NationStates Jolt Archive

Maybe the Bible should have one of those warning stickers you see on so many music CDs?

Ezekiel 23:19-20

Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Genesis 19:31-32

One day the older daughter said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is no man around here to lie with us, as is the custom all over the earth. Let's get our father to drink wine and then lie with him and preserve our family line through our father."


Song of Solomon 7

1 How beautiful your sandaled feet,
O prince's daughter!
Your graceful legs are like jewels,
the work of a craftsman's hands.
2 Your navel is a rounded goblet
that never lacks blended wine.
Your waist is a mound of wheat
encircled by lilies.
3 Your breasts are like two fawns,
twins of a gazelle....

7 Your stature is like that of the palm,
and your breasts like clusters of fruit.
8 I said, "I will climb the palm tree;
I will take hold of its fruit."

Who knows how much sex and violence our nation's young people are being exposed to through this book? Maybe Congress should form a committee to investigate?

Perhaps it shouldn't be sold to those under 18. We wouldn't want to poison young minds.

That would be hilarious.
A parental advisory on the Bible.
Unfortunately, this country is mostly Christian, and those sissies in congress don't want to offend the voters.

The same people who condemn movies and games as being breeding grounds for sin, on the next page praise the bible... Yep...hypocrisy is great, ain't it?

Yep - now remember, if it's sex from the not-Bible . . . (or even scenes that remotely suggest something sexual happened) 3\/i1!!!111oneoneone+shift

Sex, all coz it's religious? Ok

And, ya know, that whole pesky freedom of speech thing we have going over here. I swear, how do we let this filth reach the hands of anyone? Whats that?! Most Christians don't read the Bible anyway?! They seem get a plenty heathly dose of passages during all that time they spend in Church. o wai...

The same people who condemn movies and games as being breeding grounds for sin, on the next page praise the bible... Yep...hypocrisy is great, ain't it?

Agreed. And Jesus hated hypocrites! What does that say about most Christians?

Wouldn't it be neat if a shock-jock started doing daily readings of sex and violence from the bible just to see if the FCC would fine him?

Wouldn't it be neat if a shock-jock started doing daily readings of sex and violence from the bible just to see if the FCC would fine him?

An idea for Howard Stern?

Wouldn't it be neat if a shock-jock started doing daily readings of sex and violence from the bible just to see if the FCC would fine him?
That would be ironic. :D amd oddly satisfying.

An idea for Howard Stern?
Why not? He could get topless girls to re-enact the passages.

Why not? He could get topless girls to re-enact the passages.

Haha, if given the idea he probably would!

Maybe the Bible should have one of those warning stickers you see on so many music CDs?

Ezekiel 23:19-20

Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Genesis 19:31-32

One day the older daughter said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is no man around here to lie with us, as is the custom all over the earth. Let's get our father to drink wine and then lie with him and preserve our family line through our father."


Song of Solomon 7

1 How beautiful your sandaled feet,
O prince's daughter!
Your graceful legs are like jewels,
the work of a craftsman's hands.
2 Your navel is a rounded goblet
that never lacks blended wine.
Your waist is a mound of wheat
encircled by lilies.
3 Your breasts are like two fawns,
twins of a gazelle....

7 Your stature is like that of the palm,
and your breasts like clusters of fruit.
8 I said, "I will climb the palm tree;
I will take hold of its fruit."

Who knows how much sex and violence our nation's young people are being exposed to through this book? Maybe Congress should form a committee to investigate?
So what's your point???

Frankly, I would pay to hear someone on the radio do that. Of course, they shouldn't say where they got it from. Then I'd laugh my ass off at the Chrsitians who claim we need to get the smut off the airways

So what's your point???

That all these religious people claim that anything with sex/violence is sinful and a disgrace to 'God', but yet the Bible is full of it. I.E. the suggestion that the Bible should be reviewed and set at the same standard we do for any other book.

That all these religious people claim that anything with sex/violence is sinful and a disgrace to 'God', but yet the Bible is full of it. I.E. the suggestion that the Bible should be reviewed and set at the same standard we do for any other book.
That woudl send the Christians into a bloody tizzy.

