"Warned about"....by Noah, not God, right? So Noah failed to convince them it was true, no? If they knew it was coming because they KNEW God was real and had warned them himself...good riddance, they must have been incredibly dumb or suicidal.

I've been warned that Zenu is coming back too....I've been warned that Vikings will pour over a rainbow and murder the world, or many other tales that existed far longer than this Jesus guy's been heard of. I've only been warned of these things by humans who were clearly delusional (or liars), never anyone trustworthy. When the message is unbelievable, and so is the messenger, and the proof is "believe", and there are dozens of contradictory messages with exactly the same level of proof, the idea that a person should choose correctly or suffer eternal punishment is the definition of evil.

If God withholds judgment capriciously out of fickle mercy based on no discernable pattern or rule, and just as often punishes the righteous and rewards the wicked as the reverse, how is that different from random chance?

Why do you stubbornly deny the undeniable existence of El and his son Ba'al, though you see their works daily? Their tales, which predate even the earliest Hebrew scriptures or stories, prove their hand in your existence, yet you refuse to give your devotion and would unfairly discredit them and hand all credit to this Johnny come lately deity. Mot shall have you if you don't repent.
Sounds silly, doesn't it?

No, it wasn't Noahs failing. The scripture says he preached righteousness, so the message was endorsed by God. The reason no one was converted was not due to a failure on Noahs part, or Gods. The message wasn't misunderstood, it was rejected by a wicked generation, which was their free will choice to do so. Because they rejected Gods message they weren't prepared when the flood came. The choice to reject God doesn't eliminate the consequences of rejecting God, in this case being unprepared for the impending global flood which you were warned about for 100 years. In the same sense you are unprepared for the impending second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, which you have been warned about your entire life.

When God withholds or suspends judgment out of mercy, ironically it has the opposite effect on the callous hearts of men:

Ecclesiastes 8:11

Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil

Because you don't see God out and out punishing people when they do evil, you feel free to live how you want regardless. That is how the pre-flood world felt, and that is why they were swept away. In your ongoing effort to put the worst possible spin on everything in scripture, you neglect to understand the fundamental narrative of the story. The reason for that is your stubborn refusal to say God did something good even when it is integral to the narrative which you use to unfairly discredit Him.

So, because one guy, Noah, sucked hard as a proselytizer, God murdered everyone else?
It must have been his failing since his message was so true and undeniable, yet it was denied and ignored, right? Why not just kill him and prove the message by miracle? Better, why not make everyone KNOW, not guess or believe, he exists and go from there. Using unverified middle men to spread your message is just plain stupid when you don't have to, and downright evil when you then torture those who don't accept it from those con men.

Like I said, complete incessant obedient subservience and worship of himself and his son under threat of eternal torture for any found lacking. That's narcissistic insecurity with absolute power, not love. Edit:part of love is accepting or at least tolerating disagreement, even disagreeable behaviour, and murdering people you find unsavory is not tolerance, sending them to hell is far closer to hate than love.
You don't threaten people into "loving" you out of love. (and worshiping out of fear isn't love)
You don't murder millions because you love them, even when they're being naughty.

I believe in a guy named Jesus, he could walk on water when it freezes, and turn water into wine using his vineyard, but his mom was no virgin and his dad was a human being. Am I good?

When you want to paint your own picture, it's helpful to leave out a few details. An important detail that you left out is that it took Noah 100 years to build the Ark. The scripture tells us that Noah was a preacher of righteousness and he pleaded with the people of the pre-flood world to escape the coming judgment. He didn't have a single convert proving the truth of what God had said about that world:

Genesis 6:5

And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually

You also mentioned that you think Gods requirements are impossible. That is true except for one exception; they are not impossible when the Lord Jesus Christ has come into your life and changed you. As a Christian who is far from perfect I meet Gods requirements. His requirement is this, that we believe in His Son Jesus Christ and live for Him.

It's impossible without Christ to do what God wants. If you have Christ in your life you are well able to meet Gods requirements because what God is looking for is faith. He requires that you repent from your sins and receive the forgiveness He has provided for you through Christ. When you do that God will adopt you as His son and give you eternal life. That isn't the MO of a despot.

