Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin?
Stuffed Tiger <[email protected]> Sun, 14 Jun 26 13:16:15 UTC
| Newsgroups | rec.nude,alt.christnet.nudism |
|---|---|
| Organization | Usenet.Farm |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
I went back an reread this whole thread, of which I quote only a tiny, random part below. What a treat! This is certainly an amazing group of intelligent people. Very enjoyable. Nice to know this is what nudists are like on the inside. On Thu, 5 Mar 2009 09:23:31 -0000, "David Looser" <[email protected]> wrote: >"Terry J. Wood" <[email protected]> wrote in message >news:[email protected]... >> "David Looser" <[email protected]> wrote in >> news:[email protected]: >> >>> Are you aware of the Epic of Gilgamesh? It is the oldest known written >>> story in existance, dating from around 2300BC (whereas Genesis as a >>> written text dates only from around 700BC). Gilgamesh also contains a >>> flood story with some uncanny similarities with that in the Bible. >>> Either the version in the Bible was based on that in Gilgamesh, or >>> both have a common source. >> >> You're not saying that the Unerring Word was plagiarized, are you? :-) > >'Fraid so!. It seems likely that much of Genesis was based on earlier >traditional stories as well. It's just that these earlier versions >apparently haven't survived, though it's always possible that archaeology >may yet find something. The Epic of Gilgamesh was only discovered in the >19th C, written on thousands of clay tablets. >> >> It's a shame that people are unwilling to accept that the Bible tells you >> how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go. If they could just accept >> that then they wouldn't be so threatened by reason and the fossil record. > >Indeed. Christianity seems to have survived the scientific realisation that >the earth is not the centre of the universe, but merely the 3rd planet of a >minor solar-system, quite well. So why should the notion that humans are >part of the animal kingdom and not the result of "special creation" be seen >as so threatening? > >I've often wondered how Bible literalists explain away the fact that humans >are actually created twice in Genesis. In Genesis 1 God creates men and >women together by a simple act of will. Then in Genesis 2 "The Lord God" >laboriously fashions Adam out of mud, and only some time later creates Eve >from one of Adam's ribs. > >David. >