Frankly, I would pay to hear someone on the radio do that. Of course, they shouldn't say where they got it from. Then I'd laugh my ass off at the Chrsitians who claim we need to get the smut off the airways

I would too! $100 CAD! Anyone know Stern's office e-mail? :p


[w00t! 100th post!]

Ya them donkey men sounds alot like me, perhaps im holy. yaaaaaaaaaaa :cool:

That all these religious people claim that anything with sex/violence is sinful and a disgrace to 'God'
Who says that? Names please.

That woudl send the Christians into a bloody tizzy.

And that would be funny to watch!

Frankly, I would pay to hear someone on the radio do that. Of course, they shouldn't say where they got it from. Then I'd laugh my ass off at the Chrsitians who claim we need to get the smut off the airways
I can see it all now

*Jerry Falwell gets up to preach*
"Brothers and sisters! Yesterday when listenin' to the radio, I heard the most awful broadcast! 'One day the older daughter said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is no man around here to lie with us, as is the custom all over the earth. Let's get our father to drink wine and then lie with him and preserve our family line through our father."'

*Falwell's aide comes up and whispers something to him*
"Oh my! They were quoting Genesis 19:31-32!

Who says that? Names please.
Well Mary Whitehouse springs to mind. But I cannot recall ever hearing her saying that sex was an offence to God, but did think that anything with the whiff of sex or 'amorality' should not be allowed.

Well Mary Whitehouse springs to mind. But I cannot recall ever hearing her saying that sex was an offence to God, but did think that anything with the whiff of sex or 'amorality' should not be allowed.
And just who is Mary Whitehouse? Do you have a link by any chance?

I can see it all now

*Jerry Falwell gets up to preach*
"Brothers and sisters! Yesterday when listenin' to the radio, I heard the most awful broadcast! 'One day the older daughter said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is no man around here to lie with us, as is the custom all over the earth. Let's get our father to drink wine and then lie with him and preserve our family line through our father."'

*Falwell's aide comes up and whispers something to him*
"Oh my! They were quoting Genesis 19:31-32!
The E! show would be great. Two drunken strippers climbing all over Artie and reciting bible verses.

falwell isnt the brightest of men, lets give falwell a radio show and make him read bible excerts, but we stipulate what parts he reads so he HAS to read all the naughty parts, and we can film it to watch him sweat and try to explain that its the good book and any sexuality is for the lord or some bullshit and blame it on the jews

And just who is Mary Whitehouse? Do you have a link by any chance?
She was very famous in Britain in the 60s, 70s and 80s.

Try a Google search, she was hardly an obscure person

She was very famous in Britain in the 60s, 70s and 80s.

Try a Google search, she was hardly an obscure person
Funny, I thought that the person who first started a thread or sub-thread was suppose to provide a link? Strange how the rules change when liberals and anti-Christian fanatics are in charge, isn't it! :D

Lots of violent passages...

Child Abuse/Killing:
Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.
-- Proverbs 23:13

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son ... Then shall his father and his mother ... bring him out unto the elders of his city ... And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die.
-- Deuteronomy 21:18-21

"O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." (Psalm 137:8-9)

Some small boys came out of the city and jeered at [the prophet Elisha], saying, "Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!" And ... he cursed them in the name of the Lord. And two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys.
-- II Kings 2:23-24

God did tempt Abraham, ... And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest ... and offer him there for a burnt offering...
-- Genesis 22:1-2

Jephthah made a vow to the Lord: "If you give the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return ... will be the Lord's, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering." ... and the Lord gave them into his hands.... When Jephthah returned to his home..., who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of tambourines! And he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin.
-- Judges 11:30-32, 34, 39

War and general violence:
Lots of OT passages. Look them up yourself.