We here in America like to believe we are good people morally and that is how people present themselves in the public square. Yet we see all of the crime statistics and civil unrest in the country which is the spillover from the greatest character crisis this nation has ever faced. God sees it all, every wicked thing done in the dark and He knows what man is really like. It takes humility to admit that about yourself and realize that God is right about the carnality and futility of what men do in this world. It is only through Christ that men have received light to do what is eternally significant instead of living for their own selfish ends.

Heh. I was thinking the same when I saw this video too! Also, Noah's Ark.

This is needless escalation.

First, yeah, a joke on a tv show doesn't warrant a letter from an Ambassador, and is needlessly escalating things.

Next though, Noah's response is unwarranted too, and is needlessly escalating again. Worse still, Noah goes for the throat against the ambassador implying that the ambassador is party to the problem of calling troublesome immigrants African and successful ones simply French.

So, I googled Gerard Araud for a minute to see what I could about where he stood on immigration. That came to the link below after a round of Islamic terrorist attacks within France.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/01/14/377262623/french-ambassador-to-u-s-outlines-predicament-of-immigration

"France is a country of 65 million inhabitants. There are between 5 and 6 million Muslims. And I guess 99.9 percent of Muslims are peaceful citizens. All the polls are showing their commitment to France. They are French; most of them are born in our country. So the message that we have to send to them is, they are part of the nation. They are a full part of the nation."

So he seems like an ally who already unequivocally put himself out there fully supporting (largely Arab and African)Muslims in the heat of a terrorist attack 3 years ago. So, not so much a fair whether friend only embracing French citizens of diverse backgrounds when they are champions, but in the much much harder time when the press coverage was terrifically negative.

So, the face value reason for the Ambassador's letter of not legitimising the neo-nazi right notion that true French citizens are "white/christian" looks absolutely his true intent.

The escalation here is not to be celebrated, it is needless division between people with the same good cause. The racists don't need the help of the rest of us fighting with one another.

Congratulations! Your video, Trevor Noah EVISCERATES the Civility Argument, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 13 Badge!

Congratulations! Your comment on Trevor Noah EVISCERATES the Civility Argument has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Your video, Trevor Noah EVISCERATES the Civility Argument, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Don't forget to vote for your own videos.

https://videosift.com/video/Trevor-Noah-EVISCERATES-the-Civility-Argument

Im surprised this hasn't been taken down yet. The original was removed quickly after it was posted.

The below is quoted from an article in the Sporting News article...

Commissoner Rob Manfred said Thursday that MLB made a commitment to the umpires that if they agreed to wear microphones then certain interactions, like the one with Collins, would not be aired publicly.

"We promised them that. It's in the collective bargaining agreement. We had no choice in a situation like that than to do everything possible to live up to our agreement," Manfred said, per the Associated Press. "It is Labor Relations 101. To not do that is the kind of breach of trust that puts you in a bad spot over the long haul." http://www.sportingnews.com/mlb/news/mets-terry-collins-video-umpire-argument-micd-up-noah-syndergaard-ejection/1ooltz0uohtcg1qkbc5x94ua6i

Past Correspondents dinner roasts had much more bite than Wolf's and nary got 1/10th of the "controversy."

If I understand the situation correctly, the MOST "divisive" joke Wolf told was the "Smoky Eye" joke. The Right claims it's divisive & disgusting because it's a physical attack on Sanders? What the hell? In what context it's physical? The punchline is all political/fake-news rebuttal, not physical to me. It's not a comment of Sanders' physique/appearance. Wolf's not that cheap. IMO that joke was brilliantly delivered, unique and all hers. Most of the rest are not Wolf's best though. I've seen her jokes that are far more biting, I honestly think she toned it down already for the dinner.

Wolf made fun of her own body ALL THE TIME at Trevor Noah's Show and other comedy venues. That's a sign of self-confidence.

Besides, past Presidents (Dem AND Rep) also got chances to roast many people (themselves, others and a bit of self-loathing too) at these dinners too.

Comedy roasts ARE suppose to be non-PC. Taking the punches well actually humanizes the POTUS.

I recommend to all my friends to watch Vice.

Talk shows, I subscribed to Oliver, Myers, Noah & Colbert. Quite happy Colbert didn't lose his chop when he moved to CBS. I hardly ever LOL when Letterman hosted, just a few chuckles perhaps, so TLS is a vast improvement when Colbert took over.

In fact, here...thanks to Eric....
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/g7ybx1/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah-how-white-guilt-subscriptions-are-solving-racism?xrs=synd_facebook_092717_tds_44

The last 45 seconds say it all.