From Genesis to Consternation

Robert Crumb's Bible stories

Credit:the Book of Genesis

For approximately a month after its release, the underground comics legend Robert Crumb's painstakingly drawn adaptation of the book of Genesis was unavailable due to unexpectedly high demand. With fans have come detractors, including Mike Judge of the Christian Institute, who finds the project "wholly inappropriate" and thinks "it is turning the Bible into titillation."

It isn't that Crumb changed the text; it's that he didn't. Crumb neither adds nor detracts from the stories in Genesis: Where they are crude, violent, or sexual, so is he.

The emblem on the cover saying "adult supervision recommended for minors" is funny because of the holy book's reputation for family friendliness. But it's holy because its creators and believers think it tells the truth about history and man's relation to God. Genesis tells stories about human beings living by cultural and theological standards that are alien today even to those who think they follow them.

Some theologians may carp, but for any set of tales to captivate human beings throughout our cultural history, this sort of personalized reimagining is as necessary as the repetition of ancient ritual. From King James to New Revised Standard, from The Boomer Bible to The Book, from Michelangelo to Charlton Heston, so has it always been. 

Comments

[fresno dan]

thats the kind of Eve I like - darker with some badonk-a-donk

[BakedPenguin]

Well, you knew Crumb would draw Eve as an Amazon.

[Almanian]

I'm waiting for the Stan Lee version

[Warty]

including Mike Judge

I was confused for a second.

[Art-P.O.G.]

+1 in the truest sense of +1

[yaaa]

lol family friendliness? those are just your lame ass christian versions of the stories.. the original Hebrew bible has everything in it, murder, rape, theft, you name it its there. it a book that shows lifes of humans and how shit plays out. if only people learned to see/read the book in its original context..

[John]

The New Testament is not all hunky dory either. I hate the way Christians sanitize the bible.

[Vinny]

Agreed. But a reminder of how much life has sucked throughout history is useful. When people try and institute socialist utopias, it's helpful to be reminded how far we have progressed when we've broken away from authoritarian governments/belief systems.

[david]

I am a Christian, and I don't personally know any of the like you refer to, but I know that some C's do sanitize it. The Bible is, amongst other things, quite brutal. Jesus' crucifixion was entirely so and it was that which got my attention and made me aware that he willingly organized that to happen for me, for my freedom.
What we tend to forget is that we are also brutal and our selfishness is the most brutal thing of all and causes our eternal death unless...

[TheZeitgeist]

My favorite Old Testy anachronisms are the Martha Stewart-esque protocols for dealing with your unruly slaves.

[John]

I think Crum is a degenerate freak. But, I was looking at this the other day at the bookstore. And I have to admit it is the first piece of interesting religious art done in a long time. It is really provocative and good. It doesn't make fun of the bible. It takes it on its own terms and illustrates it in a way that has never been done before. I really like it.

[Benjamin Lecrone]

"It doesn't make fun of the bible."
Hey, John if you feel a bit let down by that, I could make fun of the bible for you.

But, seriously, it really irks me when religious types claim how the bible should be taught in schools and great for kids...yet they plug their ears and sing the "LaaLaaaLaaa...I'm Not Listening" song whenever an attempt is made to point out how out of date, crude and violent their good book is. I'd respect them a lot more if they would just admit the bible is essentially a violent Harlequin romance novel that was very poorly edited.

[John]

Even if you are not a believer, if can't appreciate the literary value of the bible, in the same way that people appreciate the Baghavad Gita or the Dao, you are just an ignorant philistine. Sorry but that is what you are. It is not about whether you believe in God or not, it is about whether you can appreciate the literary achievements of the ancients.

[Brian Sorgatz]

+1

[Pig Latino]

"The" Bible is primitive, canned philosophy. It served a purpose when the population was illiterate and superstitious and required a middle-man to tell them how to behave, but we moderns have outgrown that need. Haven't we?

[The Gobbler]

5 to 1 you haven't read it.

[Pig Latino]

I was forced to read it as a child. I knew even then that most of it was pure gobbledygook. But as a canned philosophy it does contain some valid moral principles. And some valuable historical references as well. But for a normal adult to rely upon it in this day and age for comfort and revelation is disturbing, to put it kindly.

[seguin]

Obama won the Presidency, Al Gore won a Nobel Prize and an Oscar, and Karl Marx is still a popular "philosopher."

So No, we Haven't.

[Benjamin Lecrone]

While, I do find the actual philosophy of the Tao Te Ching far more to my liking than biblicalism that has nothing to do with any of what I said.

Despite their attempts at skirting the 1st Amendment, Christians aren't fighting to have the bible taught in schools because of it's "literary value". They want it taught to teach a non-secular Christian worldview on young impressionable people for their own religious reasons. That was my point.

As for the bible's literary value and my being an "ignorant philistine"...I am more than willing to admit that the bible has been an extremely influential book over the course of the last 1600 years. So what? That doesn't make it a good book any more than Avatar's making 2 billion dollars in the theaters makes it a good movie.

A. a book's quality is highly subjective and dependent upon the reader. I have tried to read the bible a few times but found it boring, choppy and irrelevant to modern times. On the other hand I found Richard Brookhiser's "What Would the Founders Do" to be a far better read and much more appropriate subject matter for school.

B. the current iterations of the bible are no more fitting to be called a "literary achievements of the ancients." than Sam Worthington's up coming "Clash of the Titan's" remake. The bible has been so cut and pasted and re-edited that it no longer is the true work of those who are said to have written it.

C. given that millions of people world wide use the bible as a measure of their own behavior and as a life guide handbook...it must be held to a higher standard than conventional pieces of literature. The same goes for the Torah, Quran and other religious texts. Waving the bilbe about and stammering that you should respect the good book because its old and important and significant and does good stuff is about as effective as waving the Code of Hammurabi and saying the same things. It doesn't matter. It's just an old book that people take WAY too seriously.

[William Shakespeare]

I thought it was pretty good.

[Troyn]

The first amendment deals with the gov't not establishing a state religion, not whether or not any religion could be taught in schools (I'm sure as a libertarian, you understand that public education shouldn't fall under the purvue of the gov't anyhow;I believe all religions with any major following should be discussed in schools). Thus,your skirting the first amendment issue is really a non-point. Your bigger issue seems to come from some inner demon (not literal) tormenting you and causing an outward hatred for anyone "religious" and especially Christian. You seem to have some intelligence and you have used that intelligence to gather a degree of knowledge on religious texts but your statement about the bible being irrelevant to modern times only proves you actually haven't taken the time and effort (as you have admitted) to actually read and study it. It can be tedious and does take effort, but there are timeless life lessons in the bible for all, whether you subscribe to Judaism/Christianity or not. In essence, your arguments while they show a degree of knowledge and intelligence on your part are based more on anger and personal bias than reason and only go to prove the cliche' "a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing"

[Pip]

If one starts at Genesis and just starts reading it straight through* (I did it once about 20 years ago), it is difficult. But if one starts with just the book of Matthew, it goes pretty well. After Matthew, one can just start exploring the rest.

* Exodus 26
1 Moreover thou shalt make the tabernacle with ten curtains of fine twined linen, and blue, and purple, and scarlet: with cherubims of cunning work shalt thou make them.

2 The length of one curtain shall be eight and twenty cubits, and the breadth of one curtain four cubits: and every one of the curtains shall have one measure.

3 The five curtains shall be coupled together one to another; and other five curtains shall be coupled one to another.

(It goes on and on like this)

[Vinny]

Another thing to consider is how profound an impact the bible had on human history. I find it curious how many supposed intellectuals have no knowledge of one of the most influential books in history. I think I remember reading that something like 10-15% of Americans read the bible daily. Unsurprising that they then turn around and support socialism and any form of tyrannical government that strikes their fancy at the time. Methinks they are in fact not intellectuals at all...

