An illustrated version of the bible book Genesis (http://www.amazon.com/Book-Genesis-Illustrated-R-Crumb/dp/0393061027) got published, drawn by a famous artist R.Crumb:
Obviously there is plenty of uncensored nudity in it, but it is by all accounts very close to the original text both in actual speech and in drawing. So how is your average biblethumping fundy going to react to this? Accept a bible that shows graphic nudity, or object to it and get famous as a christian who wants to ban the bible?
This is about as hilarious as when Solidarnosc adopted the Polish flag as their anti-government symbol, putting the communists in the impossible situation of having to ban showing the national flag in public :)


Eri

LOL! Good one, Eri!

Since when have Christians had difficulty selectively ignoring those parts of their mythology that turn out to be inconvenient?

FYI, there's a decent review of the book here (http://www.bookforum.com/inprint/016_03/4342).

I tried to find how the book depicted Lot gettin' it on with his daughters but all I could manage was the part of the story preceding it (http://boingboing.net/2009/09/18/exclusive-sneak-peek.html) and lots of paintings (http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1T4GGIH_enUS268US269&um=1&sa=1&q=%2B%22lot+and+his+daughters%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=&start=0).

I wonder if they'll do other books from the bible. It would be interesting to see how modern Christians respond to depictions of their god slaughtering the firstborn of Egypt, children being ripped apart by bears, or women being gang raped to death and dismembered.

FYI, there's a decent review of the book here (http://www.bookforum.com/inprint/016_03/4342).

I tried to find how the book depicted Lot gettin' it on with his daughters but all I could manage was the part of the story preceding it (http://boingboing.net/2009/09/18/exclusive-sneak-peek.html) and lots of paintings (http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1T4GGIH_enUS268US269&um=1&sa=1&q=%2B%22lot+and+his+daughters%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=&start=0).

I wonder if they'll do other books from the bible. It would be interesting to see how modern Christians respond to depictions of their god slaughtering the firstborn of Egypt, children being ripped apart by bears, or women being gang raped to death and dismembered.

That was what mr. Crumb said, that after reading the first part of the bible that thoroughly to be able to make a drawn version of it he ended up with being the opposite of impressed given how many horrible things are happening in it.


Eri

FYI, there's a decent review of the book here (http://www.bookforum.com/inprint/016_03/4342).

I tried to find how the book depicted Lot gettin' it on with his daughters but all I could manage was the part of the story preceding it (http://boingboing.net/2009/09/18/exclusive-sneak-peek.html) and lots of paintings (http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1T4GGIH_enUS268US269&um=1&sa=1&q=%2B%22lot+and+his+daughters%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=&start=0).

I wonder if they'll do other books from the bible. It would be interesting to see how modern Christians respond to depictions of their god slaughtering the firstborn of Egypt, children being ripped apart by bears, or women being gang raped to death and dismembered.

How about Numbers 31?

y favorite chapter.

Genocide. Theft. Murder. Rape. Sex slavery. Human sacrifice.

"The eager young men at Conservapedia are p.o.'d that the Bible might be seen as too liberal. So they've come up with the Wiki-style Conservative Bible Project, to make sure the Lord doesn't go all wobbly on us. "

Conservatizing the Bible (http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/10/conservatizing-the-bible.html)

Oh, man, these guys are batsh1t insane. (http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project)

How about Numbers 31?

y favorite chapter.

Genocide. Theft. Murder. Rape. Sex slavery. Human sacrifice.
I mean, sure, it may make for one hell of a party but it's hardly something to base a religion on.

That is kinda interesting about the conservative agenda guys. Was the King James version insuffienct? Ehh, can not give to rough of a time using the liberal ideology to pursue a conservative volume of literature. Yes, I just called them liberal conservatives. As I understood it, many volumes of work are often open to interpretation. While, even the Vatican has officially recognized the inaccuracies in the bible in a papal decree a few years ago.

Thus, rather than the 7 day religeous creation theory, in a liberal interpretation can also be used as an example, the big bang theory occurring 15 billion or so years ago. With a liberal interpretation supporting the God theory, that God did in fact do such an event, but,was kind of an artist so, took a couple billion years to flesh out his painting of the universe, as a deity, days might not quite be the 24 hour period of time per day, humans are used to. Which would explain alot under that viewpoint.

Thus science and religeon can equally coexist. More fun stuff such as the undefined period of time between the whole forbidden fruit thing. With a liberal interpretation, you can in fact have quite a bit of time, plus if you notice in the bible, there were other humans on the planet, besides Adam, Eve, and Lillith depending on which version you are using. Hurray for left over 1 million year old skeletons! Other fun things such as the metaphoric references as both Adam and Eve transition to agriculture. One certainly could go on and on about such issues.

Sorry guys and girls, hate to break it to you, liberal interpretations are good for you in reference to the biblical, as is scientific explainations, indeed coming to a deeper understanding of your God, through both the physical aspects, the metaphoric references, interpretative references rather than just the pure literal.

I mean, sure, it may make for one hell of a party but it's hardly something to base a religion on.Why? It seems logical for religious leaders to base their religion on atrocities which they want to encourage their followers to commit.

Thus science and religeon can equally coexist.Science and religion, in the abstract, can coexist. In fact, they can even overlap, for example in theoretical areas such as string theory.

However, science and Christianity CANNOT coexist, unless you rewrite the mythology every time the science proves it wrong.

I mean, sure, it may make for one hell of a party but it's hardly something to base a religion on.

I don't know about that.

It would be a good movie. Though, it would need an X rating. And the k!dd!e fvcking would be illegal to portray. So you couldn't actually show Moses fvcking little girl sex slaves.

Okay, this (http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/view_zoom/%3Fartpiece_id%3D353#)is pretty funny. You'll get captions/comments as you move your mouse over the various people in the picture.

It's funny they put Thomas Paine in the picture, but misspelled his name, he was definitely not someone that thought government and religion should mix.