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother...
-- Matthew 10:34-35

Lots and lots of offenses punishable by death:

"Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the Lord: whoseoever doeth work therein shall be put to death. Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the sabbath day." (Exodus 35:2)

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them; Then shall his father and mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of the city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear." (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)

"And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:17)

"For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he that cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9)

"If any man take a wife, and go in unto her . . . and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid . . . and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die . . ." (Deuteronomy 22:13-21)

"A man or a woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:27)

Other bad things:

Sexism:

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
-- I Corinthians 14:34-35

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
-- Exodus 20:17

Discrimination against the handicapped:
"And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. . . . a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous. Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookbacked, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken; No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire . . . he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the Lord do sanctify them." (Leviticus 21:16-23)

Endorsed slavery:
... all who are under the yoke of slavery ... who have believing masters ... must serve all the better since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved. Teach and urge these duties. If any one teaches otherwise ... he is puffed up with conceit, he knows nothing; he has a morbid craving for controversy..., which produce envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions, and wrangling among men who are depraved in mind...
-- I Timothy 6:1-5

The fig tree story:
The next day..., Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. Then he said to the tree, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." ... In the morning..., they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. Peter ... said to Jesus, "Rabbi, look! The fig tree ... has withered!"
-- Mark 11:12-14, 20-21
(comments:Jesus was hungry. OK, that works. He loosk for figs. OK, that works too. But IT WAS NOT FIG SEASON. Hmm, surely he would know that it wasn't fig season and thus not bother looknig for figs. Then he CURSES THE FIG TREE. Wha? Why punish the tree for not bearing fruit out-of-season? What is Jesus on?)

God is jealous:
"For thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God." (Exodus 34:14)

God made evil:
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7)
(comment:When you think about it God is WORSE than Satan. All Satan did was tempt Jesus, torment Job(with God's permission), have King David take a census(in the same story earlier in the Bible, GOD make David take the census. Hmm...) that resulted in about 20,000 dead by god's punishment, and...that's about it. God demanded sacrifice(sometimes human), advocated violence, and is generally...EVIL.)


...and much, much more!

So what's your point???

Too subtle for you? Maybe you are spending too much time watching blowhards on FOX and CNN screaming at each other? I don't think my point was understated.

I don't really think that there should be a warning label on the Bible. I'm not Christian, but a book is a book. Plus, I agree with whoever said it earlier that there are too many Christians who'd oppose it. It'd never get through legislation. :( undefined

Don't censor the Bible because then people will only read the sugar-coated versions. People must be free to read the holy books and decide for themselves as to what is in them. And as to what Jesus was on: Mushrooms. Jesus was on magic mushrooms. And exactly where does it say there's a Satan?

Maybe the Bible should have one of those warning stickers you see on so many music CDs?

Ezekiel 23:19-20

Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Genesis 19:31-32

One day the older daughter said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is no man around here to lie with us, as is the custom all over the earth. Let's get our father to drink wine and then lie with him and preserve our family line through our father."


Song of Solomon 7

1 How beautiful your sandaled feet,
O prince's daughter!
Your graceful legs are like jewels,
the work of a craftsman's hands.
2 Your navel is a rounded goblet
that never lacks blended wine.
Your waist is a mound of wheat
encircled by lilies.
3 Your breasts are like two fawns,
twins of a gazelle....

7 Your stature is like that of the palm,
and your breasts like clusters of fruit.
8 I said, "I will climb the palm tree;
I will take hold of its fruit."

Who knows how much sex and violence our nation's young people are being exposed to through this book? Maybe Congress should form a committee to investigate?
I think they already did. What a friggin waste.

Funny, I thought that the person who first started a thread or sub-thread was suppose to provide a link? Strange how the rules change when liberals and anti-Christian fanatics are in charge, isn't it! :D
Fine, link (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=mary+whitehouse+-experience&meta=)

PS. I'm not liberal but I am anti-Christian Fanatics though

and often opposite to their literal meaning.


I don't really think that there should be a warning label on the Bible. I'm not Christian, but a book is a book. Plus, I agree with whoever said it earlier that there are too many Christians who'd oppose it. It'd never get through legislation. :( undefined

Don't censor the Bible because then people will only read the sugar-coated versions. People must be free to read the holy books and decide for themselves as to what is in them.

