Noah's Ark? Not Exactly... Part II

Way back in July of 2006, I criticized the Christian fundamentalist group Bible Archaeology Search and Exploration (aka: BASE) when they announced their "finding" of the remnants of Noah's Ark in Iran (for those interested in that criticism, you can read it here). I called BS back then (and I still call BS) primarily because of the existence of two previous flood-ark stories, one Sumerian and one Greek.

Yesterday, when perusing the Internet, I came across news reports concerning the finding of yet a third flood-ark story that predates the Judeo-Christian story. This one, perhaps unsurprisingly, from the Babylonians.

Apparently, while a certain Leonard Simmons was serving with the Royal Air Force in the Middle East after World War II, he came across a Babylonian tablet that he gave to his son, who ultimately brought it to one Irving Finkel. Finkel, a British expert on Ancient Mesopotamia (modern day Iraq), then translated the tablet and came up with some startling discoveries.

The first discovery, obviously, is this Babylonian version of the Noah's Ark. The second discovery, one that the other Ark stories in question all lack, is that the Babylonian version actually describes what the Ark looked like. What's so surprising about this? Well, it appears that the Ark was a circular vessel, and that an overwhelming amount of archaeological evidence supports this likelihood.

In other words, another nail in the coffin for the BASE team.

Some Notes From the Babylonian Tale

"Noah" in the Babylonian version is named Atram-Hasis, who in the story is a Sumerian king (there's those blasted Sumerians again).

The flood is the result of various gods screwing with each other, and the god who sympathizes with the humans who are going to be killed by the flood is named Enki (strange, too, that a character named Enkidu plays heavily in the Sumerian version of the tale, The Epic of Gilgamesh... then again, as the Babylonians basically took over from the Sumerians, this probably isn't strange at all).

In the Babylonian version, the main boat-builder is left to die (he has to stay outside to seal the ark) while Atram-Hasis gets all the glory.

Fearless

No, there are no guarantees, just like there are no answers. Logic is not sovereign here. Magic should be, but it isn't. No one is sure either exists. Intention matters only to the one intending, the rest will judge execution, and rationality has been executed. Suicide seemed so exhilarating until waking up in the arms of a dead lover.

Heads roll, not from the guillotine, but from the thoughtless purity of lust. Love is little more than justification for brash decision, and this is why it is compared to war. Both take their victims, and the survivors move on. The face that launched a thousand ships destroyed two countries and created another, undiscovered. Fears are shed for those left behind as she sails beyond the horizon.

No testament, old or new, has ever revealed what it means to be human. "Because," is a pitiful answer to the question, "Why?" The wisest don't even ask. Lords and Kings fall because they are not their fathers. Fathers fail because they do not choose their daughters. And if their favorite remains silent, what does it matter that subjects remain foolishly loyal? What she wants is known only to herself.

If it's going to happen, there's no need to worry about it. Silence is a torture, but she's persisted a decade; there's no reason to question her impatience. Summer has begun, and misunderstood dreams will follow. Her balcony never seemed so far away, but it's not too high to climb. An arm is outstretched, though it's unclear if she's offering her hand or keeping her distance. Perhaps she's waiting for the Fall.

Take the hand. What is there to lose?

Ask the Question

I'm bored and I've received a couple of complaints pertaining to the fact that I haven't written anything here in a while, so I am.

Basically, this is for the people who know me. It's a test to see how well they know me. I'm going to write my answer to a question, and it's your job to figure out what the question was. Post your guesses below. The winner gets... well... I'll think of something.

1. "Teenagers, losers, and old people with nothing better to do."

2. "Not using turn signals."

3. "None of the above. Ask me again in four years."

4. "Road to Perdition."

5. "Gordon Ramsay, any day of the week."

6. "Monica Bellucci."

7. "The Air Force and the Marine Corps."

8. "He's an idiot, and single-handedly ruined my childhood. Well, no... Drew Barrymore might have helped a little."

9. "It's fiction. Don't believe the hype."

Political Incorrectness that Isn’t

Over the years, in my own experience of course, I have discovered a few things:

Telling a deploying soldier "kick some ass" is perfectly acceptable.

Calling gay friends "faggots" and black friends "niggers" is also acceptable. Naturally, what they usually call me back is not printable.

Posting a "That Includes Bible-Thumbing" sign underneath a "No Soliciting" sign on your door saves everyone involved a ton of grief.

Fist fights resulting from left versus right political arguments can acceptably and peacefully be resolved with free alcohol.

"Thou Shalt Not Kill" is a debatable Commandment.

Neo-Nazis are people, too. Stupid people, but people nonetheless.

The cuter an animal is, the better it usually tastes. Which leads to...

Dogs and cats can be eaten.

My incorrect opinion is still better than your correct one.

