h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I agree that the meaning of 'fundamentalism' has changed over the years. That's why I try to add the word militant to it when I'm referring to the ones who carry guns and swords and blow themselves up in crowded market places.

About the creation stories, one of the ones I like is from the Jewish oral tradition. Lilith was created out of the earth just like Adam was. She was his equal in every way. She refused to be subservient to him and went off on her own. This left Adam alone and in need of a companion. Then God created Eve out of Adam's rib, so she would be a lesser part of him and wouldn't leave him. Then over the generations, Lilith became a representation of evil because of the threat she (women) presented to men who by now had bought into the notion of their own superiority and couldn't stand the thought that God's first creation was a woman equal to themselves.

Curious - is it that story that the George MacDonald book "Lilith" is based on? (suppose I could ask here and appear an idiot rather than just find out for myself via Google )

I thought, also, I had heard/read somewhere that Cain married a "daughter of Nod" or something along those lines, a description some people consider to be angels. In any case - it's very true that the Bible never says that God created *only* Adam and Eve.

It's been a while, but isn't that the one where the narrator talks to Adam & Eve and visits hell? So, the title would have been taken from the Lilith of the oral tradition.

My first job after I graduated from college (xxx years ago ) was in the state archives. We had many requests to help people with genealogical searches - usually using homestead records, land grants, etc. One woman, whom I will never forget, came into my office and told me in all seriousness (and she had the chart to prove it) that she had traced one side of her family back to Adam but that she had lost the other side somewhere in Taney County.

Concerning the idea that "common sense" can be a guide to interpretation of the Bible, here's a rather horrifying and totally offensive example of what one group's "common sense" makes out of scripture. Please be warned, it is truly nauseating. If this post gets yikesed because of the link, I understand completely and I will certainly not be offended. I'm only adding it to the conversation because it is a real example of one place that people end up when they justify their beliefs with "common sense":

http://www.kingidentity.com/lib.html

I bet they consider themselves moral.

of course they do. That's what is so troubling and that's (not specifically, but still) why I asked the question in the first place. They all think they're moral and they all find their scriptural justification. It seems to me that the only real rule is "what suits me is what I'll say is right and nobody can prove me wrong because the only acceptable evidence is scripture and look it says right here . . . . Yes I know it says something else there but you're just twisting it to suit your own purposes. Religious Truth is not mathematical truth and so, I can't help wondering how True it can be.

Questioning is good.
That is my concrete religious truth!

It's simple of me, this is my take.
It is important to know these people exist. BUT I cannot worry about what they think or why. Their exposure is good though.
This is why church and state should be seperate. So we do not have to watch our (collective) back for religious zealots coming in to run the government

That's a very disturbing website, anahaga. But is certainly makes your point. I felt like I needed to shower after I read it.

*stands holding a can of worms wondering wether he should open it*

Yeah, go on. The more worms the merrier.

Noggin

Nah, better not. The thread would just go off-topic pretty quickly. And I'm interested in hearing more about this.

I'm an atheist (who didn't read the Bible before deciding that I didn't accept it, but then I didn't read the Koran or the Guru Granth Sahib, or any other religious texts before dismissin them, so I'm consistent if nothing else!).

I have a vegetarian friend who says that the bible teaches vegetarianism, and that any references to eating meat are from bad translations, and actually refer to bread or something instead. I am not a vegetarian, and believe that I'm justified in eating meat by the fact that I have canines!

Like I said I haven't read the bible, so I don't think there's much I can add to this discussion, but it is very interesting to read.

Just a couple of interesting possibilities about 'literal' meanings in some familiar bible stories.

I personally believe the biblical verses about the 'bread and fishes' miracle originally contained a recipe for chowder. Possibly known to the fisherfolk it would have been new to the city slickers who came out to hear the sermon. Chowder would also have been old hat to the scholars translating the St James version who possibly considered the recipe itself too common for inclusion.

I have often debated that 'walking on the water' is a literal translation but fails to recognise that the concept of 'swimming' was quite novel to a desert people. They might not have had a word for swimming. If you had no word for it and had never seen it done before you might have to call it 'walking'. It is unlikely that there was any 'running' until water skis were developed centuries later.

And elephants, come and go throughout history. They are not native to the middle east but often came with armies from Africa or India. The distinguishing feature of an elephant, after its size, is its trunk and the trumpeting sound it makes. In several dialects the name for elephant is the same as the word for trumpet. So it is quite possible that elephants were used to break down the walls of Jericho (with their bulk and pulling power not their trumpets). There are records of other city walls and fortifications being broken and torn down by elephants.

If all it did was to make us consider possibilities, the bible would still remain the greatest book ever written.

~jwf~

Another possibility for the Jericho example is that it was an earthquake. And it has been suggested that the events of the Exodus were a side effect of the Santorini/Thera eruption of the middle second millenium BC.

Noggin

I've also heard that if the trumpets had the correct sound waves, they could have brought down the walls.

Hmm. A can of worms. no label. I wonder if it's Noggin's. I better open it.

There's always the possibility that the walls of Jericho never fell down and that bit was just a piece of fiction.

Archaeologists have proven that the walls did fall - several times over the centuries. But there are lots of natural explanations. Fire, earthquake, war. The fact that they fell certainly doesn't prove the Bible story.

piece of string

That link was disturbing... esp the referal to killing the 'mixed race couple'


---->(like mine)