[Jales]

"Reading daily" and "have read it" are two different things. I don't have to read a book daily to appreciate it's significance on human history.

I also don't think you have to have read it at all to understand the impact it's had on history. That's like saying you have to read the Koran to understand the impact of 9/11.

[Chris]

You'd be even more amazed at how little those who profess its greatness (I.e., Christians) know about their book. Most only know what their pastors tell them (I.e., a VERY myopic view of the world and how it works). Ask your average Baptist about Song of Songs, and he'll likely tell you that it's about the love between God and man, and conveniently forget that the entire book is a poem about down and dirty sex between husband wife.

Try to suggest that the Bible wasn't compiled until about the 4th or 5th century and that politicians actually constructed the book, as opposed to god, and that it involved scandals, murder and the run of the mill ugly political stuff that goes on within every institution, and you'll be called a liar and a heathen.

As a trained medievalist, one thing I can say is that modern day Christians don't know shit about how the Bible came to be, and can't go much further in interpreting it than what is blathered out by their pastors on Sunday.

[Erisian]

Add to this the 'politicians' decided which codices would be included and those that would be excluded. The Gospel of Mary Called Magdala, the Gospel of Philip, the Sophia of Jesus the Christ and others found at Nag Hammadi and the Dead Sea Scrolls....

Also, the modern "Christian's" inability to read what IS printed in front of them; "Jesus WAS NOT married" even tho he is referred to as Rabbi in the New Testement. And as history has shown, at that time period in order for a Jewish male to receive the title of Rabbi he must have been married AND a father.

[jacob]

Are you saying that the folks reading the bible every day support socialism? I think you've got evangelicals all wrong...

[Pig Latino]

Just kill me now.

[marlok]

Dude, I used those verses for decorating ideas for my living room. You have got to learn to start taking the Lord's word literally.

[AlmightyJB]

Yeah I did the same thing about 15-20 years ago. it was really the first step in the process to becoming an Atheist, not that I didn't come into the process with a degree of skepticism. I was definitely convinced afterward that the Bible was never meant to be taken literally, and in fact, to do so misses the whole point of what the writers were trying to convey.

[Pig Latino]

I'd rather have a pair of aces than a parable.

[Troyn]

I agree with you on literalism, are you truly an atheist or an agnostic? I believe that atheism takes far more faith than any other belief system.

[Pig Latino]

Atheism takes far more faith than any other belief system

I'll take this one.

"Atheism," as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is:

Pronunciation: \??-th?-?i-z?m\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French ath?isme, from ath?e atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546

1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity

In other words, there is no "faith" in atheism. There is nothing to have a "faith" in. This god is no more! He has ceased to be! He's expired and gone to meet his maker! He's a stiff! Bereft of life, he rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed him to the cross he'd be pushing up the daisies! His metabolic processes are now history! He's off the twig! He's kicked the bucket. He's shuffled off his mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible. This is an ex-faith!

[Troyn]

If you believe in the "God is dead" thing that's a different story. My reference is to believing all that exists is pure coincidence/accident. That belief takes tons of faith.

[Jales]

Not really. Again, a lack of belief takes NO faith. While trees are lovely, starving people are not. While a sunset is lovely serial killers are not. Some beauty does not equal "all things created by something". Now, if everything was perfect, you'd be right.

A belief is a vague idea in which confidence is placed. Atheism is something that requires proof. Which is not belief, but fact. However, it is noted that the human mind generally measures others' behavior by one's own. Thus a liar will always believe others lie and those that require a god figure can't believe that others do not.

[Troyn]

Atheism requires belief just as much as any religion, in that empirically you cannot prove the existence or non-existence of a deity. As for the requirement of a god-figure, atheists simply replace the higher power with their own selves, a risky mental position I would think. I must admit I strive to understand the atheist position as it comes across as close-minded and arrogant when observed in many who profess it, much like the fundamentalist position in many religions. Agnostics at least admit they don't have all the answers and are open to reason, much like those who profess a spiritual belief but don't claim to have "the" spiritual belief.

[Jales]

Not exactly true. If someone was to go around saying they were on the fence about elves, unicorns, and leprechauns they'd be stared at as if crazy. Why should any other invisible being be exempt. I'm not being an ass, I'd really like to know why one being is exempt, but those that would claim to be on the fence about equally unproven things would be (and have) been derided?

By your logic, you should equally believe in fairies, leprechauns, elves, unicorns, etc. I never understand how come no one can answer this argument. Why should one unproven being be more acceptable than those others?

[Troyn]

The elves snd leprechauns analogy really doesn't fit here. When searching for a reason for existence there really are only two ways to go, a higher power or a big cosmic accident. I just believe the latter is a much bigger stretch and for me to believe it would take an incredible amount of faith. No one knows the answer for sure but to take an absolute position, which atheism is, and to claim there is no faith/belief involved, is arrogance personified.

[Tony]

I know the answer for sure. There is no anthropomorphic sky fairy who created the universe. There, that's settled.

[Troyn]

Brilliant reparte', Brilliant. Now go play with yourself in your nihilistic, fantasy world and leave those with reason alone.

[Skeptic]

"By your logic, you should equally believe in fairies, leprechauns, elves, unicorns, etc"

WHAT??? There is no such thing as unicorns? I am devastated.

[Malto Dextrin]

Jeez, I didn't expect a sort of Spanish Inquisition!

[Astropud]

The Bible is actually a compilation of a few dozen different books written by a few dozen different authors. (I don't know the exact numbers.)

[Jales]

Literary achievement? What literary achievement? I agree with the other poster in that it's boring and choppy. Add to that the endless pages of repetition in genealogy and the fact that it contradicts itself on a fairly regular basis I have to say it's not a literary achievement by any measure I can see. Having not read the Baghavad Gita or the Dao I can't attest to their literary achievement.

I wouldn't use modern relevancy as a hallmark of good literature, many pieces of good literature are no longer relevant but are still well written and are an example of the best of their time.

As far as popularity being a measuring stick of good literature I think one word proves that wrong: Twilight.

[Pip]

I don't find this boring and choppy:

Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy love is better than wine.

Because of the savour of thy good ointments thy name is as ointment poured forth, therefore do the virgins love thee.

Draw me, we will run after thee: the king hath brought me into his chambers: we will be glad and rejoice in thee, we will remember thy love more than wine: the upright love thee.

I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon.

Look not upon me, because I am black, because the sun hath looked upon me: my mother's children were angry with me; they made me the keeper of the vineyards; but mine own vineyard have I not kept.

Tell me, O thou whom my soul loveth, where thou feedest, where thou makest thy flock to rest at noon: for why should I be as one that turneth aside by the flocks of thy companions?

If thou know not, O thou fairest among women, go thy way forth by the footsteps of the flock, and feed thy kids beside the shepherds' tents.

I have compared thee, O my love, to a company of horses in Pharaoh's chariots.

Thy cheeks are comely with rows of jewels, thy neck with chains of gold.

We will make thee borders of gold with studs of silver.

While the king sitteth at his table, my spikenard sendeth forth the smell thereof.

A bundle of myrrh is my well-beloved unto me; he shall lie all night betwixt my breasts.

My beloved is unto me as a cluster of camphire in the vineyards of Engedi.

Behold, thou art fair, my love; behold, thou art fair; thou hast doves' eyes.

Behold, thou art fair, my beloved, yea, pleasant: also our bed is green.

The beams of our house are cedar, and our rafters of fir.

[Jales]

Hey, even a broken clock can be right twice a day. You still have to get through pages and pages of begats and over exuberance of minutiae as well as constant harping.

[marlok]

Well, maybe now that there's a comic book version, you'll have the patience to get through it.

