"A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible. . ."

Throughout the course of the day I was able to check out three different translations of the Bible bringing me to have five different copies of the Bible in my room (Cambridge, Cotemporary English, KJV, Complete JST, and Oxford). It was an adventure.

It's shocking how little I know about the Bible. I'm finding out through "GOD: A Biography" all of the things that I have missed in the past.

I embarrassed to admit that up until a couple of months ago I thought that Franklin's ever-so-famous line: "God helps those who help themselves." was in the Bible. Until tonight I thought the title of this post was in the Bible. And until tonight I thought that Tydale's remark: "I will cause the boy that drives the plow to know more of the scriptures than you!" was in the Bible.

I don't know what I'm talking about. It's time for some serious review of Bible-related books and, of course, the Bible.

I'm just glad no one has tried to Bible bash me. I'm doomed if they do.

Oh! Two Bible related fun facts while I am on the subject:

When Carl Jung was asked if he believed in God he stated that he did not believe, he knew. This makes me wonder if this is the place where the shift took place in English religious discussion because you rarely hear someone say that they "believe" in God, today people tend to use the word "know" instead. It was, apparently, shocking that he would've said such a thing then, but fairly common to say now.



One can call himself or herself a gnostic! I had known that the term "agnostic" was coined by the ever-so-attractive man above T.H. Huxley (Aldous' grandfather), but for some reason it had never occured to me until the other day that Huxley was using the two roots of "a" and "gnostic". I'm really tempted to tell the next person I talk to about religion that I'm a gnostic just to be able to see the reaction I get.

"Agnostic?"
"No, you know, a gnostic."

"It's the end of the World as we know it . . . and I feel fine."

Chandler Scott showed me this website a while back.
It's called: Has the Large Hadron Collider Destroyed the Earth? dot com.
Hope you like it.

That's a bunch of BS.

So. Today I was in the BYU library trying to find a book titled:

"GOD: A Biography"

I typed in the title on the catalog search. And what came up? BS 1192.6

I started laughing and smiled the rest of the time I was at BYU.

It made my day.

Side note: I went home and checked if the man who came up with the Library of Congress Classification System was an atheist. Apparently, he isn't. The labeling of books on the bible under the group and subgroup BS was an accident.

Go figure. :D

(For Spencer: OH! And it's the G-O-D God!)

Too, too solid flesh

"Maybe this world is another planet's hell." - Aldous Huxley

Anybody else think about this more often than is probably healthy?

For a long time I consider Eastern theology to be entirely without a hell.
Then one day I realized that I couldn't think of a hell that could be much worse than Earth. It holds genocide, torture, hate, lust, rampant illness, insanity, poverty, starvation, nihilism, absolutism, saccharine everything, selfishness, brutality, and ignorance.

Eastern theology might just have the worst punishment of all theologies for not getting in touch with the divine.
To do this over and over and over again without some knowledge of what one is ever really doing would be hell beyond imagination.

Reincarnation would be horrible.

All my words come back to me in shades of mediocrity.

Ever make fun of yourself and then have it come back to haunt you? You say something offhandedly about yourself that you don't do well at and then people use it against you ALL the time. Me too.

One thing I love about Paul Simon is that he makes fun of himself in his own songs and can get away with it without losing respect.

Or maybe I'm just too cocky to let it go time after time. That's probably it.

Anywho, I realized that if anyone actually reads this blog my wording can be quite confusing because, well, I don't use words in the same way that other people use them. I use them in the way I think they should be used. So it's definition time (yippee!) This is just for clarification so I don't get in too much trouble. :)

Feminist: one who works for the rights of both men and women (See Mary Wollstonecraft or Florence Nightingale.)

Chauvinist: one who is blatantly advocating special privileges for their own gender while pushing aside the rights of those of the other gender (See the modern Feminist movement.)

Myth: a historical tale for which no evidence can be found to prove the occurrence - not associated with the validity or lack thereof of said tale. (See Oedipus Rex.)

truth: a fact that is applicable and necessary to know for one's own life but not necessarily applicable to the lives of others. (See Friedrich Nietzsche.)

