At least he was smiling as he departed. 
Noah builds the ark with the help of some gigantic rock creatures.  Of course those creatures never existed in the biblical text.  They are a creation of the alternative source material and I will let you read Mattson's review for the story about them.  Ironically, although the authors have no problem interjecting creatures that did not exist prior to the flood, the biggest creatures which did exist before the flood, the dinosaurs, are left out of the film.  Rather than dealing with the issue of the dinosaurs and their fate, the authors decide to tip their hats to the religious doctrines of evolution to explain the state of man at the time of the flood.  In a computer generated series of images strangely reminiscent of Cosmos, the movie shows us how creatures had evolved during the period of time recounted in Genesis 1 and 2.  Man, of course, had come from the apes.  Dinosaurs, on the other hand, had apparently not yet had time to evolve.  Some of the creatures we see coming to the ark are strange pre-dinosaur type beings but there is nothing there we would recognize today.
In an additional tip of the hat to things not related to the biblical text, environmentalism is singled out as a pure and noble doctrine while free market capitalism is castigated.  We first meet Noah as he instructs two of his sons on the necessity of never eating meat and being careful to only consume as many plants as are necessary to sustain life.  Walking off trail on grasses and flowers that they do not plan on eating is a horrible sin.  Meanwhile, the descendents of Cain (Noah is a descendent of noble Seth) have ravaged the landscape of the earthy to make it virtually unrecognizable.  Every tree has been cut down, pollution fills the air and the water and men are violent, uncontrollable beasts. The descendents of Cain have constructed large cities that are filled with sin and immorality while Noah and his clan live in the wilderness, doing their best to avoid the sins of the capitalists.
In one of the strangest scenes in the movie we find a man called Tubal/Cain instructing young Ham (one of Noah's sons) in the dominion mandate.  Apparently Noah, in his pursuit of environmentalism, has forgotten the dominion mandate.  In particular he has forgotten that God gave the animals to man to serve him, not vice versa.  Since the words of the dominion mandate are coming out of the mouth of the reprobate Tubal/Cain we know that they are not supposed to be true.  However, the words that Tubal/Cain speaks are one of the few real biblical quotes in the movie and they reflect what God had commanded man to do upon his banishment from the Garden.
I could go on and on but I won't.  In Noah everything that is true and biblical is turned on its head.  Any correlation between the movie Noah and the biblical account of him is purely coincidental.  Were the authors of the script upon which the movie is based deliberate in their attempt to undermine Christian truth and the biblical text?  I don't know and I don't care.  They are free to produce any movie they want and they are free to call it anything they want.  It is up to those of us who view it to determine if it is accurate or not.  It is also up to us to determine if it is worthy watching or not.    My advice to the three or four of you reading this post is to save your money.  Go to your dentist for a root canal or go watch a Rockies will have a better time.