[Jales]

Nah, why bother? Once was enough.

[Chris]

I'm no bible thumper. I think it's been abused and twisted to say many things that it doesn't.

But one thing I will say is that no book is "out dated". To think that just because something is old means that it can't give us insight in to the human condition is ridiculous.

All humans, no matter where OR when they existed, face the same obstacles. Love, hate, interpersonal relationships, relationships to power and authority are all things that we all experience whether an intellectual in 21st century America, a goat herder in the Sudan, an ancient Greek philosopher or a bunch of Jews from 5000 years ago. To think that "they're old, they can't teach us anything" is short sighted and disingenuous.

The bible, and every other book in existence, has a great deal to teach us about humanity.

The bible itself is not the problem. No writing ever is. It's the people who read it and try to thrust it in my face with some backwards ass interpretations that are the problem. There are no bad books, just bad readers.

[Jales]

I think there are bad books. Any book that can't keep the reader reading it is a bad book. What good does it do to have wonderful points in it if no one wants to read past all the crap to find them?

While some effort can be seen as worthwhile, some is just a waste of time. Why read something obscure and unwieldy when you can read something clear and concise and get the same lessons?

It's the people who read it and try to thrust it in my face with some backwards ass interpretations that are the problem.

Can't argue here...

[ryan]

"The bible, and every other book in existence, has a great deal to teach us about humanity."

Perhaps if 'us' are mentally retarded.

[William Walsh]

I just LOVE the part where it instructs husbands to kill their wives if they're not virgins. That's AWESOME -- and so Christain-like!

[Ken Shultz]

"But, seriously, it really irks me when religious types claim how the bible should be taught in schools and great for kids..."

I don't know about what John said, but I know Jesus told us in Matthew 7:6 not to sell straw to people building a straw man...

But wow, you really got us on that one! If you hadn't told us there was salacious material in the Bible and that Christians have been teaching their kids this stuff for thousands or years, me might never have known.

[Kyle]

Kind of like the constant 10 commandments on public property debates. Who really thinks this is good advice? Have these people actually read the rest of the rules in exodus and later leviticus?

For me, the failure to include rape or assault as absolute prohibitions, but remember to include "honor the sabbath" and "don't covet your neighbors property" as commandments de-legitimizes the whole damn book.

[dwcarkuff]

You know what I always found ridiculous (among a million other things) with respect to the moral tenets expressed in the bible? It's the claimed equivalence of "sins of heart" with sins involving actual behaviors. Wanting what your neighbor has is morally equivalent to actually stealing it. Wanting to fuck your neighbor's wife is morally equivalent to actually fucking her. Hell, if the desires for these proscibed behaviors are just as bad as the actual behaviors, well then, I might just as well fuck my neighbor's wife.

I think this mentality has helped poison society where the emphasis is not merely on how people behave and how they treat each other (exactly where IMHO it should be), but also on their motives, feelings and desires.

[Michael Ejercito]

You know what I always found ridiculous (among a million other things) with respect to the moral tenets expressed in the bible? It's the claimed equivalence of "sins of heart" with sins involving actual behaviors. Wanting what your neighbor has is morally equivalent to actually stealing it. Wanting to fuck your neighbor's wife is morally equivalent to actually fucking her. Hell, if the desires for these proscibed behaviors are just as bad as the actual behaviors, well then, I might just as well fuck my neighbor's wife.

Nothing equivalent about that.

Desires lead to actions.

[Jales]

Ah, so there is no self control?

[Chris]

Which is why we need the government to tell us what we can and cannot do.

Duh!

[Ken Shultz]

Adultery covers rape.

The term adultery apparently meant to alienate someone. Sort of like the alienation of affections tort that's still on the books in Britain, I think...

Although there's still a question of whether it's possible to rape your wife in some misogynist's heads, I don't think anyone but you has ever been confused about whether raping someone you weren't married to constituted adultery.

But don't let that get in the way of whatever it is you're doing.

[Kyle]

It appears you are using the common fundementalist trope of vastly expanding the bible's words meaning to fit within contemporary society.

Adultery in our language and society means extramarital sex. Using our syntax, an unmarried person cannot commit adultery.

[kinnath]

Adultery covers breaking your vows with your spouse. Fornication covers the rest.

[Kyle]

But thats not in the 10 commandments. Furthermore, failing to distinguish between fornication and rape is a seriously ridiculous shortcoming.

[Geezer]

Before the fucking suffragettes screwed things up, women were chattel property and rape was a property crime. If someone breaks your stuff, that's a crime. If you break your own stuff, so be it.

[Michael Ejercito]

Before the fucking suffragettes screwed things up, women were chattel property and rape was a property crime

How did men get away with treating women as property?

[Joel]

Women didn't have guns.

Though they did have tent pegs. See "Jael and Sisera". People did seriously screwed-up things in the Book of Judges.

[Michael Ejercito]

Though they did have tent pegs. See "Jael and Sisera". People did seriously screwed-up things in the Book of Judges.

Indeed.

The last verse of that book summed it up.

[Shyle]

It appears you're using the common anti-Christian trope of grabbing little bits of the Bible out of context and using them as an excuse for not needing to read the rest of it or have the slightest clue what you're talking about as you bash people far wiser and more literate in the Bible than yourself.

The original Hebrew word translated "adultery" in the King James version is actually a much broader and more all-inclusive term for every kind of sexual immorality, including rape, fornication, sodomy, and bestiality. No one is expanding the meaning of the English word; rather, it was the King James translation that constricted the original meaning by calling it "adultery" instead of something more general. English may be a very complex language, but could still use some broadening.

Of course, since atheists and other Christian-haters pride themselves for not knowing God, I guess we shouldn't be surprised that they pride themselves for being know-nothings on related subjects as well.

[Kyle]

Unlike the majority of christians that I know, I've actually read the entire bible. This act makes the version I was taught in Sunday school less appealing, not more.

It is also odd that you suggest such an expansive definition of adultery, which if that were the case, would render the operative effect of the word moot. I doubt that you are correct in this definition, and my ten seconds of google suggest that you are not. (See, e.g., http://www.levitt.com/hebrew/commandments.html)

[Ken Shultz]

Okay, you got us! The Bible doesn't condemn rape? Is that what I'm supposed to pretend?

It took 3,500 years to find it, but you finally seem to have found the Old Testament's Achilles heel!

What are you going to work on next--a perpetual motion machine?

[Michael Ejercito]

Okay, you got us! The Bible doesn't condemn rape? Is that what I'm supposed to pretend?

Read 2 Samuel 13.

Also read Deuteronomy 22:28-29, where a rapist's punishment is to pay the vi tim's father fifty shekels of silver and, if the victim desires it, to be responsible for providing for the victim for life .

[WhollyAthiestBatman]

"Also read Deuteronomy 22:28-29, where a rapist's punishment is to pay the vi tim's father fifty shekels of silver..."

What would that be in today's dollars?

[Refutation]

Read 2 Samuel 13.

Long story short: Amnon rapes Tamar; David is furious, but his moral authority is undermined by his affair with Bathsheba, so he doesn't avenge the rape; Tamar's brother Absalom is also furious and takes matters into his own hands, arranging for Amnon to be killed after waiting a few years to put him off his guard. David likewise lacks the moral authority to avenge this brutal act of vigilantism.

And your point is...?

Also read Deuteronomy 22:28-29, where a rapist's punishment is to pay the victim's father fifty shekels of silver and, if the victim desires it, to be responsible for providing for the victim for life.

Not so! A translation guide to the words wrongly translated as "rape" there in some versions, indicates that the term as used in the passage actually means the guy "takes" (taphas) the gal and "lays" (shakab) her. A parallel command in Exodus 22:16-17 uses the word pathah which means to "seduce" or "entice" the woman, among other things. (The word also implies some deceit was involved; in other words, he may have tricked her into it.) The perpetrator of this particular act is not a rapist except for maybe in some vague statutory sense, but rather a fornicator.