Ah, the lost skill of of recognizing irony. You folks probably think Jonathan Swift was really proposing that the Irish eat their children.

bump to the next level of irony

Don't censor the Bible because then people will only read the sugar-coated versions. People must be free to read the holy books and decide for themselves as to what is in them. And as to what Jesus was on: Mushrooms. Jesus was on magic mushrooms. And exactly where does it say there's a Satan?


Ahhh yes, the drug refrences. Let us not forget the finnest mushroom trip of all time....Revelations. Great book that.

So what should a good Chrsitian woman do if, protecting her husband from an ass whoppin', she accidently touches another man's penis?

Glad you asked.

If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity. (Deuteronomy 25:11-12)

Genesis 3:12-33

And God said unto thee: Thy do not like thy lovely man-bottom. 'Tis much too noble to be unto thy smelly horse-shoe. And they all lay before the lumpy one and asked when their sitting room would be lovely and finished for it was time for a change, they were always brought about by squirrels. Oh thy thy and amen.

People who read the real Bible (i.e. not childrens version) tend not to be children so there isn't going to be a worldwide effort to ban the bible because it mentions contraversial issues. It would be like putting parental warning on a dictionary because of all the rude words!

Oh and btw who spends their time looking through bible for dirty words?

People who read the real Bible (i.e. not childrens version) tend not to be children so there isn't going to be a worldwide effort to ban the bible because it mentions contraversial issues. It would be like putting parental warning on a dictionary because of all the rude words!

Please see the previous post on "irony."

People who read the real Bible (i.e. not childrens version) tend not to be children so there isn't going to be a worldwide effort to ban the bible because it mentions contraversial issues. It would be like putting parental warning on a dictionary because of all the rude words!

Oh and btw who spends their time looking through bible for dirty words?
Why mad that people found them?

I learned about Solomon in a bible as lit class personally (btw they should make a porno out of it … I want to see how they portray her “teeth as white like a flock of sheep”)

Its in the bible … those of us that do not believe it are generally the ones that read through it most (irony there also) lol so naturally we would pick up on it.


And as for only non children read the grown up version, incorrect. At least in the catholic school I went to we started reading it since we could read … about 4th grade if I remember we were doing it all on our own :p (well class required)

:sniper:

Maybe the Bible should have one of those warning stickers you see on so many music CDs?

Ezekiel 23:19-20

Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Genesis 19:31-32

One day the older daughter said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is no man around here to lie with us, as is the custom all over the earth. Let's get our father to drink wine and then lie with him and preserve our family line through our father."


Song of Solomon 7

1 How beautiful your sandaled feet,
O prince's daughter!
Your graceful legs are like jewels,
the work of a craftsman's hands.
2 Your navel is a rounded goblet
that never lacks blended wine.
Your waist is a mound of wheat
encircled by lilies.
3 Your breasts are like two fawns,
twins of a gazelle....

7 Your stature is like that of the palm,
and your breasts like clusters of fruit.
8 I said, "I will climb the palm tree;
I will take hold of its fruit."

Who knows how much sex and violence our nation's young people are being exposed to through this book? Maybe Congress should form a committee to investigate?


Okay. This is ridiculous. First, Ogiek is not the first person to discover these verses. Christians are perfectly aware of them. But unlike Ogiek, we KNOW WHAT THEY MEAN.
The woman in the first quote is a symbol for the nation of Israel that had turned away from God. This is condemned as evil! The second half of the chapter talks about how the Lord will smite her.
"Thus says the Lord God . . . you shall pay for you idolatrous sins."
The second quote, from Genesis, is a historical account with a point. The children of Lot's daughters found the nations of Moab and Ammon, two of Israel's bitterest enemies. A vivid picture of the consequences of sin.
Now, Song of Solomon. This one really bugs me. Christians do NOT believe that anything to do with sex is wrong. Sex, as part of creation, is a GIFT OF GOD. And He has made LAWS for how it may be used, specifically, only between husband and wife. That's what Solomon is talking about here. This may surprise some poorly educated Christians (no offense) but this is a good thing.