Kids who think they're cool because they dress in black and listen to punk or emo either A) continue to listen to punk or emo and fail in life or B) change their loser ways and wind up classic rock fans.

Stereotypes are surprisingly accurate, even if not absolute truths.

A single American hostage is reason enough to go to war. Conversely, for other countries, a single hostage of their citizenry is reason enough for them to go to war.

Men and women are not mental and physical equals. They are, however, social equals, and should be treated as such.

Having retarded (for lack of better term) children in our school systems increases the amount of tax dollars we put in to pay for said school systems. Tax dollars better spent elsewhere.

Many of you are referring to me with despicable words right now, and that's your right. Humor me and post some of them. I'm curious.

Clint Eastwood isn't running for President, but I'm voting for him anyway.

Insignificant Things I Wish I Could Change Anyway

There are many, many things about the world I wish I could change. War, famine, disease, deforestation, etc. But all of these are really important aspects of our world that probably most, if not all, of us wish we could change. And, since I'm in a light-hearted mood this fine evening (despite my Chargers getting spanked last night), I decided to talk about tiny, insignificant things that really make no worldy difference to anyone... and how I stay up at night wishing I could change them.

1. Chrysler being owned by a non-American company. That's just wrong to me somehow.

2. The Brewers being in the National League in Major League Baseball - seriously, why does the NL have 16 teams (two divisions with 5 teams and one division with 6) and the AL have 14 (two divisions with 5 teams and one division with 4). DOES THAT MAKE ANY SENSE TO ANYONE?

3. The 11th Airborne Division being inactive. We need a bigger army anyway, so bring it back. I mean, how much better is an airborne division called "The Angels" than an airborne division called "All-American?"

4. Japanese characters in Hollywood movies portrayed by Koreans and Chinese. It's not that I don't mind when actors play races that they are not, it's just that I know Hollywood just thinks nobody notices.

5. The NFL Cardinals being in Arizona; the Colts being in Indianapolis; the Rams being in St. Louis; the Texans being in Houston. I say move the Cardinals back to St. Louis so the football team and baseball teams match; move the Colts back to Baltimore since that area actually has horse races; move the Rams back to Los Angeles; move the Texans to San Antonio and bring back the Houston Oilers; move the Ravens to somewhere in Virginia (to keep with the Edgar Allan Poe motif); give Indianapolis and Phoenix new expansion teams.

6. The Marines being a part of the Navy and not a part of the Army. It's stupid, it's expensive, and it's stupid. Tradition be damned.

7. American cars driving on the right side of the road. Wouldn't it be much safer if we could park on the side of the road and open the driver's-side door without worrying about getting hit by oncoming traffic?

8. The Bible referring to me as God and not by my proper name. This one REALLY pisses me off. And not mentioning my prowess in the haystack when I boned Mary. Believe me, there was no virgin about it.

9. The Clippers being in Los Angeles. Move them back to San Diego and put an NHL expansion team there, as well.

Ten Commandments: an Irreverent Analysis

And there they were, Ten Commandments issued by the Holy God himself (or herself, or itself, depending on your personal interpretations).

Not sure why, but I decided to read them the other day, only to receive a few different copies of the Commandments, with variations based on religion. Hmm... Sure, there are obvious similiarities between the "varied" commandments, but support the idea that there's only ONE "true" God, these different versions do not.

Anyway, for sake of argument, lets use the popular Protestant version usually found in the United States.

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Hmm... this sounds like the ONE "true" God is acknowledging the presence of other gods, doesn't it? Yeah, he/she/it could be stating that there are no other gods, but if that were the case, why isn't the commandment: THERE ARE NO OTHER GODS?

2. Thou shalt not make for thyself an idol.

Um, clear that one up for me? Like, an Oscar? Or a statue? Or Simon Cowell, Paula Abdul, and Randy Jackson? I'm confused.

3. Thou shalt not make wrongful use of the name of thy God.

Okay... how about letting us know what the RIGHTFUL use of the name of thy God is?

4. Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.

Well, it's a well-known fact that the Sabbath wasn't always on Sunday, so it appears as though nearly every single Judeo-Christian church threw this one out... never mind us agnostics.

5. Honor thy Mother and Father.

Okay, I can deal with this one.

6. Thou shalt not murder.

Murder what? Anything? Dogs, cats, cows, and pigs included? Plants? What the fuck are we supposed to eat? And I hope flies aren't in that list... I fucking hate flies. What kind of god would make an animal that eats shit and then shits on your food?

7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

I'm down with this one, too.

8. Thou shalt not steal.

Okay.

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness.

Does this mean lie? Or does it have to do with the whole religious "witness" meaning? Or both? As Homer Simpson so eloquently put it: "This book doesn't have any answers."

10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife.

Okay, fine... but how about that stranger's wife across town?

As Yoda would say, blasphemous I am...