Since he didn't grab somebody else's betrothed bride-to-be, she's not exactly cheating on anyone and there's no angry groom to mollify; however, premarital sex is a disgrace to her family and therefore the guy's on the hook for the bride price and a possible wedding at sword-point (shotguns not yet having been invented). The Exodus passage also indicates the father can refuse to let them be married (so if a guy wants to marry a gal but the father won't allow it, he can't force the father's hand just by talking the girl into sleeping with him), but he's still on the hook for the bride price.

Fifty shekels of silver, by the way, is about 1 and 1/4 pounds or 0.6 kilograms of silver. As of today, silver is at about $17 an ounce, so that's about $255 in today's money. Of course, this was also written back when everybody was living in what we'd call Third World conditions today (you know, like the people they tell you in those charity infomercials are living on a dollar-and-a-half a day), so 50 shekels of silver would have taken a much heftier bite even out of a relatively rich guy's coffers at the time.

[Michael Ejercito]

Long story short: Amnon rapes Tamar; David is furious, but his moral authority is undermined by his affair with Bathsheba, so he doesn't avenge the rape; Tamar's brother Absalom is also furious and takes matters into his own hands, arranging for Amnon to be killed after waiting a few years to put him off his guard. David likewise lacks the moral authority to avenge this brutal act of vigilantism.

And your point is...?

Note that the story portrays rape as a horrible thing, inflicting huge psychological and emotional trauma on the victim.

[Chicken George]

Also read Deuteronomy 22:28-29, where a rapist's punishment is to pay the vi tim's father fifty shekels of silver and, if the victim desires it, to be responsible for providing for the victim for life .

Well, yes. That's because rape hurt a woman's marital prospects and was functionally a property crime against her father.

[Astropud]

"It is also odd that you suggest such an expansive definition of adultery..."

He wasn't 'suggesting' anything. Read the post. Many of the translations from the original Hebrew were not entirely accurate. I would expect many still aren't.

[The Pharmacologist]

"It appears you are using the common fundementalist trope of vastly expanding the bible's words meaning to fit within contemporary society."

YES. They do this all the time. They expand the vague language when it suits them (as in this case), but use literal translations in other parts (creationism anyone?). I read an unintentionally hilarious post once where a guy was trying to debunk the "talking snake" debacle by saying that the word "serpent" could mean "snake" but could also mean "bad person"! I got a good laugh out of that. They just can't let go.

[Ken Shultz]

"It appears you are using the common fundementalist trope of vastly expanding the bible's words meaning to fit within contemporary society."

It's called "protestantism".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P.....testantism

Really, see there was this guy, Gutenberg.... And it comes in different languages now?

Please tell me this isn't the first time you've heard that protestants interpret the bible for themselves?

[Kyle]

Ken, where exactly does it condemn rape? Or slavery? All I find are implicit or explicit endoresements of both practices.

My personal favorite is in Genesis when Lot is spared as the one rightious man in Sodom, after he offers his daughters to be raped in place of his sons.

[Ken Shultz]

"Ken, where exactly does it condemn rape? Or slavery? All I find are implicit or explicit endoresements of both practices."

It's among the central tenets of Christianity. I'm supposed to treat you like you were worthy of Jesus' sacrifice.

...everybody I meet. If Jesus died for you, then I'm not a Christian if I treat you like you were unworthy of that sacrifice.

The Bible's full of stories of people who did all sorts of terrible things--things you're not even mentioning.

Manasseh had Isaiah stuffed in a hollow log and sawed in half 'cause he admonished the kind for worshiping idols. In the end, Manasseh repented.

That doesn't mean the bible teaches that it's okay to saw people in half or worship idols.

Really, there are plenty of excellent ways to attack the Bible, if that's what you want to do, why distort what it says?

And what it lays out is a system which led to our concept of rights. Whether you want to say it just provided the fertile soil for that social adaptation we call "rights" to grow in or whether Christianity is the source of that idea itself, one of the basic Christian tenets is that everyone Jesus died for deserves to be treated well, and mistreatment of others is inherently un-Christian.

Whether there are examples of people in history or the Bible who didn't treat each other well is completely beside the point, as I've already said.

[Refutation]

Genesis 19:6: Lot went outside to meet them [the mob of rapists] and shut the door behind him. [Emphasis mine.]

Genesis 19:9: "Get out of our way," they replied. And they said "this fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them." [Emphasis mine.]

Lot's offer looks a lot less cowardly when you consider that he was standing in front of everybody else in his house with no easy way to get back inside. If the Sodomites had gotten their way, Lot would have been the first rape victim. Much as they wouldn't have liked his inconvenient adherence to the ancient rule of hospitality, he wasn't exactly subjecting his daughters to anything he wasn't facing himself for protecting his guests.

[Ken Shultz]

It's a ridiculous proposition, isn't it?

That individuals shouldn't interpret what they read for themselves, that they shouldn't consider what they read in terms of whatever culture and circumstances they find themselves in?

Like I said, I see an army of strawmen under construction around here, and a lot of otherwise reasonable people hard at work making them.

[The Pharmacologist]

"It's a ridiculous proposition, isn't it?

That individuals shouldn't interpret what they read for themselves, that they shouldn't consider what they read in terms of whatever culture and circumstances they find themselves in?

Like I said, I see an army of strawmen under construction around here, and a lot of otherwise reasonable people hard at work making them."

This post itself is a strawman under construction.

[Kyle]

If that is what you see, then you are blinded by a dogmatic world view with little basis in reality.

This thread started with a simple request: Why don't the 10 commandments prohibit rape? After many himms and haws, your lack of rebuttal confirms my suspicion.

[Ken Shultz]

The Ten Commandments do prohibit rape. And the Christianity that sprang from it does as well. I'd start with Matthew 25: 34-40.

I shouldn't even be answering this. Suggesting that Jewish tradition, the Torah or Christianity don't frown on rape is just silly.

If you're gonna attack Christianity, you might want to learn something about it.

I'd suggest starting with the Sermon on the Mount.

You might with a quick read, Tolstoy's "The Kingdom of God is Within You". It's available for free online or for Kindle...

In that book, he basically takes the Sermon on the Mount literally and walks away a Christian Anarchist.

I believe Jesus was basically a libertarian, and I can only hope that someday we'll be half as successful getting our message across as he was.

I think we could learn a lot from his approach, actually. ...which didn't involve political parties or elections.

[Kyle]

As a practical matter, as noted, I consider myself quite versed in Christianity. And I am well aware of many moral prescriptions, including the prohibition of rape, that most christian churches make (the catholic clergy notwithstanding).

My point is that the bible is much less clear on these prohibitions, and as I noted, implicitly endorses many nasty things that I suspect your flavor of christian church condemns.

Your Matthew passage, btw, makes no mention of prohibiting rape. Or slavery.

[Joseph Dethrone]

Bah! What the hell is supposed to be "out of date" about sex and violence? All the violence in Mel Gibson's gore-o-rific Passion movie was awesome and I was wishing he'd make more movies out of all these stories. I liked the whole teen pregnancy scandal and romantic angle in The Nativity Story too, though it still wasn't as good as The Passion.

Finding out about all the R-rated stuff in the Bible when I was a teenager made me a lot more eager to read it and believe it; real life on every page and no squeamishness about adult topics, though it's all done in good taste. (It says things like "Then they had sex." It doesn't say things like "She had a screaming orgasm as he pulled her legs up over his shoulders and rammed all eight inches of his monstrous man-meat into her weeping little camel toe!")