So what should a good Chrsitian woman do if, protecting her husband from an ass whoppin', she accidently touches another man's penis?

Glad you asked.

If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity. (Deuteronomy 25:11-12)
the brick testament++

I am a Catholic and I despise censorship - mostly because I can't watch 18s in the cinema.

There is a difference between evil and ruthless, you know.

Lots of violent passages...

Child Abuse/Killing:
Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.
-- Proverbs 23:13

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son ... Then shall his father and his mother ... bring him out unto the elders of his city ... And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die.
-- Deuteronomy 21:18-21

"O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." (Psalm 137:8-9)

Some small boys came out of the city and jeered at [the prophet Elisha], saying, "Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!" And ... he cursed them in the name of the Lord. And two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys.
-- II Kings 2:23-24

God did tempt Abraham, ... And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest ... and offer him there for a burnt offering...
-- Genesis 22:1-2

Jephthah made a vow to the Lord: "If you give the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return ... will be the Lord's, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering." ... and the Lord gave them into his hands.... When Jephthah returned to his home..., who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of tambourines! And he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin.
-- Judges 11:30-32, 34, 39

War and general violence:
Lots of OT passages. Look them up yourself.

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother...
-- Matthew 10:34-35

Lots and lots of offenses punishable by death:

"Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the Lord: whoseoever doeth work therein shall be put to death. Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the sabbath day." (Exodus 35:2)

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them; Then shall his father and mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of the city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear." (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)

"And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:17)

"For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he that cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9)

"If any man take a wife, and go in unto her . . . and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid . . . and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die . . ." (Deuteronomy 22:13-21)

"A man or a woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:27)

Other bad things:

Sexism:

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
-- I Corinthians 14:34-35

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
-- Exodus 20:17

Discrimination against the handicapped:
"And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. . . . a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous. Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookbacked, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken; No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire . . . he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the Lord do sanctify them." (Leviticus 21:16-23)

Endorsed slavery:
... all who are under the yoke of slavery ... who have believing masters ... must serve all the better since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved. Teach and urge these duties. If any one teaches otherwise ... he is puffed up with conceit, he knows nothing; he has a morbid craving for controversy..., which produce envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions, and wrangling among men who are depraved in mind...
-- I Timothy 6:1-5

The fig tree story:
The next day..., Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. Then he said to the tree, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." ... In the morning..., they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. Peter ... said to Jesus, "Rabbi, look! The fig tree ... has withered!"
-- Mark 11:12-14, 20-21
(comments:Jesus was hungry. OK, that works. He loosk for figs. OK, that works too. But IT WAS NOT FIG SEASON. Hmm, surely he would know that it wasn't fig season and thus not bother looknig for figs. Then he CURSES THE FIG TREE. Wha? Why punish the tree for not bearing fruit out-of-season? What is Jesus on?)

God is jealous:
"For thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God." (Exodus 34:14)

God made evil:
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7)
(comment:When you think about it God is WORSE than Satan. All Satan did was tempt Jesus, torment Job(with God's permission), have King David take a census(in the same story earlier in the Bible, GOD make David take the census. Hmm...) that resulted in about 20,000 dead by god's punishment, and...that's about it. God demanded sacrifice(sometimes human), advocated violence, and is generally...EVIL.)


...and much, much more!

There are more fallacies here than I can count. If I refuted them all, (and I can) no one would bother to read it; it'd be to long. A few though.

First section- did you know that the just penalty for sin, any sin, is eternal torment in Hell? Yeah, even little things, like being mean to you're little sister. And yeah, I deserve it too. This is because God is holy and cannot tolerate sin. (Side note: the reason everybody doesn't go to Hell is that God decided to take the penalty on himself for those accept Him as Lord)

What God told Abraham to do was a test to see if he would obey Hm. God stopped Abraham from actually killing Isaac.

What Jepthah did was wrong. It says so in the Bible.

