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

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/booknews/6358134/Biblical-sex-row-over-explicit-illustrated-Book-of-Genesis.html

Irony meter goes *SPOING*.

"A sexually explicit illustrated Book of Genesis by controversial artist Robert Crumb, which features Bible characters having intercourse, has been condemned by religious groups.

It includes graphic illustrations of Bible characters having sexual intercourse, and other scenes depicting naked men and women as well as "gratuitous" depictions of violence.

"It is turning the Bible into titillation," said Mike Judge, of the Christian Institute, a religious think-tank. "It seems wholly inappropriate for what is essentially God's rescue plan for mankind."



Mike...mate...it's 'your' book...Harry is only drawing from what he's read in the Bible...illustaring what the Bible says and it says that Lot's daughters got him drunk and had sex with him..i.e. incest in the first book of the Bible:

Genesis 9:34 "And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father."

I think they are just embarrassed and worried that if people actually realise what the Bible is saying by drawing it then they might start having scond thoughts about the whole thing...

i.e.

"A spokesman for the Church of England said: "I haven't seen the book but I think trying to sell something by emphasising the sexual nature of some of the scenes doesn't seem to be a good way to pass on the message of the bible."

Well, duh...it's in there or should we all:

http://www.aspencountry.com/assets/product_images/product_lib/31000-31999/31655.jpg

When it comes to the bits 'they' don't want us to know about?

Just read that the Crumb book is word for word from the King James version...waits for soft-back edition...

I'm impressed with the two religious people at the end who are supportive of the book.

I get really fed up with people who claim ownership over ancient texts. They belong to all of humanity: no one has a copyright. If people have a "faith" which is so weak that it will be offended by fair use of ancient texts, what is the use of such a feeble "faith"?

with so much be-gatting in it, it might turn into a porno and get banned, imagine the publicity, bible banned for too much sex!!!!!

that would start people asking questions????

...and violence.

I've always wondered why the crucifiction can be showed before the watershed on Easter afternoon for family viewing.

dont forget the big bloke getting t*atted with a sling shot, drowning all the eygyptian army, the shiney shields making all the chariots run over the cliff and the hippy getting blinded and demolishing the temple

all the time charlton sits on his rock with his winchester in his hand

sunday afternoon TV as a kid?????????

Dwindling in Unbelief has a bit explicating Dawkins statement:

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."

"...with Bible verses that support Richard Dawkins' description of the Old Testament God..."

http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2008/12/richard-dawkins-god-of-old-testament.html

Oh, Our God is indeed an Awesome God

I read about Crumb's Bible a while back. It looks kind of fun

I know many atheists often talk about the Old Testament sadistic God, but for me the real horror has always been mainly about the crucifixion. Christ had to suffer a slow lingering absolutely horrible death...'may this cup pass from me'...because daddy said so.

And everywhere Christians display this hideous instrument of torture with joy. I call that sick.

They generally strangled on their own weight, so not all that bad.

<>

<>

The Phrygians and the neo-Hittites were contemporary, so no problem there, but I can't find anything concrete in the link to show that the Hittites came before the neo-Hittites (we can perhaps talk about the Gold Tomb of Carchemish and the Lion Gate of Malatya, which indicate the opposite, a little later).

In regards to both this and the second quote, at the time of the archaeological investigations it was already *known* that the Hittites were contemporary with Rameses II (true, but with a major caveat), and that Rameses ruled in the 13th century, so Young *knew* that the Hittite layer was not in situ, and therefore *must* have come from elsewhere, even though this left a gap in the stratification of the site.

The key thing, then, is the dating of Rameses II.

Noggin

The subject line still says 'creationists discuss Ardi' so I guess it'd be alright to post this link in which we find a whole lot of folks back-pedaling with gusto on missing link claims of another fossil called Ida. Turns out she's more of a lemur.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8318643.stm

Oh, and Dr No is dead.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2009/10/21/obit-wiseman-joseph.html
He was Canadian.


~jwf~

Did it really evolve from a spat between two brothers...and them splitting into two new supermarket chains: Aldi and Lidl...or has it always been Aldi?

I think it´s always been two different ones. However I do believe two brothers run the Aldi corporation, and as they can´t stand each other one runs the northern stores and the other the southern stores.

they (Aldi) have just opened a quite large store in oxford

Hi jwf,

Not so much backtracking as saying 'I told you so'. Media hype aside, it has always been a point of debate whether 'Ida' was on the lemur side or the monkey side of the lemur/monkey split. Here's how Pharyngula initially reported the find:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/darwinius_masillae.php
>the authors may not have done as solid a cladistic analysis as they should, and its position in the family tree may not be as clear as it has been made out to be.

See also:
http://scienceblogs.com/laelaps/2009/05/poor_poor_ida_or_overselling_a.php (and comments)

Note that both these posts were made on the day 'Ida' was revealed to the world. (The text I quoted from Pharyngula was added by edit the same day the original post was made.)

Ida is a stunning transitional fossil (a 'missing link', if you must) and is good, solid evidence in favour of evolution; it's just a shame that she's not on the direct human line. (Close to it, but not on it.)

Based on my observations of paleontology, expect a paper in 6 months time showing that Ida is on the human side of the split after all...

Gif

Woo! First spotting in the wild of 'new new atheists' term (or atheism 3.0 as they say!)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-10-19-atheism-belief_N.htm

"The old atheists said there was no God. The so-called "New Atheists" said there was no God, and they were vocally vicious about it. Now, the new "New Atheists" — call it Atheism 3.0 — say there's still no God, but maybe religion isn't all that bad."

when d'ya think they'll get the idea that atheism isn't a set of strict rules to adhere to and theists aren't a single movement but consist of lots of different people with lots of different ideas?

Not ignoring you, Nog, just a little tied up at the moment.

Gif

ah, 2Legs visiting is he?

Meantime: bet you didn't know this...
A58750671

Gif

Ictoan: I agree; it's sociology for five-year olds, and it's no good.