Stories from the Bible ought to be taught in schools the same way people show movies in schools: stuff appropriate to each age group. You show kindergartners the G-rated stuff, older elementary kids the PG-rated stuff, middle schoolers the PG-13-rated stuff and high school teenagers the R-rated stuff. Of course, this is just a general guideline. Even Hanna Barbera's relatively tame Greatest Adventure: Stories From The Bible series had some nice PG-rated bloodshed in it for the David and Goliath story, and I wouldn't shrink from showing that to kindergartners.

Now I don't usually much care for Crumb's artistic style, but if this comic book rendition is even half so good as John is making it out to be, I definitely want a few copies for my whole extended family, maybe even one for my church's library. This notion that Christian stuff all has to be sanitized of anything too scary for a five-year-old to see is not at all true to the faith, and I welcome the demise of censorship based on this ludicrous notion with my arms wide open.

[Pip]

Eight inches is hardly "monsterous". Well, maybe to you.

[Jimmy 'Crack' Corn]

Pip,

Somehow I knew that would be all you got out of his post.

[Jales]

I'm more disturbed that the R rated stuff is what made him like and believe in the bible...there are so many levels of that one that disturb me.

I totally missed the monstrous penis. (c'mon, just don't)

[Jman]

I guess you'd rather we all believe that life is sunshine and unicorns and people are all basically good and nothing that isn't G-rated has ever happened in real life at all. That must be some hale stuff you're smoking there, Jales. Take another hit, and it won't seem so disturbing that no one else believes in that wonderful world where you're living.

[Jales]

Yes, that's EXACTLY what I meant by that..

Mind Reading...you failed.

[Jman]

There's no such thing as telepathy, alas; and even if there were, that mind of yours is so clouded with delusions that it probably wouldn't work.

[Joseph Dethrone]

C'mon, you don't think grim and gritty is realistic? Haven't you ever considered how much more realistic and believable some of the stories you've heard might have sounded if they'd been more violent, included more sexual material, and weren't always upbeat with some pat moral message conveniently provided at the end? If the Bible hadn't had all those horrible incidents and downbeat endings in it, I seriously would begin to doubt it was a historical record.

Reading the mature unabridged version of the Bible after you've read the abridged versions for children is like watching a World War II documentary after you've watched G.I. Joe cartoons. It doesn't all make for the most pleasant viewing, but it's a whole lot more credible and educational.

[Joseph Dethrone]

As if that weren't revealing enough, your spelling is also wrong according to both my dictionary and my browser's spell-checker.

[Troy]

Warty.....now there is the epitome of monsterous.

[seguin]

Depends on which measurement that is.

Radius along longitudinal axis?

[Chris]

Should we also tell Qur'an stories and tales? Or stories from ancient Hindu texts?

If we do, must we qualify them as "stories"? Will bible stories also be qualified as just "stories"? Or are we to set a double standard which somehow sets biblical stories apart from those of other religions?

The only other religious texts I remember from school (pre college) were the Greek myths, which were also great religious texts and stories in their day. They were explicitly explained as stories. Will we do the same with the bible, or will it receive special treatment?

I'm okay if we put it on par with the rest of religious literature.

[Joseph Dethrone]

Some of those stories are probably true too. The historian Josephus certainly seemed to believe the Old Testament was essentially an accurate history. Although the Homeric works are mostly given as fictionalized accounts, the Greeks did in fact believe in the histories of Heaven and Earth as explained by certain earlier writers such as Hesiod. (Trying to understand Hellenism by reading Homer's stories would be like trying to understand Christianity by reading the Arthurian chronicles, so that's not really an applicable analogy you're using there.)

The Bible's stories, except where specified (e.g. "And Jesus told them a parable...") are also given as history, and with considerable backing from various archaeological finds. Other religious literature does not have the same level of concrete evidence and so many correlating accounts for it. If archaeologists ever do find evidence for such things, those accounts may also deserve to be taught as history or at least as biography.

[Chris]

I have no problem with history, but the Bible is not a history as you suppose, but a literary event which, at times verifies historical findings. Beowulf for Christians. The places exist. Maybe even some of the people too. But the events cannot be portrayed as "historical."

But that's not important.

What is important is that besides a few things which can certainly be validated, names, actions etc are all meant to do one thing: drive someone towards belief in a single version of God, not give historical lessons. That those may have once been the same thing, should not mean that they are still. There are some things that are historical impossibility (did that dude really get swallowed by a whale only to be spit up 3 days later?), but you would like them to be taught as history?

Josephus? Can you really not find a historian a little younger than ~2000 years to look at the Bible as a purely historical document? One that has any sense of credibility anyways?

I doubt it. Because if you can, he's not a historian, but a clergyman.

None of this isn't to say that some of the things that are told in the Bible are not somehow based on truth, but to try and pass it all on as truth is propaganda, not history. Afterall, the Qur'an is filled with half historical truths as well. So is Homer (which is taught in schools, but qualified specifically as a story and not some sort of a real history lesson).

So my question remains.

Is it okay to teach the Qur'an alongside the Bible in schools?

Or does the Bible get special treatment?

[Jeff P]

Anyone remember Marshall Efron's Painless Sunday School? I think it was syndicated but it might have been on CBS.
Anyway the Crumb book is great. The line work and composition is wonderful.
And most great artists are degenerate freaks.

[Art-P.O.G.]

And most great artists are degenerate freaks.

+1. I've achieved all of this so far except the "great" part.

[Pro Libertate]

I really liked that program as a kid.

[john]

Is it a sin to jerk off to this mag. lol

[Mark]

maybe...:P

[Luke]

Probably; but if you go make love to your wife after reading this book and you both have a lot more fun doing it, I'd say you and she are doing some good works.

[Ring Jones]

Hey, anything Genius is good right? It has to be!

RT
http://www.anonymous-proxy.us.tc

[sage]

Wow, this bot is a Genius.

[Art-P.O.G.]

Anon bot could generate an honest living "writing" non sequitur reviews of literature and film.

[BakedPenguin]

Shit, he's already more coherent (and honest) than ABC Radio film reviews.

[Slavering Pervert]

Can I get it a 7-11?

[;-)]

No, PB.

[JD]

BTW, if you like this idea, you might like The Brick Testament, Bible stories told with Lego figures. It includes some doozies like Twenty-Two Kingdoms Massacred from Joshua 11.

[Michael Ejercito]

The Brick Testament is a classic .

I can not wait until the author tells the story of Elijah, Isaiah, and Jeremiah.

[Syd Henderson]

I like the advice on "When to stone your children" and "When to stone your entire family." Not to mention, "When to marry your sister-in-law" (more precisely, your brother's widow).

[Almanian]

JD, thanks for the tip. This site rules.

Lego God was PISSED in Job. And you can tell Satan is Satan cause of the Steven Seagal eyebrows. Epic...

[Tman]

My personal favorite commentary regarding what an absolutely batshit crazy genocidal lunatic God was in the old testament (and he was-good lord did he seem to have some anger management issues) is by Jay Pinkerton.

I linked this months ago in some other thread, but it's worth linking again.

Jay Pinkerton's Back O' The Bible

[Jman]

Actually, when I read some of the batshit insane misanthropic pro-sodomy and pro-abortion propaganda you assholes are spewing here daily, I can only wonder why God doesn't get out the sword and get busy again. There are millions of misanthropic self-righteous genocidal pricks such as yourself in need of a preemptive genocide. As the old Aesop about the crows and the hemp says, "Destroy the seeds of evil before they grow up to destroy you."

Unfortunately, the best we're likely to get in that department is something like the situation described in the book of Habbakuk, where God sends the Babylonians to slaughter the wicked Israelites for sacrificing their babies to idols (among other things). In your case, it looks like all those innocent Islamofascist terrorists you idiots are always defending on this board (one of whom just got taken up again; I notice you peace-at-any-price loserdopians are conspicuously silent about that embarrassing result on this board) will probably be the ones sent to purge our country of you guys.