An Agnostic Form of Government

Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to the U.S. Congress, was sworn in yesterday. As a Muslim, he chose not to swear in on the Bible, but on the Qur'an. And not just any Qur'an, mind you, but Thomas Jefferson's personal copy of it. Of course, now that this has happened, Virgil Goode is probably going to convince his constituents that Thomas Jefferson should be dug up and impeached.

The fact that there was even a controversy as to what book an elected representative could or could not swear in upon is not a good sign of the times. We are a country founded on religious freedom. Founded. This was not some post-modern semi-liberal concept that came from the struggle for civil rights or from a pot-smoking sax-playing former President. We were founded on the concept. Freedom for all, regardless of religious persuasion.

Given that, what difference does it make if Mr. Ellison swore in on the Qur'an, the Torah, the Bhagavad Gita, or, why not, the Kama Sutra? Given that, it shouldn't make any difference. Why would you want a public servant to swear on a book that represents something other than his or her beliefs, anyway? Doesn't that sort of negate the whole concept of swearing?

Still, there are those, including myself, that feel that we shouldn't use any type of holy scripture as a pretext to government service. I understand the traditions behind it, and I have no fundamental problem with it, but we are, or should be, an agnostic form of government, and should operate as such.

There's an easy solution, I think, to the holy book problem. One that is as nationalistic as it is appropriate. Why don't we swear our public officials in on a copy of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence? Our public officials are not elected to serve any one god, or gods, they are elected to serve us, the people, this country. We have two documents that represent the very fabric of this nation. Two documents that are, fundamentally and philosophically, the very fabric of this nation. By swearing our officials in on those two documents, we ensure that they are swearing in to serve us, to serve the United States of America. Not the Christian States of America, not the Islamic States of America, not the Taoist States of America, but the UNITED States of America. And if there were ever an elected official that refused to swear in on those two documents, I'm pretty sure there wouldn't be many people opposed to taking their office away from them.

And, while we're at it, what's wrong with taking "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance? It really doesn't bother me that those words are in it, but come on, now. "One Nation, Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All" sounds just fine to me.

We are, or should be, an agnostic form of government.

Pointless Musings

What would we make toilet paper out of if there weren't any trees?

The O.C. has been cancelled. There are brains in Hollywood. Now if only we could get rid of One Tree Hill.

A 12-year-old special education student was charged with disorderly conduct after wetting her pants. Wow. I'd be serving a life sentence if I were charged every time I pissed myself. Okay, that's not true... it'd be a double.

I just saw a question on the Internet. Basically, who would you rather invite to a party: Paris Hilton, Jessica Simpson, or Lindsay Lohan? I'd have to say Paris Hilton, because she looks the easiest to knock out when she gets annoying.

Eli Manning's team record in the regular season since he joined the NFL is now a whopping 25-23. The Chargers? A measly 35-13.

Noah's Ark? Not Exactly...

In June of 2006, a team of researchers found in Iran what they believe to be the remnants of Noah's Ark. Yes, that's right... the big boat that carried two of every animal in order to save the Earth's living species from God's vengeful flood.

Of course, the team of researchers was from the fundamentalist Christian BASE (Bible Archaeology Search and Exploration) Institute and, of course, none of those researches were accredited archaeologists or geologists.

However, the latter fact is not the point of this writing. The point of this writing is that, should evidence of an "ark" ever be produced, it would in all likelihood be proof not of Noah's Ark, but of Deucalion's Ark or Utnapishtim's Ark.

Huh? What's that? Well, it's widely known that the Bible (and religious texts in general) often "borrow" stories from older religions and other sources in order to both emphasize and familiarize certain aspects of religious teachings. There's the fact that Saint Michael was a deity worshipped by a small community prior to being assimilated into the Christian church, the eerie similarities between the Madonna and baby Jesus and the Egyptian Isis and Horus, and the almost identical versions of the creation of the world presented in Book of Genesis and the first few paragraphs of the much older Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh (which, in fact, actually contains the story of Utnapishtim's Ark).

You see, the idea of a world-ending flood and a savior who built a large boat (on the word of God) to save humanity is nothing new. The Ancient Greeks had a myth involving a pissed off Zeus starting a flood, but in their version, Deucalion (read: Noah) was warned by his father, Prometheus, and built a boat to save himself (and not any animals).

Even before that, the Sumerians, with the first draft of the Bible known as The Epic of Gilgamesh, told a story of Utnapishtim, who lived through the flood by building an ark and loading it with riches, animals, and craftsmen in order to ensure the survival of mankind.

Now, I'm not criticizing Christianity, nor am I criticizing religion in general. I am criticizing the fact that so-called fundamental Christians tend to ignore our own histories. Finding an ark would not provide evidence that the Bible is a true story... rather, it would provide evidence that it's (at least partially) a plagiarized one. And why would anyone want to pop their own balloon?