Illustrated Stories from the Bible (that they won't tell you in Sunday School)

[quadz]

Yay, my copy of Illustrated Stories from the Bible (that they won't tell you in Sunday School)
Illustrated Stories from the Bible (that they won't tell you in Sunday School) arrived yesterday.



I bought it just on the basis that I figured it would be fun to see some of the more obnoxious stories in the Bible in illustrated form. 

However upon receiving the book, I was especially pleased at the quality of the commentary following each story.

About the author: "Paul Farrell ... was reared as a Roman Catholic. In his early twenties he became a born-again Christian and began researching topics from evolution to abortion. He developed into a fervent apologist for fundamentalism and frequently debated issues from the fundamentalist perspecive. Ultimately, his intense and thorough studies led him out of the Bible and Christianity altogether."

What's fun about the author having that background, is in the commentary following each story, he's able to identify and address the most common explanations offered by apologists who are trying to whitewash the vile behavior of their Biblical god in these stories.

It's quite nicely done.

WARNING: Many of the illustrations -- like the Bible itself -- may not be suitable for children.


Regards,

[peewee_RotA]

2 problems with this book

#1 how could the author, claiming to be so thoroughly educated in Christianity, not understand the concept of "solids" and "baby food", so much so that he equates all of the bible as appropriate to be taught to children. Trying to solve a problem that has already been addressed without acknowledging that it ever was addressed screams ignorance to me.

#2 There is a difference between disagreement and provocative attacks. This book is obviously a non-constructive attack rather than a logical argument; which seems to me that his arguments are based more in reactive emotion rather than logic. Either way, would this not be the equivalent of idiots like the 700 club that describe "athiests" like they are a cult trying to steal your soul?

[|iR|Focalor]

arguments are based more in reactive emotion rather than logic.

POT! KETTLE! BLACK!

[quadz]

#1 how could the author, claiming to be so thoroughly educated in Christianity, not understand the concept of "solids" and "baby food", so much so that he equates all of the bible as appropriate to be taught to children. Trying to solve a problem that has already been addressed without acknowledging that it ever was addressed screams ignorance to me.

That comment about suitability for children was my own.  My mom read the _whole_ KJV bible to me, cover to cover, while I was in grade school.  (I'm thinking somewhere around 3rd grade to 5th grade, don't recall precisely.)

The book in the subject of this thread is not aimed at children.  The stories are deliberately presented in the style of a children's book, but the scholarly commentary following each story is aimed squarely at adults.

The illustrations in the book, however, do indeed depict scenes directly from the bible stories, sometimes with extrapolation -- but not with distortion.  And in the commentary, subsequently, the exact bible verses upon which the illustrated stories are based are provided and discussed.

An example of the sort of extrapolation I referred to would be like the following: In the Bible, after Elisha curses the children in the name of the LORD, and the LORD sends forth two she-bears from the woods to tare forty-and-two of the children, the Bible verses don't dwell on the implications of the slaughter - but simply state that afterward, Elisha "went from thence to mount Carmel, and from thence he returned to Samaria."

Whereas, the illustrated story instead takes a moment to consider the aftermath, describing how the mauled childrens' relatives and friends must have grieved for them.

Which again, I would assert is not a distortion of the story, but an extrapolation based on the human toll implied directly by the bible verses.

#2 There is a difference between disagreement and provocative attacks. This book is obviously a non-constructive attack rather than a logical argument; which seems to me that his arguments are based more in reactive emotion rather than logic. Either way, would this not be the equivalent of idiots like the 700 club that describe "athiests" like they are a cult trying to steal your soul?

Frankly I would have felt I'd gotten my $16 worth if the book had consisted solely of the illustrated stories, without the subsequent commentary -- since that's all I was expecting when I ordered it.

So imagine how pleasant my surprise to find the detailed and sharply reasoned and deeply researched commentary following each story.

Having actually read it, I can confirm the commentary isn't filled with bogus emotional arguments.  The arguments presented are logical, well-reasoned, and frequently devastating in their thoroughness.


A+++ WOULD BUY AGAIN


Regards,

[QwazyWabbit]

More examples of atrocities perpetrated but not "described":
Daniel in the lion's den.
The tribulations of Job, who was permitted to suffer them even though he was "righteous" in the eyes of his God.
The Hebrew children cast into the ovens.
Slaughter of whole nations, including innocent babies.
Selling of children and women into sexual slavery.
Plagues, famine, pestelence, war, murder, rape, pillage, covetousness, theft, vindictiveness, jealousy, incest.
Herod coveting the daughter (his niece) of his wife (the wife of his dead brother) and committing murder to obtain her.

Great stuff to be indoctrinated with in pre-school and Sunday school. I can remember all these stories from the time I was 6.

[yahoo]

Inquisition perhaps?
Surely a result of those.

[QwazyWabbit]

Inquisition perhaps?
Surely a result of those.

That was certainly unexpected...

The Inquisition were acts of the Catholic church against heresy or those who would teach doctrines outside the officially pronounced doctrines as prescribed by the popes. It was sometimes used, as in the Spanish Inquisition, as a tool against non-Christians or converted Jews who were still keeping Jewish traditions. The S.I. was actually initiated by Ferdinand and Isabella as a means of purifying Spain's catholic demography.