At least there'll be some delicious irony: your former allies will thank you for your treasonous anti-war bleeding-heart bullshit by cutting off your heads. They'll also slaughter every cock-sucker and man-hating dyke bitch of you who hypocritically refused to speak up against Islamist oppression of women even as you bashed your own defenders for liberating them! I can't think of a single agnostic or atheist I've ever met online who hasn't merited in full with all their hateful lies the good old-fashioned Old Testament justice you abhor. So cry me a river, loserdopians... of blood... from your decapitated corpses...

[Kyle]

Ahh the murderous, barbarian christian. You, Jman, are a fine example of your breed.

[Islamist]

Then you're gonna love the Mahdi!

[Jimmy 'Crack' Corn]

+250

[Pig Latino]

when I read some of the batshit insane misanthropic pro-sodomy and pro-abortion propaganda you assholes are spewing here daily

Ah, Jman. Too bad abortion cannot be retroactive.

[Islamist]

That's what you think, infidel.

[Islamist]

Never heard of a "scimitar post-birth abortion" I take it?

[Tman]

There is hardly anything more hypocritically satisfying than a compassionate merciful Bible thumper wishing for my decapitation.

What would Jesus do? I'm pretty sure he would shake his head in sorrow at how his followers have completely twisted and mangled his original message.

Also- "Loserdopians" is hands down the lamest insult I've seen issued here at H&R.

Try again hypocrite.

[NeonCat]

May you be slain with the jawbone of an ass, ass.

[Aresen]

We'd have to rip the jawbone off his face, first.

[The Reverend]

I seem to recall some peaceful hippy type saying something about not telling your brother to remove the speck from your eye when there is a plank in your own. You, bub, seem to have a whole damn lumber yard in there.

[Jman]

Then you must have smoked too much of that substance from which you loserdopians get half your proper title.

Jesus was no flower child and no pacifist. He told his followers that he had come to bring divisions that would turn relative against relative. He called a whole bunch of really righteous-sounding people a "brood of vipers" and asked them how they could possibly escape from Hell. He pointed to Jerusalem's temple and told his followers that one day not one stone of it would remain standing on any other. More directly, he also violently drove a bunch of money-changers out of the temple with a whip for making a house of prayer into a den of robbers.

He also claimed to be God, the self-same whom your heathen loudmouth here was bashing for ordering the complete annihilation of the pagan Canaanite nations. When the Israelites took up the same practices as the Canaanites, he had them similarly purged, first by the Assyrians and then by the Babylonians. Then he arranged for Babylon to be overthrown as well.

You God-hating scum are always trying to make people feel sorry for all the truly evil people he destroyed: Canaan's child-sacrificing pagans, Bethel's prophet-threatening youths (What, you never heard of "youth" too young to shave threatening a man's life? Down in Brazil, there are thousands of those!), and the gang-rapists of Sodom and Gomorrah. Of course, this sympathy of yours for these scum is indeed quite consistent with all your attempts to garner sympathy for the likes of Saddam Hussein, Planned Parenthood, the Islamofascists, and every other Hell-bound mass murderer, both collective and individual. Why should I feel sorry for your being subjected to your own evil? You and the genocidal murderous slime you condemn God for destroying will share the same ultimate fate.

You think I merely "hope" for your violent slaughter? By the look of things, it's a done deal already! You've quite actively thrown away all our country's defenses, smeared the God from whom this once-great country's founding principles derive, and praised humanity's abolitionists every chance you got. About the only way I can see anything happening differently is if the Communist Chinese should beat the Islamists to the punch, and it doesn't look like they will. So, beheadings and rivers of your blood running in the streets it is! I hope you'll understand when I say I intend to remain out in the countryside for the duration. "Let he who is on the housetop not come down to take anything out of the house" and all that, you know.

First things first, though: the Democrats have got a few more elections to steal before they can get busy stripping away every last one of our country's defenses. I'm sure you'll be eager to help them with both efforts. Then of course they'll be passing even more laws than they already have to strip the public square of religion, laws which will mysteriously fail to be enforced against Islamists. You loserdopians will also be helping them with that, I'm sure.

Then, and only then, comes the invasion and the slaughter. I can't say I'll be be enjoying life under the new regime very much, but to use one of your favorite arguments from the last election, at least they won't be any worse than the other guys. (That's you, suckers!) Since you traitors won't be around anymore to denounce me to them for my predictions, I shall be content to bear my suffering under them until they, like the Babylonians, are overthrown and our liberties are restored.

[Chris]

Your time has come and gone. It was called the fucking middle ages.

[jacob]

Of course, this sympathy of yours for these scum is indeed quite consistent with all your attempts to garner sympathy for the likes of Saddam Hussein, Planned Parenthood, the Islamofascists, and every other Hell-bound mass murderer, both collective and individual.

The problem with dicksucking idiots like you, Reverend Haggard, is that you must routinely practice cognitive dissonance to spout your nonsense. If there's mass murder taking place that does not spur your interests (Zimbabwe, Darfur, Rwanda), mysteriously you are silent. Pre-emptive warfare, when selectively applied, makes no sense.

In addition to that nonsense, you fail to realize that when we invade other countries and lead to the deaths of innocent people, we're no better than them. I guess the God-hating folks in the Catholic Church didn't know what they were talking about when they denounced the invasion of Iraq? Or do you dipshit evangelicals have a monopoly on morality?

You ought to be ashamed of yourself for using God's name in your mindless drivel, and twisting His message around. You are one sick fuck, of the worst kind.

[Troy]

Because God is a lazy cocksucker.

[yet another dave]

jman that is some good shit... Do you know why the god doesn't open up on all the sinners? There are two answers that may apply pick the one you find most suitable
1) the god doesn't exist
2) the god doesn't give a floating shit what we do

[Jman]

I call bullshit on both.

1) So what's your problem with anyone's rejoicing over the extermination of random collections of atoms such as yourself?

2) If God doesn't care, why aren't the Canaanites, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Hellenists, and the whole friggin' Roman Empire around anymore? How is it that God's enemies keep coming to such a bad end?

No, I'm quite certain God exists and has destroyed whole nations of evil people. In this cursed Hobbesian world where historically might has been the only right, God's destroying whole nations makes and has made perfect good sense. I mean it really couldn't have happened to nicer people. It's that mercy and compassion stuff--limited as it is--that's the true mystery, not the extermination of genocidal mass-murderers like yourself.

[Mikey]

Jesus Tapdancing Christ! You need to take this shit to TV. Brilliant theater.

"If God doesn't care, why aren't the Canaanites, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Hellenists, and the whole friggin' Roman Empire around anymore? How is it that God's enemies keep coming to such a bad end?"

Haha, everything comes to an end, pal. I seem to remember the Israelites took a pretty good long break for a while. You know, the folks that are closest to you ideologically are the same one that were cutting off heads in Iraq.

[Mikey]

Jesus Tapdancing Christ! You need to take this shit to TV. Brilliant theater.

"If God doesn't care, why aren't the Canaanites, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Hellenists, and the whole friggin' Roman Empire around anymore? How is it that God's enemies keep coming to such a bad end?"

Haha, everything comes to an end, pal. I seem to remember the Israelites took a pretty good long break for a while. You know, the folks that are closest to you ideologically are the same one that were cutting off heads in Iraq.

[dbcooper]

Best tirade in ages!

[Aresen]

Speaking of things that are "batshit insane misanthropic", there is this little gem from 2Kings 2:

23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. "Go on up, you baldhead!" they said. "Go on up, you baldhead!" 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.

So, for calling Elisha a bald headed old coot, God has forty-two children torn to bits by bears. ("Youth" in the parlance of the time would refer to someone under the age of 14.)

