|
Gone, But Not Forgotten? What The Internet Will Look Like Under SOPA Fearsgiving Week Jesus Approves of Waterboarding Beware of Asteroids 
All links are current as of the date of publication. All content created by the author is copyrighted 2005-2010, except where held by the owners/publishers of parent works and/or subject materials. Any infringement of another's work is wholly unintentional. If you see something here that is yours, a polite request for removal or credit will be honored. |
� |
A Real Bible For Dummies?Tuesday, Oct. 06, 2009 3:49 AMFinished The Lost Symbol, Dan Brown's latest novel featuring symbologist Robert Langdon. It's typical Dan Brown - matters of world-shaking import and deep, layered meaning are nonetheless resolved in under 24 hours. And while the puzzles are intriguing, they are dribbled out in chunks that largely prevent the reader from anticipating or matching Langdon's efforts. Overall, it's still a compelling and entertaining read. Brown has a knack for pacing and short chapters that are like literary potato chips - you can't read just one. On the other end of the literary spectrum, there's the Conservative Bible Project, apparently the brainchild of some of the folks at 'Conservapedia,' the conservative version of Wikipedia. Their intent is to excise the 'liberal' parts of the Bible as well as 'return' it to its full intellectual potency - as opposed to the alleged 7th-Grade reading level of the New International Version. (Sounds more like sour grapes from 'Christians' who go ballistic when a mere 'liberal' cites Scripture.) I've always joked that certain religious types adhere to the 'except for' version of the Bible, because they always seem to find exceptions to Christ's teachings, usually when their hatreds and prejudices get in the way. Now, there really will be one. The Holy Bible (except for the liberal parts). So much for the Word of God inerrant. And, finally, there's the lawyer for CBS producer and aspiring blackmailer Joe Haldeman, who claims things aren't as they seem, and his client isn't guilty. Um, okay. Could you explain again why your client collected and tried to cash a $2,000,000 check?
|