These were not acts of God as described in the Old and New Testaments but acts of men who claimed to be doing God's work. Of course, the same could be said of Solomon, David, Moses and Abraham.

I think the point of the thread is that when one considers the true consequences of actions attributed to God, like the she-bears incident, that one has to wonder at how a loving God would actually take an active part in commiting such atrocities as killing "innocent" children by eating them alive. As I recall, their only "crime" was to tease or taunt the prophet, surely a great sin worthy of death-by-bear. Thou shalt not taunt the crazy guy in the cave.

[Whirlingdervish]

If you insult my prophet, I KILL YOU!

[quadz]

I think the point of the thread is that when one considers the true consequences of actions attributed to God, like the she-bears incident, that one has to wonder at how a loving God would actually take an active part in commiting such atrocities as killing "innocent" children by eating them alive. As I recall, their only "crime" was to tease or taunt the prophet, surely a great sin worthy of death-by-bear.

Yes - and what's really amazing is this sort of behavior, far from being anomalous, is very much standard operating procedure for the god of the Bible.

Yahweh routinely inflicts torture and death on innocent people in order to indirectly punish someone who has displeased him.

King David displeased the LORD by ordering a census to determine the number of able-bodied troops in his army.  No explanation is given for why this census-taking displeased the LORD, especially considering the LORD had previously instructed Moses to take a similar census -- but anyway... So to punish David, the LORD sends down a plague that kills 70,000 of his own chosen people in three days!

This sort of thing happens repeatedly.  Frequently Yahweh authorizes or demands the destruction of entire tribes or villages, specifically dictating the murder of men, women, children, down to "every living thing that breatheth" ... the exception usually being the young virgin girls, who are allowed to be divvied up as possessions.

etc.

[Whirlingdervish]

but but but but... that's the OLD testament!!!

Jesus totally changed all that. Ya know by preaching love and such, he totally fixed that whole "destroy other nations and rape their daughters" clause.

[quadz]

but but but but... that's the OLD testament!!!

Jesus totally changed all that. Ya know by preaching love and such, he totally fixed that whole "destroy other nations and rape their daughters" clause.

Yeah, if only he hadn't also (a) introduced the lovingly merciful concept of eternal punishment in the afterlife, which never existed in the old testament; and (b) said things like Matthew 5, 17-18:

  Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets:
  I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

  For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or
  one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

So... the Old Testament laws stand!  Go Leviticus!!

[Whirlingdervish]

but but but... that can't be true because it would cause a major logical problem when it came to applying the 2 "greatest" commandments that he also espoused!

* Loving ones neighbor as themself
* Loving the Lord


How can you love your neighbor and his progeny and then stone his children for disobeying him?!

How can you love your god and not stone your neighbors children for slights such as not honoring their father, like he would command you to do?!!

How can you love your enemies and turn the other cheek when god orders you to destroy them and steal their virgin daughters in certain cases?!!


Its like this whole bible thing is just a huge contradiction!

[peewee_RotA]

but but but but... that's the OLD testament!!!

Jesus totally changed all that. Ya know by preaching love and such, he totally fixed that whole "destroy other nations and rape their daughters" clause.

Yeah, if only he hadn't also (a) introduced the lovingly merciful concept of eternal punishment in the afterlife, which never existed in the old testament; and (b) said things like Matthew 5, 17-18:

  Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets:
  I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

  For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or
  one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

So... the Old Testament laws stand!  Go Leviticus!!

This is why I make the point that I did. There is a huge difference between taking on a subject because you are interested in understanding it, and taking on a subject because you are interested in defaming it. From the non-sensical notion that depicting some of the taboo passages in the Bible by using kids story style art exposes those passages as inappropriate is just plain silly. Yes, I'm pretty sure that they leave out most of Sampson's life in the children's version, that's fairly obvious and pretty responsible.

"The tale is called "Aschenputtel" ("Ashputtel" in English translations) and the help comes not from a fairy-godmother but the wishing tree that grows on her mother's grave. In this version, the stepsisters try to trick the prince by cutting off parts of their feet in order to get the slipper to fit."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinderella#Origins_and_history

The Disney version of Cinderella doesn't include partial dismemberment. Maybe a Disney style movie about the atrocities carried out by the feudal system is the appropriate response?

The point is that it is a silly attempt to be provocative for the sake of being provocative. He may make arguments, but the original gimmick overrides any of that. It's a dumb idea and treating it as some great new feat in art or positive step towards proving your side is ignoring that. I don't accept the 700 club as representing my religion, and I don't accept some of the stupid stuff that the Catholic church does as representing me either. So I assume that people would take similar steps to not associate with this kind of lame gimmick. Belongs in the same pile as those sad cries for attention known as the chocolate Jesus and the mass murdering santa.



And I'm glad you posted that image from busted tees. That is a funny joke made in good fun. The book simply was not.

...

Focalor, I could have posted "I like sports cars" as a response and you would have found some reason to invalidate it. You're a flat out contrarian.