Violence and things punishable by Death- It's called righteous wrath and is a just penalty. This doesn't mean that all these things are applicable today- someone who talks back to his parents still deserves death and Hell, but God doesn't authorize man to carry out the sentence anymore.

Sexism- This isn't sexism. God has defined different roles Men and Women. Some are obvious- women aren't well suited to hand-to-hand combat, men aren't suited at all to giving birth. The less obvious principles are in scripture.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife- totally irrelevant. In the same sense that "mankind" includes women, it's implied that thou shalt not covet thy neighbors husband either.

Slavery- yes, there is a Biblical model for slavery. It isn't necessary in this day and age, but here is how it worked or could work: If a man can't support his family, he could sell himself into slavery rather than starve with them. The Bible provides rules for this sort of thing so that he would be oppressed or held as a slave longer than agreed.

Chansu, go look up the word "context".

we KNOW WHAT THEY MEAN.
You can presumably prove that God intended all these metaphors, then, since you are so certain that they are the true meanings of the verses cited?

The only passage I said was a metphore was the Ezekiel passage. And I don't think I can prove to your satisfaction that it is a metaphore, but it doesn't matter. The point is the passage condemns what the woman (whether she is metaphorical or literal) is doing, and it says that God will punish her.

In short, there is no hypocrisy.

I offered no interpretation as to the meaning or context of any of the Bible passages listed. That was not my purpose. The point of the thread, for those who need things spelled out, is that often it is fundamentalist Christians who are at the forefront of those calling for censorship or bans on secular material they deem salacious and sexual (see John Ashcroft covering the nude statue of justice).

The fact that there is an explanation and meaning for some some of the most graphic parts of the Bible, or that there is some redeeming lesson to be learned from these sexual stories, makes no difference and is the very same argument others use to defend more secular content that comes under the censor's scrutiny.

Not all Christians wish to ban books, movies, music, or radio programs, but almost all people who do support censorship are religious Christians, and they generally use arguments about family values to support their case.

As just a few of the Bible passages posted show, the censor's sword cuts both ways.

*reads the bible*

fap fap fap

This is like a never ending story,no beginning,no end,no beginning,no end,no beginning,no end.....

:sniper:




Okay. This is ridiculous. First, Ogiek is not the first person to discover these verses. Christians are perfectly aware of them. But unlike Ogiek, we KNOW WHAT THEY MEAN.
The woman in the first quote is a symbol for the nation of Israel that had turned away from God. This is condemned as evil! The second half of the chapter talks about how the Lord will smite her.
"Thus says the Lord God . . . you shall pay for you idolatrous sins."
The second quote, from Genesis, is a historical account with a point. The children of Lot's daughters found the nations of Moab and Ammon, two of Israel's bitterest enemies. A vivid picture of the consequences of sin.
Now, Song of Solomon. This one really bugs me. Christians do NOT believe that anything to do with sex is wrong. Sex, as part of creation, is a GIFT OF GOD. And He has made LAWS for how it may be used, specifically, only between husband and wife. That's what Solomon is talking about here. This may surprise some poorly educated Christians (no offense) but this is a good thing.


Then why censor sex in the media? If sex is not wrong and part of creation?

As for “Well educated Christians” they are discouragingly few of them (hell I went to catholic school for 10 years and frequent church go’er) didn’t come across it until a public high school bible as lit class

Responding to number 1
Of course in saying this you are aware that parts of the Bible can't be sold or printed here in America?

When are people going to learn that the Bible is just a bunch of stories ment to teach morals? The bad comes from those people who read a story from it and think they should stamp out anything that goes angainst it. Hell, if these uber Christians know the Bible so well, then of course they know that "God" never demanded prayer, but asked it. It's up to the individual to decide what they believe and what they don't.

Oh and you forgot to add the story of Adam, Eve, and their kids that had sex with each other. ;)

I understand your point, Ogiek- you've implied a double standard on the part of Christians and touched off a tirade against them.

But a Biblical criteria for censorship must be understood. There are images and writings in art and the media, usually sexual, that can tempt people to sin. These ought to be censored.

