Author
|
Topic: The Bible: Rated X (Read 1080 times) |
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.91
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
  
|
 |
The Bible: Rated X
« on: 2007-05-21 04:50:06 » |
 |
http://www.liberalavenger.com/
The Bible: Rated X
May 20th at 11:36 am by sirkowski
Reuters:More than 800 Hong Kong residents have called on authorities to reclassify the Bible as “indecent” due to its sexual and violent content, following an uproar over a sex column in a university student journal.[…]
The complaints follow the launch of an anonymous Web site — www.truthbible.net — which said the holy book “made one tremble” given its sexual and violent content, including rape and incest.
The Web site said the Bible’s sexual content “far exceeds” that of a recent sex column published in the Chinese University’s “Student Press” magazine, which had asked readers whether they’d ever fantasized about incest or bestiality.[..]
If the Bible is similarly classified as “indecent” by authorities, only those over 18 could buy the holy book and it would need to be sealed in a wrapper with a statutory warning notice.
Via Crooks and Liars
I don’t like cencorship. But in the spirit of concistency, yes, children shouldn’t be allowed to read the Bible. Parents freak out because kids watch the Power Rangers, but stories about Noah getting ass raped by his sons, Lot’s daughters having sex with dad, king David killing his best general to fuck his wife and Ezekiel eating and shitting the word of God (seriously, he does that), that’s cool. I find this story pretty hilarious. I guess Asians have an outsider’s perspective on that western religious book and they can see it for what it really is.
There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.
Ezekiel 23:20
Is that furry porn?
|
|
|
|
|
Bass
Magister
Posts: 196
Reputation: 6.09
Rate Bass
I'm a llama!
|
|
Re:The Bible: Rated X
« Reply #1 on: 2007-06-04 12:04:48 » |
|
Quote from: Blunderov on 2007-05-21 04:50:06
No.
Because it's not designed to entertain. It wasn't written to fuel sexual lusts. Pretty much everything in the bible is there to teach a lesson somehow. If there's sex in the bible, it's not just sex. For example, David's story of betrayal with Bathsheba goes on to him become aware of his sin and repenting of it, and accepting God's punishment for it. Ultimately his mistake and realisation of his mistake makes him stronger, as happens most of the time when we as humans make mistakes. It's there as an example.
If not to teach, then the sex and violence content (as well as other historical accounts) in the bible are there as historical records. To support my claim here, refer: http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/7-21-2006-103114.asp
Quote:• The overall history and culture of the Patriarchs, most of which was recorded from Chapter Twelve to the end of the Book of Genesis. This is the time of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and their culture, which is very similar to and very influenced by the Code of the Babylonian king, Hammurabi.
• A great deal of I-II Samuel and I Kings – stories about Samuel, Saul, David, and Solomon – most of which was recorded by the Court Historian;
• Historical references, overall events, and cultural undertones in the Old Testament during the Schism between Israel and Judah and their independent exiles – Israel to Assyria and Judah to Babylon;
• Stories of Jesus’ teaching during his two-year ministry – especially his cynic-like one-liners and his many parables of the new, inner Kingdom of Heaven;
• Jesus execution in Jerusalem just prior to Passover;
• The general history of the times reflected in Paul’s original eight letters – I-II Thessalonians; Galatians, I-II Corinthians; Romans; Philemon, and Philippians.
|
Although I find the Jesus part debatable, but by no means impossible by account that he existed.
The early old Testament chapters teach us of the history of the line of David, and included in that are the stories of Sodom and Gomorrah and Lot effectively being date raped by his own daughters. They happened as part of the history and in some way they play a part in that history, hence why they are included in the bible.
I realise that some verses aren't 'good', but, they're all old Testament. The New Testament is what matters, as "God's" new covenant prevents people from that kind of wrath from "God" as seen in the times of the old covenant (hence why it is referred to as 'the good book').
So why was the Old Covenant, and these methods of punishment there in the first place?
To accept the New Covenant is to accept Christ taking place for our sins, taking that punishment and wrath himself. But if we are to accept that, we are to accept why he did in the first place. And to do that, there needs to have been a system free of Christ beforehand, to see what sin and rejection of God were and what they did to people (Read the book of Galatians, it pretty much explains the transition between the 2 testaments and why it happened). That's what the Old Testament is there for, it effectively tells the story of sin and it's consequences, and it's all recorded in the bible for that reason.
So they are there to teach, at the end of the day. A child is perfectly entitled to buy and read educational books about sex and history books about war etc, so by this/your logic they should be banned too. Of course, If a parent doesn't want them to, that's fair enough. And if a parent doesn't want to let their child read those parts of the bible yet, that's also understandable. I can understand raising awareness to parents of ANY books that include sex and violence. They aren't the important parts of the Bible anyway, the Gospels are, which parents should perhaps encourage their children to read. But the important thing is those sexual and violent parts of the Bible aren't intended to entertain anybody.
This is just grasping at anti-Christianity straws.
With problems relating to censorship in many other areas, it doesn't work to ban more. How come you don't mention any of the violence of the Qur'an? Oh, thats why.
|
|
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.91
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
Re:The Bible: Rated X
« Reply #2 on: 2007-06-04 14:55:27 » |
|
Quote from: Bass on 2007-06-04 12:04:48
With problems relating to censorship in many other areas, it doesn't work to ban more. How come you don't mention any of the violence of the Qur'an? Oh, thats why. |
[Blunderov] I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'that's why'? I'm happy to talk about violence and Islam. I'm an equal opportunity hostile-to-all-religions kind of guy. Islam sucks. They all suck.