Truth: a fact that is applicable to all and independent of all of human thought; a universal. (see Immanuel Kant.)

God(s):
1. an all-powerful and all-knowing figure that is generally seen as being human-like in general who is in control of all of human affairs and the whole of this World. Does not always have to follow His or Her rules set aside for humans as His or Her plan for existence is above Absolutist theory. (see Western theology and Theistic existialism.)
2. Truth (see Eastern theology esp. Taoism.)
3. The Great mystery(ies) (see certain individuals from one of the following: Roman Catholicism, Paganism, Islam, Episcopalism, etc.)

Romantic: relating to an scenario, place, or thing that is desirable aesthetically pleasing, but not necessarily realistic - not related to love. (see "World Peace" ideologies.)

Atheist: one who does not believe in Truth. (See - no one actually, I don't think this is possible.)
"Atheist": one who critizes a Western version of bibically literal God(s) without seeming to understand differences in views from said version of God(s). (See Richard Dawkins.)

Christian: one who follows the Nicene Creed esp. relating to the trinity. (See the Roman Catholic church.)

Liberal: one who wishes for the government to be involved solely with the safety of its individuals and not with every detail of the lives of said individuals. (See modern libertarian movement.)

"Liberal": a modern Democrat who insists upon sticking to party lines and participates in name-calling to prove they are the superior party. (see Chris Matthews.)

Conservative: a person who sticks to the values they believe have been important in the past. (See what many in Utah consider themselves.. sorry can't come up with anything other than that.)

"Conservative": a modern Republican who insists upon sticking to party lines and participates in name-calling to prove they are the superior party. (see Bill O'Reilly.)

There. Those are the words that I use "incorrectly."

I'll probably think of more later.

Oh! And FYI if anyone's actually reading this or the rest of my blog: I'm not going to include quotation marks or cite any quotes from the following if I use them in my status any longer: Cat Stevens, Paul Simon, or Oscar Wilde. It was getting a little redundant.

"Tell us all a story about how it used to be.

Make it up. And then write it down. Just like history." - Paul Simon

So I've just started to read Arabian Nights. So far it's been quite interesting. It's one of those classics that you think you know all about until you actually sit down and read it. My use of wikipedia has increased significantly since I've started it because, frankly, I know next to nothing about Islamic folklore.

The book itself has reminded me of something I've questioned a lot recently: the historical accuracy of everything. I'm a critic. Myth is so often based in some place or thing that actually existed. It seems like it takes a lot of twisting and turning and in the end you come out with a great, but highly unlikely, story.

Oddly, the myth of Ali Baba is likely entwined in another myth: that the story was in the original Arabian Nights. Critics today think that a French translator added the story in later.

The myth of Oedipus the king makes me think twice. Most people hear of the Thebian plays at some point in their lives, but it is little discussed that there are many, many more documents recording the myth prior to Sophocles with many other parts to the story. This leaves me thinking that Oedipus probably did exist and the story has been twisted.

And here's where I shoot myself in the foot. For, as we all know, it's ok to question mythology as long as it's not the mythology of the majority.

The story of Lot's wife has always bothered me.

I caught this loophole a while back:
"But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt." - Genesis 19:26
So.. if Lot's wife is behind him how could he possibly know that she turned into a pillar of salt. Odd.

But what I find really interesting is that there is a place named Mount Sodom where the the story would've taken place that is absolutely covered in salt formations. You can see them here. These flats lead me (and many others) to believe that the flats came first, a traveller found them, and then the story was made up off of an already existing character-Lot- that was in Jewish mythology.













In this picture you can see the landmark that I would guess sprung the specifics of her turning into the salt pillar. It's actually been named "Lot's Wife."

History seems to call for an acceptance of ideas where one cannot find absolute proof (which is impossible with everything I guess) with a little bit of cynicism about everything.

So call me a heretic, but I think it's a good idea to take most of history with a grain of salt. (Not a pillar.)