This isn't in the Bible, though, because the Bible is the word of God and it says that God does not tempt anyone.

I understand your point, Ogiek- you've implied a double standard on the part of Christians and touched off a tirade against them.

But a Biblical criteria for censorship must be understood. There are images and writings in art and the media, usually sexual, that can tempt people to sin. These ought to be censored.

This isn't in the Bible, though, because the Bible is the word of God and it says that God does not tempt anyone.

Valmar, I'm not even going to touch that. But believe me, there are many others who will.

Just make sure you aren't standing near any flammable liquids, because you are about to get flammed.

I don't blame you for not touching it. I wouldn't if I didn't beleive it. :)

Dussanderland is absolutely right in saying that the it's up to the individual to choose what he believes. He's also responsible for what they believe. What he believes determines where he goes when he dies.

Let me add this- the idea of censorship is really beating around the bush. The fundamental question is whether the Bible is true. If it is, then it shouldn't be censored (it warns of dire consequences to anyone who does). If it isn't, then it should be treated like any other work of fiction.

bump

What does 'bump' mean?


I agree with, second, and applaud what Valmar has said. It really is very important to view things in the contexts they were meant to be viewed in, otherwise the author's message and meaning are lost and anything the've said can be made into anything someone else wants them to have said. I, also, can tell you that the examples sited from the Bible are very different from the things most often viewed on television, in video games, and in smutty novels. Sex especially, the Bible condemns it outside of marriage, but considers it something good that God has created within marriage. Most of the things that people want banned from the media are graphic representations of fornication and adultury.
Really though, anyone must be careful when advocating censorship... it can be very difficult to determine how much of anything is a bad thing, and how much is permissable. As for books, it is, as always, up to the individual and/or their parents/guardians what and how much they read.

Violence and things punishable by Death- It's called righteous wrath and is a just penalty. This doesn't mean that all these things are applicable today- someone who talks back to his parents still deserves death and Hell, but God doesn't authorize man to carry out the sentence anymore.
ok, I'm not going to bother going into why I think talking back (which merely giving an alternative view to an idea which is contrary to the one given by the parent can often be considered as) should be punishable by death, just a quick question - if a parent is utterly sinful, practically anathema to god (for those who don't know and can't be bothered to look it up- [a·nath·e·ma: One that is greatly reviled, loathed, or shunned] ) and this parent commands their child to commit a grievious sin against god and their only option is to disobey the parent, thus incurring the wrath of god, or commit this sin, thus incurring the wrath of god... which is the prefered method of damnation?


A Biblical criteria for censorship must be understood. There are images and writings in art and the media, usually sexual, that can tempt people to sin. These ought to be censored.
Human nature can tempt people to sin, images cannot, just as human nature and persecution can tempt people to go on murderous rampages, while images and music cannot.
Have faith in humanity's ability to resist a 2-dimensional nipple and if you must do so, worry about the 3-dimensional one they're trying to get at.


It really is very important to view things in the contexts they were meant to be viewed in, otherwise the author's message and meaning are lost and anything the've said can be made into anything someone else wants them to have said.
I agree with all of my soul with this, it is extremely important that we take books such as the bible in the context that they were written, and take note of the time and world circumstances.

In a time where everywhere you turned there was an enemy, it makes sense that rules would need to be made, these rules would be best to stem from common sense - when all that you have is your family, disobeying your father could result in the whole family being killed by another group while you were having a tantrum (eg, if you disobey your father, the likely result is that you will die).

When most of your chance of survival in the world relies on having company to look after you if you get sick, and protect you if you're attacked, it makes a hell of a lot of sense to make strong family bonds, this way you're ensured saftey, and your children will live long enough to make the next generation, and theirs will, and so on, and to have children outside of this family unit would probably be condemning them to death before they are even born, also to allow adultery would allow this family unit to be torn apart, thus leaving its members to fend for themselves or fight amongst themselves which would destroy the family and probably cause its members to die, either from fighting or from having to survive on their own.

