Maybe that’s why some question religion, and way why does religion exist. It all comes down to a certain type of faith. Maybe be that faith is in logic, maybe in God, maybe science, maybe family. Whatever it is; who knows if what we believe as fundamentally true, really is the truth. One day we may find a loop hole in gravity for that matter, or that the world isn’t flat, maybe paradox’s like time travel are really solvable, just as the notion of flight is as well.

So when I read this article, a moral critique on the bible and our society, I think of the hard on that the Sultan has in Disney’s Aladdin. I mean many argue that the porn industry is a critical driver to our economy and its evolution. It makes perfect sense to me that the individuals writing the bible were influenced by human nature, just as we see in our culture today. History is a slippery and subjective beast.

I sit here and write and wonder what people are thinking as they finish my entry above? I feel that doubt and skepticism may come readily to many. I probably would. I mean this is a complex world that we live in. There must be something that I am not thinking about. Most likely that’s the truth of it, but I also do believe that our society/culture informs what we believe and that anything that goes against the grain often has a reaction of doubt. This doubt is a reaction, a thought that often has not been thought through.

What if we grew up in a society that was centered upon a philosophy or religion with a foundation of questioning? What would our thoughts reflect? Either way I say that the bible is twisted, filled with sexual innuendos because our society worships the porn industry. From where I sit that isn’t a new thing either. I also realize that I may be wrong, but the beauty of it is that Im probably right in one sense or another, from one perspective or another, just as the bible is morally sound from certain perspectives and morally unsound from another. All is truth and all is a lie.

Free will or determinism, I’m sticking with determinism, then I dont have to be all anxious about how messed up the world is. I don’t feel all the weight of my life and the people that my actions effect, because I don’t have a choice.

Going back to the idea of Eve being made from the bone of Adams penis, in my interpretation, I don’t believe this to be true. The penis is where the seed which produces off spring comes from. To say that Eve was produced from the bone of Adams penis symbolically puts her in the position of Adams child. However, the rib is at the side of the man. I do not believe God made a mistake and commanded the writers of the book to say rib when he actually meant penis. God doesn’t make mistakes. And as the divine inspirer of the bible, I don’t believe that there are mistakes in the book either. The time was different, and what we perceive as a mistake written in the word now, was not a mistake to those who wrote it. Our interpretation is based on the evolution of time and knowledge. As such, I believe the bible should be read with the knowledge that it is still more than relevant to us as individuals today, but was written in a context suited to the time in which the book was originally written. Yet, I digress. I do not believe there was a mistake between rib and penis. Symbolically, the rib at Adams side represents a helpmate; someone who will stand at the side the man. To me, this makes more sense than being drawn from the penis. I feel that Eve not being from the penis accommodates the fact that incest would in time be seen as wrong. In the New Testament, we see a new era of commandments that better suit our ability to follow despite our different time period.

Sam speaks about how the bible was written by humans and was inspired by God, this is definitely true. Later he compares the authors of the bible with him and how someone inspires him. What he fails to comprehend is that God is not another human who is inspiring the authors, he is the Supreme Being. Of course non-believers will say that this is the typical answer they expect from a Christian, to refer to God as the Supreme power who is strictly righteous. I believe that the authors do add their own twist and most certainly include their own bias into the bible.

The article initially caught my attention. I was not totally convinced that their fact about Eve being made from the bone of a penis was true but at least I thought it was a plausible belief. As I kept reading the story it lost credibility with me. I wonder if the author of the article or even Sam, for that matter, could give a logical answer as to how that would change the true meaning of the scriptures. Say if she
(Eve) was derived from a bone in Adam’s penis, does that changed the fact that both were creations from God. Does this change the fact that Eve was made from a part of Adam’s anatomy and they indeed sinned and was kicked out of the garden of Egypt?

As a Christian scholar, I have studied the bible and have questioned some things about the bible. One fact I found was that some men were accredited with accomplishments in the bible that were actually done by women. Again this does not change the fact that God allowed someone to make these accomplishments. The main facts about the Bible are not ambiguous: the fact that we were created by God, the crucifixion, resurrection and ascension of Jesus, the gift of the Holy Spirit, and the promise that Jesus will return. I believe there are two different types f Christians. There are those who do not allow others to question their beliefs in fear that they will not be able to answer and then there are Christians like me. I am a realist, we are humans and with that we fall short of the glory of God: both Christians and non Christians.

Though we’re not a courtroom, the same principle applies to the situation of lewd metaphors and sexual innuendo in the Bible. The “Adam’s Family Jewels” post by Krausz presents some intriguing theories about the meanings of certain words in the Bible, theories that had never before crossed my mind. The theories and explanations of the theories make a lot of sense. The thing is, Krausz doesn’t include any hard evidence to support the claims, so I can’t fully bring myself to believe them. They’re very convincing, and very well may be true, but because there is no proof, I’m skeptical. And that demonstrates that it’s not necessarily the truth that counts, but what can be proved. That’s what is most believable.

For instance, should Krausz’s claim the word “tsela,” traditionally translated to mean “rib,” be taken in it’s literal sense, or is it, as Krausz claims, a euphemism for “penis bone?” It’s very convincing based on the argument presented, but the bottom line is, without proof, we’ll never know for sure.

As intriguing as Krausz’s post was, what is even more interesting is how defensive the Church can become when the Scripture is challenged. What popped into my head was author Dan Brown’s “The Da Vinci Code” and the reasoning the Church provided (or didn’t provide) against Brown’s portrayal of historical fact in his book. A Christian Web site endorsed by credible ministries and churches, allaboutgod.com, attempted to convince readers Brown’s claims of fact, such as the marriage and offspring of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, were not true. Key word: attempted. Attempts weren’t good.

The site claimed because Brown’s claims were presented in a fiction book, the claims were also fiction: “Even claims that something is true, when found in a fiction book, are still fiction. If Brown had truly wanted to enlighten the world about his true nature of Jesus and the Catholic Church, he would have done so in a non-fiction setting.” The site went on to suggest Brown did this to “conjure interest” in his book and “increase sales,” or because the world he created actually does exist, but only in his mind.

Or this one: “[Brown] claims that these extra writings defined Jesus as merely a man and not divine. That is simply not true.” Nothing more said on why that “is simply not true.” How much credibility is behind claims like these? Certainly no more than is behind the claims Brown made in his book.

Brown’s claims are based primarily on testimony, not the most credible proof, but those claims were intriguing and believable. The real question is, does the fact that the Church so heavily denies Brown’s claims aid Brown’s cause in demonstrating their truth? A lack of evidence against Brown may prove just as much as concrete physical evidence for his claims. And the scary part is this: There are people who accept what the Church says as true simply because the Church says so.