[Ken Shultz]

"So, for calling Elisha a bald headed old coot, God has forty-two children torn to bits by bears. ("Youth" in the parlance of the time would refer to someone under the age of 14.)"

If you ever talk to some real Christians about this sort of thing (not to mention some real Muslims), you may hear them some crazy stuff like that not everything that's written in the Bible necessarily happened just the way it says...

No really.

[bob]

blessed are the peacemakers, for their's is the kingdom of heaven, or something like that. Gotta love the "true" christian mass murderers.

[Jman]

So how much peace have you "true" loserdopian mass-murderers made lately, Bob?

[Malto Dextrin]

Awww, you're just turning the other cheek, right?

[The Gobbler]

"it is turning the Bible into titillation."

Well we can't have that!

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Song of Solomon+2&version=KJV

[Really Old Joke]

Don't you understand, man? Sexual arousal is bad. I mean, it might lead to dancing.

[Tim]

But is it art?

[Pig Latino]

More to the point, is that a nip slip on Eve?

[Art-P.O.G.]

Nah, that's on Adam.

[Barney Frank]

Whaaat?

[Syd Henderson]

Yes, it's art.

[Troy]

Does this long tract show Lot's kids getting him drunk and fucking him?

@ John. I would iterate the points Benjamin Lacrone made above. This is a fucking horrible piece of literature. Just because billions of idiots fall for it doesn't make it any better.

What I can't stand is how christian "think" they have answers to modern problems in this text. Take, say stem cell research. That vomit some line in the bible. When you actually go to the text you think "this doesn't have a fucking god damn thing to do with stem cell research."

[Syd Henderson]

Yes it does show Lot and his daughters.

[Prolefeed]

I've read the entire Quadruple Combo (which sounds like a artery-clogging burger, but isn't) cover to cover -- the Old and New Testaments, the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, etc.

It is an eye-opening look at the full range of perversions and dysfunctions people are capable of.

My Mormon home teacher was astonished that I could have read all that and not believed it was true. I replied that I was astonished that anyone could have read it all and still believed it wasn't mostly made up.

[The Pharmacologist]

"I replied that I was astonished that anyone could have read it all and still believed it wasn't mostly made up."

Same here. I love it when people ask me how can I look at the world around me and not think there is a god. I respond by asking them how can they look at the world around them and think that there is one?

[Kyle]

I'll cop to not reading the entire book of mormon, but the few choice pieces I have read (like the Israeli's vacationing in the U.S. for a while) are hillarious.

Newer religions, for me, are more fun to skewer because they can't try to hide behind the fog of time quite as well.

[The Pharmacologist]

It is funny, I'll admit. I have several Mormon friends, actually. Very smart, very, very friendly people. But to believe such nonsense, it boggles my mind.

[Jman]

One needs only look at Theism's achievements (medieval Europe, the USA back when it was still a Christian nation) and place them next to Atheism's achievements (the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, the UN) to see why nobody with half a brain has enough faith to believe in the godless world only an Atheist would be deluded enough to think could ever have existed in the first place.

[Aresen]

"Theism's achievements (medieval Europe..."

Which acheivements are you refering to?
-The destruction of the libraries of Alexandia, Rome, Athens and Cyprus?
-The annihilation of the Celts in what is now Western France?
-The destruction of the Roman baths and sanitation systems?
-The annihilation of the Pruthenians in what is now Eastern Poland? (The name "Prussia" survived, the people didn't.)
-The annihilation of the Cathars?
-The oppression and starvation of countless millions of peasants to build the (admittedly) magnificent cathedrals?
-The Albigensian Crusade? (Ca. 1,000,000 Jews slaughtered long before the development of firearms.)
-The First Crusade, with hundreds of thousands of believers dying en route while sacking, burning and slaughtering the inhabitants of hundreds of towns and cities along the way?

{At first, I thought you were possibly trolling for amusement. Now I'm convinced you are a first class nut.}

[jacob]

+1

yeah, not only is he a first class nut, he writes the stupidest shit I've ever read then runs away. He hasn't responded to a single post directed at him on this board. If I were him, I wouldn't either.

[tony]

deluded Jman...the USA was never a christian nation...that is soo Limbaugh I swear...

The USA was started by deists who were also Masons, in fact, many founding fathers like Thomas Paine were very anti-christian in their views...and it's unwise to make value judgements based on people beliefs or lack of beliefs, for no belief in God or disbelief in God will ever determine the moral quality of a persons life...most, if not all of our founding fathers who did believe in a higher power where also slave owners, as opposed to Joseph Stalin, the atheist who destroyed untold millions of lives.

My point is that, for belief or disbelief, you're screwed if you're overall attitude and disposition is that some people are more important than others, and therefore, have the right to control others...so making your little pitiful lists of atheisms achievements versus theisms achievements won't do anybody any good...you're just taking your beliefs and disbeliefs way too seriously! You can stop that at any time, and just get along!

[Chris]

Eh. The only difference between religions and cults is attendance.

They're all just as wacked up.

[Kyle]

I tend to prefer cult chicks (totally submissive to authority and utterly crazy insane) versus religious chicks (totally self-rightious and nauseating, even after they cash in their promise rings)

[TheZeitgeist]

As someone who grew up in eastern Idaho, I know the Mormon schtick better than most.

Mormonism strikes me as almost an Americanized version of Islam. The basic story is the same: Abraham founded the perfect Church...then the Jews ruined it. Jesus saved, but then the Christians corrupted that, so God talks to super-prophet (Joe Smith instead of Muhammed) via an angel (Moroni vs. Gabriel) for a Final Edition of religious tripe (the BoM vs. the Koran).

The difference in evolution between Mormons and Islam was different though. Islam showed up in a vacuum of political power, enabling its founder to let his ego run to militant excess. Mormonism though showed up in the shadow of a buegeoning superpower.

[Michael Ejercito]

The morality of genocide is revealed in 1 Samuel 15.

[bob]

I believe in a literal translation of the Bible. Yep, even though there are 4 different stories of the same event that are all different.

[tony]

literal, as in literal English?...that's crazy! In light of the fact that the Bible wasn't even written in English, to assume that you can take the Bible straight is just nuts...the fact is that there's a whole labyrinth of weird logic, metaphor and mathematics that exist in some of the Books of the Bible...you can't possibly think that the world was created in '7 or 6 DAYS' in our literal definition of 'days'...come on man...if you would've just said that the books of the Bible are mind blowing books, I'd agree with you...but your literal taking position will not give you the religious experience that a serious study of the Bible's many depths and dimensions can. You really have no clue about the grandiose-ness that is the Bible...you're limiting yourself way too much, and hence, extracting from it, a moral sense that you cannot live by!

[K]

I loved Crumb when he was zinging the new left for their hypocracy and pomposity. He was virtually the only guy doing it who was also on the "inside". You never actually knew where he stood in those days because he hit both sides.

Then he outed himself as a socialist, moved to France and became just another leftist cartoonist with a BBW fetish. Now he joins the legion of Bible mockers, or does he?

[KateFitz]

Actually, as a comic book fan, I've read various interviews on the subject and talked to the people who interviewed him and by all accounts he's sincere. He's totally into Genesis. He's just depicting it as he sees it, and since he's a wacky disturbing alt-comix dude, he depicts it in a wacky disturbing alt-comix way. Because that's how his art works.

[Proud to Be a Libertarian]

You want to know one of the reasons that I have trouble convincing other people to join the Libertarian movement...just read the vitriolic attitude thrown at Christian beliefs in the comments in this thread.

For a group of people that believe in Liberty, Freedom, and Letting others Live and Let live...there are a lot of close minded idiots in the Libertarian movement.