<snip>
Quote from: Blunderov on 2007-05-21 02:50:06 Is that furry porn?
</snip>
It seems that I must point out that
a) I did not make that remark, the person who wrote the article did and
b)the remark was anyway intended as a dark joke. The remark does not set out seriously to characterise the Bible as pornographic. Consequently, your entire argument against that interpretation is a waste of breath.
Whether the Bible ought to be X-rated or not remains a legitimate question IMV. Many parents might wish to control what influences their young children are subjected to, including the Bible. Note bene: the censorship of materials unsuitable for children is a near universal practice which is not to be equivocated with the censorship of adult materials. The x-rating is commonly understood to mean those materials which ought only to be available to adults.
OK?
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:The Bible: Rated X
« Reply #3 on: 2007-06-05 10:24:02 » |
|
What a heap of codswallop and mallarkey!.
The central tenet of Christianity is that child sacrifice is the highest valued ethical good. Not just sensible child sacrifice as a desperate attempt to placate nasty incomprehensible gods, but as the highest, most noble form of love.
Of course, a sensible person will note that this followed centuries of ritual child sacrifice by most of the Mediterranean religions - and the Jews were no exception to this practice. See the second set of commandments. The replacement ones supposedly written by their gods, after the first dictated set were supposedly trashed by the mythical Moses, yet, despite being supposedly more authentic (if a god scribe can be said authentic at all?) and stated to be a replacement for the first set (which language analysis shows were in fact written many centuries later), are seldom quoted - largely because they now appear incomprehensible even to the babble clutching believers.
Now what was the supposed reason for "this being a custom in Israel"? Oh yes. Eve is said to have eaten a fruit that allowed her to tell good from evil. Which was against the rules, and got them and their families sentenced to endless torture (not something that modern ethics can condone even if "merely temporal") for what was a momentary infraction. Rules their gods had made (and according to the stories, had lied about to them). But before they knew good from evil they could not establish scienta and thus from a modern ethical perspective could not be guilty of anything. But it gets worse. The supposed gods allegedly knew this nasty scenario was inevitable after they set the ball rolling, yet set up this harmful situation anyway. Thus, by any modern ethical analysis, the gods were not only accomplices but instigators, not only instigators, but instigators with malice aforethought; and far more guilty than the poor humans they shafted. It also gets more ludicrous, because the child sacrifice was also supposed to be the child of the god that was willed to die; and somehow simultaneously, the god itself, so a self-sacrifice. Only, because the god did not actually die and thus could not suffer eternal torment, there was no sacrifice made; or at least none on the same level as the hundreds of thousands of firstborn and virgin daughters sacrificed earlier. Despite this, the gods, the child, the whole mystical divine confusion invented about 400 years after these mythical events occurred - forgave mankind because of the child sacrifice the god had made of itself.
To actually expound on this turgid soup of perversion as something valuable for some purpose requires a quite exquisite degree of delusion. Delusion with the sole object of getting new people to adopt the same insane inverted standards that prevents rational analysis of this poisonous gobshiite. People exposing children to this kind of harm with the intent of causing permanent brain damage to the extent that they cannot see through the above to the nonsense underlying it, ought to be prosecuted to the full extent that we reserve for other forms of child abuse. After all, as Bass demonstrates so awfully, the effects are lasting and usually irremediable.
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Bass
Magister
Posts: 196
Reputation: 6.09
Rate Bass
I'm a llama!
|
|
Re:The Bible: Rated X
« Reply #4 on: 2007-06-05 23:54:27 » |
|
Fair enough. But consider this; some kids watch films that contain gunfights; some of these kids end up shooting people. Some don't. Should we then rate all films that have gunfights as 18+? Wouldn't it be a bit of a silly world if everything even romotely provocative was rated 18+.
Even if the bible was made 18+, perhaps their reasons would not be biblical, but I'd bet silly that people would still hurt themselves and those around them in other ways. It's really a moot point though as there is no way of knowing. Nonetheless, I don't really see why a few psychopaths in Christianity should prevent John the Good Christian from his right in reading his son the bible.
Although I suppose my whole post is a moot point if all you want to rate 18+ is the bible. I'm sure that's not the case though, because that would make you seem like you have an irrational grudge and you're not like that.
I'm geniuenly intrested here.
Regards,
Bass
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:The Bible: Rated X
« Reply #5 on: 2007-06-06 00:29:20 » |
|
You hit the nail squarely on the head Bass.
I don't think that any material should be outlawed, or placed out of reach, no matter how evil otr outrageous people of a patrticular place or time consider it to be. My observation is that suppression always costs societies much more than is expected and infinitely more than tolerance. THen again, I don't recommend that adults spend much time on the worst of what man has produced, let alone exposing children to it. I would place the babble right up there on the "adult guidance required shelf" along with Japanese "child rape" pornography, supposed "snuff porn", some of the bloodier war and SF films and most of Enid Blyton. But I stand by my opinion that the harm done by the babble's contents over the centuries is immeasurably greater than even the steepest slippery slope surfer can ascribe to anything else. Even Plato. Let alone Mohamed.
Have fun
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
|
Logged