[quadz]

There is a huge difference between taking on a subject because you are interested in understanding it, and taking on a subject because you are interested in defaming it. From the non-sensical notion that depicting some of the taboo passages in the Bible by using kids story style art exposes those passages as inappropriate is just plain silly.

But it's not silly at all.  Sure, they could have attempted photorealistic live-action stagings of the scenes instead of pen-and-ink line drawings, but either way, the interesting question would be whether the resulting images work as undistorted representations of the actual bible verses.

As I stated previously, I believe they succeeded in depicting what is actually stated in the Bible.  There may be some extrapolation, but I detected very little exaggeration.

And so, live action or pen-and-ink, what matters it if it's accurate?

The Disney version of Cinderella doesn't include partial dismemberment. Maybe a Disney style movie about the atrocities carried out by the feudal system is the appropriate response?

I thought we already dealt with the notion that this book is aimed at adults.  If we must make cartoon analogies, something like Happy Tree Friends or Ren & Stimpy would seem more appropriate.

We'd expect Disney to make a typical cloying, sentimental, saccharine version of an illustrated bible.  And so what?  There are plenty of those already.

The point is that it is a silly attempt to be provocative for the sake of being provocative. He may make arguments, but the original gimmick overrides any of that.

Let's not get too distracted by the 'gimmick' of the pen-and-ink line drawings.  I assert again that the drawings are for the most part undistorted renderings of the actual bible verses.  If they were photorealistic depictions they would only be even more X-rated.  And if visual depictions of actual bible verses are surprisingly provocative to some adults, then I think that is half the point of this book: a great many adult christians almost certainly have little idea what's in the whole Bible, apart from the Disney-like storybooks they read as a kid, Charlton Heston movies, and the sunday sermons that don't stray too far from the themes covered in the traditional storybooks.

In the commentary, the author repeatedly invites the reader to get out their own Bible and follow along.  The author is anticipating folks to be surprised by the pen-and-ink depictions, and says in effect: if that previous story seemed surprising or somehow exaggerated, let's break it down... Here are the relevant verses in the KJV bible, the NIV bible, here's some of the original Hebrew, here's the chapter and verse info, get out your own Bible and see for yourself.

So - from my point of view - half the point of the book is that many adult christians will no doubt be surprised to see what's in their own Bibles.  And I truly believe presenting the stories in pictorial form is a valid and effective way to get the point across.

But, the other half of the point of the book, in my view, is to attack fundamentalist interpretations of scripture.  There are an awful lot of adults out there who like to claim the Bible is the perfect and inerrant word of the creator of the universe.  Illustrated Stories from the Bible serves as a pretty massive assult on that viewpoint, and frankly I think photorealistic drawings would have scared more people off than the pen-and-ink drawings.


Regards,

quadz

[peewee_RotA]

and the sunday sermons that don't stray too far from the themes covered in the traditional storybooks.

False. LOL?

What church did you attend? (I'm not seriously asking that because you've said it 12 million times)


The author is the one that chose to define his view points based on a gimmick. It's becoming very tortured logic for you to take some of these viewpoints that don't overlap. You are ignoring the fact that the pen-and-ink drawings were obviously used to make a reference to the kids versions of the same stories. You're contradicting yourself by trying to continue the notion that that is an unfair conclusion and then pointing out that that is half of the purpose of the book.

So is it using kids bible story style to illustrate graphic images or not? The author is taking one medium meant for one audience that would never provide graphic images no matter what story is presented, and then presenting a story that is graphic using that medium. That's about as mind-numbingly obvious as illustrating various sex acts using pen-and-ink drawings; and furthermore if you were to openly praise owning a copy of the kama-sutra on a forum you would also be defining yourself based on the material.

That is where the point is made, and you're not really arguing against it. Based on other movies and sources that you openly admit to buying, watching, and seeking out because you enjoy, then the fact that you bought a copy is enough to say "Yeah this book is controversial at least." You consciously seek out this kind of material and your subjective opinion that it is not provocative for provocative sake is pretty obvious. I know from previous statements that you already agreed with everything in the book before buying it. So picking up something that is already the norm for yourself places you on a list of people that I would not ask to find out how controversial this book is.

For most of society who do not already agree with the contents of the book before buying it, and do not routinely seek out material that poke fun at and attack a specific religion, this is a stupid idea for the sheer purpose of attention getting. Yes, the illustrated version of the invasion of Normandy would be pretty graphic. Would it be controversial? Yes it would be. Could any logical conclusion made in that book break through it's over-arching gimmick? No.

EDIT:

I also want to take the analogy through the "ends justify the means" ringer. Let's assume that the points are already correct and apply the same gimmick to an act that is already accepted as wrong. What if there were children book style illustration of the holocaust? You are using it to prove that the Nazi's were wrong. So therefore is it o.k. to create such a provocative story? I mean the actions depicted are accurate and true, and photorealism would be too x-rated. I mean this book would be anti-nazi and would further illustrate just how wrong they were, so anyone offended by it just simple needs to give it a chance and read it.

There is a such thing as being inappropriate, even if the topic at hand doesn't offend you personally.