Honestly, if you don't like or believe Christian tenets why go to great lengths not only to refute, but belittle, denigrate, and insult those who do.

Religion and politics shouldn't mix...

[tony]

amen brother! Amen...I wonder why 'reason' readers engage in so much un'reason?

[AblueSilkworm]

Drink?

[RockLibertyWarrior]

Arguing on the internet is like the Special Olympics, even if you do win your still retarded.

[Senator Sexton Hardcastle]

You know who else is retarded? People who use "your" when they mean to say "you're."

[louboutinvips]

Eh. The only difference between religions and cults is attendance.
beautiful shoes:
http://www.christianlouboutinvips.com

[louboutinshopz]

thank you very much.
http://www.christianlouboutinolshop.com

[abercrombie london]

As I was busy looking for the special gift, I saw a woman enter into the store with a big bag, she was wearing an abercrombie ,abercrombie and fitch , abercrombie london and she looked nice.

[tony]

I'd love to read this book from cover to cover, and it does seem an interesting adaptation of the Book of Genesis...in English...

...in it's original languages, however, you'd see that there are multiple layers and dimensions in Genesis and the other books of Moses. My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I'm sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane. Even some cursory knowledge of Hebrew and doing some mathematics and logic will tell you that you really won't get the full deal by just doing regular skill english reading for those books. In other words, there's more to the books of the Bible than most will ever grasp. I'm not concerned that Mr. Crumb will go to hell or anything crazy like that! It's just that he, like many types of religionists, seems to take it literally, take it straight...the Bible's books were not written by straight laced divinity students in 3 piece suits who white wash religious beliefs as if God made them with clothes on...the Bible's books were written by people with very different mindsets...in order to really get the Books of the Bible, you have to cultivate such a mindset, it's literally a labyrinth, that's no joke.

I can't help but admit, I am curious about the possible gruesomeness with which he depicts the story of Lot and his daughters...or the Sodomites that wanted to have gay sex with the Angels in Sodom...I'll definately be checking this one out in the near future.

[trollificus]

Most of the attacks on the Bible, and Christians, I see here really don't reflect well on REASON or libertarianism. I can hear Beavis and Butt-Head laugh tracks behind half of them, and the rest are mostly facile, mean-spirited and/or intolerant.

a) It is ridiculous to think God could have provided a description of Himself, Creation, Life, The Universe and Everything in the LITERAL language of people from 3500 years ago. Neither the language nor the mathematics available at the time were sufficient to describe what we now know of the universe. So it's pointless to hold against the Book that it does an inadequate job of explaining cosmology or evolution.

b) Those of you who get your knowledge of the Bible from Dan Brown should really give it a rest. Seriously. Theologians decided the canon of the Bible (and yes, some had a lot of politcal power at the time), and they chose the books that had clearest apostolic authority first, then those that fit best with them. Not some kind of scam involving proto-Masons, The pre-Illuminati and The Squires Templar. Sorry, it really wasn't run like your local city council or state senate.

5) Jesus was not proclaimed a "Rabbi" by the Jewish authorities of his time. He didn't get his certificate, so your treasured little jewel of knowledge ("Rabbis had to be married AND a father!") is completely inapplicable. The term, as informally used in relation to Jesus, was an honorific.

iv) Um. so. fuckin'. wieder. You guys are falling for the same fake rebelliousness of our "edgy" comedians and "transgressive" filmmakers. Let me assure you: Ridiculing christianity and christians, in 21st century America, is not brave, subversive or original.

(On Topic, +2)
Crumb, otoh, certainly partakes of those qualities, despite being a perv. I recommend Zweikoff's documentary "Crumb" for a harrowing look at the sometimes-invisible line between genius and madness.

And yeah, the Genesis stories are appropriately shocking in places, when seen in Crumb's hairy, sweaty, mid-century cartoon style.

[ryan]

For those concerned, it is not audacity which leads Christians to a website known as reason.com -- it is ignorance.

[abercrombie milano]

My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I'm sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane. Even some cursory knowledge of Hebrew and doing some mathematics and logic will tell you that you really won't get the full deal by just doing regular skill english reading for those books. In other words, there's more to the books of the Bible than most will ever grasp. I'm not concerned that Mr. Crumb will go to hell or anything crazy like that! It's just that he, like many types of religionists, seems to take it literally, take it straight...the Bible's books were not written by straight laced divinity students in 3 piece suits who white wash religious beliefs as if God made them with clothes on...the Bible's books were written by people with very different mindsets...in order to really get the Books of the Bible, you have to cultivate such a mindset, it's literally a labyrinth, that's no joke.

[abercrombie milano]

My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I'm sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane. Even some cursory knowledge of Hebrew and doing some mathematics and logic will tell you that you really won't get the full deal by just doing regular skill english reading for those books. In other words, there's more to the books of the Bible than most will ever grasp. I'm not concerned that Mr. Crumb will go to hell or anything crazy like that! It's just that he, like many types of religionists, seems to take it literally, take it straight...the Bible's books were not written by straight laced divinity students in 3 piece suits who white wash religious beliefs as if God made them with clothes on...the Bible's books were written by people with very different mindsets...in order to really get the Books of the Bible, you have to cultivate such a mindset, it's literally a labyrinth, that's no joke.

[abercrombie and fitch uk]

My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I'm sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane. Even some cursory knowledge of Hebrew and doing some mathematics and logic will tell you that you really won't get the full deal by just doing regular skill english reading for those books. In other words, there's more to the books of the Bible than most will ever grasp. I'm not concerned that Mr. Crumb will go to hell or anything crazy like that! It's just that he, like many types of religionists, seems to take it literally, take it straight...the Bible's books were not written by straight laced divinity students in 3 piece suits who white wash religious beliefs as if God made them with clothes on...the Bible's books were written by people with very different mindsets...in order to really get the Books of the Bible, you have to cultivate such a mindset, it's literally a labyrinth, that's no joke.

[abercrombie fitch uk]

It is ridiculous to think God could have provided a description of Himself, Creation, Life, The Universe and Everything in the LITERAL language of people from 3500 years ago. Neither the language nor the mathematics available at the time were sufficient to describe what we now know of the universe. So it's pointless to hold against the Book that it does an inadequate job of explaining cosmology or evolution.

[abercrombie uk]

Most of the attacks on the Bible, and Christians, I see here really don't reflect well on REASON or libertarianism. I can hear Beavis and Butt-Head laugh tracks behind half of them, and the rest are mostly facile, mean-spirited and/or intolerant.

[nfl jerseys]

jttr

[Ugg boots outlet]

we say that these Ugg Sheepskin Boots can absorb its power across the bottom phonetics of the day. It seems as access Sheepskin Boots Sale us achieve access album this winter. ?

[uggssheepskin boots]

we say that these Ugg Sheepskin Boots can absorb its power across the bottom phonetics of the day. It seems as access Sheepskin Boots Sale us achieve access album this winter. ?

[uggssheepskin boots]

As apperceive Cheap Womens Uggs may be the designation of origin issued in the name acclaimed all added compared with the world. without achieving any vision or not you like it or not, Women Uggs is really an alarming array

[uggssheepskin boots]

The prestige of negotiating bulk Uggs Australia Outlet cloud has evolved into the current day can fit into Ugg Boots On Sale boots and stores up.

[comwenj]

720p HD porn

[alaamiah]

minors" is funny because of the holy book's reputation for family friendliness. But it's holy because its creators an

[alaamiah]

Crumb changed the text; it's that he didn't. Crumb neither adds nor d

[alaamiah]

h demand. With fans have come detractors, including Mike Judge of the Christian Institute, who finds the project "who

[alaamiah]

tion to God. Genesis tells stories about human beings livi

[alaamiah]

tillation."

It isn't that Crumb chan

[alaamiah]

Consternation