Why did Noah's descendents forsake God so quickly?

So, you're the grandchild of Noah. Let's picture the scene:Life is hard, and you're hungry. Getting enough food from the livestock is a constant balancing act with leaving enough alive to have any herds at all - and, remember, these aren't healthy animals they're infested with every kind of parasite, saved from the flood by the wisdom of God. It's only been a week since the last Triceratops sunk into the mile thick mudflats that still coat half the world, and your idiot father ate the last Diplodocus before you were born.So your father swears that that following God's rules saved you all from the destruction and - look - there's a rainbow in the sky to prove it. But let's face it, you're talking about a God capricious and violent enough to decimate the entire world, slaughtering all but a handful of all people, and leaving you eking out this precarious existence with your wife and cousin. Plus your older brothers got all the pretty cousins. You got the one with elephantitis - which God, in his wisdom, chose to save from the flood.So, yeah, daddy says God is good, and you should serve and worship him, but then daddy's the kind of guy who upon finding his father - your grandfather - drunk thought it would be a good idea to get jiggy with him! Are you really going to trust this guy?Add it up: precarious, hard existence in a decimated world and a psycho God promoted by your highly dubious family. Seems to me that's a fair breeding ground for a new religion with a little less of the ol' crazy in it. After all, what have you got to lose? If you're wrong he's promised not to do it again, and at least you got to try and do something about those damned parasites.

No, I'm not getting confused, in Genesis 9.

quote:

---

22And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

​

23And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.

---

"Covered the nakedness of" is a Jewish euphemism.

I really can't be bothered to argue the point.

That would involve me thinking you were right rather than simply not caring about how anyone choses to interpret a passage from ancient mythology.

So when the Bible talks about the flood covering "high hills" and "mountains" that bit's not literal?When they see the "mountain tops" visible above the receding flood waters, they're not real mountains? What about "Mount Ararat" when the Ark comes to rest? Is that not a real mountain?Edited by Mr Jack, : Grammar + extra

Why is that?

O_oLet me get this straight, you think that a flood that only faintest shred of evidence for is the text of Genesis happened but you're perfectly happy to also accept that this account* is entirely flawed in the basis of it's detail? Seriously? If you don't accept what was written as factually correct why not reject more of it? Why not take the suggestion it was a local flood misreported by later writers seriously, for example? How much else of the story did "Moses" get wrong?* - which I presume you're attributing to Moses, itself a pretty tenuous notion.