When a donkey, a loaf a bread and a hut are your worldly posessions, to have them taken from you would leave you with nothing... I don't really think I need to go on with this route...

What I'm trying to say is that if we truly take the bible in the context that it was written in, it isn't a rulebook for all eternity, its a survival guide for humanity's years of youth... at well over 5 thousand years old, I think it's fair to say that the human race is no longer an infant in this world, we're old enough to stand on our own now, we should still look to our holy books and read what they tell us "love your neighbours", "respect your family", "don't steal from others".... this can all be summed up easily in a phrase most used in pagan religions "live how you please, as long as it brings no harm to the world or others", and yes I know, suggesting that pagans speak sense damns me for all eternity, but I was once christian, and I found that the way most christians behave is against what the bible says, so now I try to study all religions, and follow their advice/scripture as my conscience dictates, anyway, I've gone off course, what I mean is, yes - the bible and its contemporaries were once neccessary, but no longer, now they are simply a collection of good ideas.

I understand your point, Ogiek- you've implied a double standard on the part of Christians and touched off a tirade against them.

But a Biblical criteria for censorship must be understood. There are images and writings in art and the media, usually sexual, that can tempt people to sin. These ought to be censored.

This isn't in the Bible, though, because the Bible is the word of God and it says that God does not tempt anyone.

The Bible makes it infinitely clear, however, that God *allows* temptation, in fact, the whole story of Job happened because God gave *explicit permission* for Job to be tempted.

What makes you so sure that the censoring of secular material does not go against God's plans of allowing each person, via freewill, to choose for themselves.

Jesus said that if your eye causes you to sin, then pluck it out. He did not say, that if something tempts you to destroy the object that is tempting you. The choice to sin or not is up to each individual. There rightousness is in resisting temptation, not removing the temptation. Censoring is rather un-Christian.

Mashiara,

What you said about what I said was absolutely right. "talking back" was my paraphrase of "cursing". Yes, we should obey God rather than man. I was not thorough.

Also on images- you're right, they do not actually tempt. I spoke hastily. But they do cause problems- I'm not sure how to express it- they make it harder. I'm an adolescent male- I know that they are trouble.

But what you say at the end disturbs me. You may be right about most Christians believing things contrary to the Bible- it's long and very very deep, and I don't believe anyone understands it fully, but the Bible is just as true and accurate as it has always been. Please, don't be put off by incosistant Christians- we are all fallen human beings- rather depend on the Bible- it is never inconsistant. It's not just a guide-book; Christ says that He is the way, the truth and the life- no one comes to the Father except through Him. Suggesting that pagans speak sense does not damn you. They often do. But refusing to accept Christ as your only Lord and Savior will.

Remember that the Bible cannot be simply a collection of "good ideas" The Bible very clearly states that it contains the only way to salvation. If that isn't true, how can anything else it says be true? And if it is true, how can the other religions you've studied be true as well? If you once claimed to be a Christian, then you know what I'm saying you have to do- "...if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you will be saved." (Roman 10:9)

This stuff isn't outdated. Humanity will not grow out of it's need for salvation until the last day.

Your premises are accurate, Violet, but you're neglecting some things. God does allow temptation, yes. And it does glorify him when we resist. But He says to "flee from temptation" (sorry, I dont remember the reference) We are to avoid even occasions for temptation. It is arrogance to put oneself in a situation where one may be tempted, assuming that we will have the willpower to resist.

If God plans to allow a person to make a particular choice at a particular time, I can't interfere. I can try, but He's God, I'm not. He allows people free will, but he doesn't allow people to disrupt his plans.

The verse about plucking out the eye is very relevent- I don't think anyone expects it to be taken literally, but it does mean that we should avoid temptation. Now if my friend is urging me to do something wrong, I obviously shouldn't push him in front of a truck to try to remove the temptation. But if a magazine with a sleazy cover is lying on the coffee table, it's probably a good idea for me to turn it over.

yea......u should read into the verses a little more. the quote from ezekiel, it goes on to say that what she did was a sin, and it speaks of the consequence of it. and in genesis its not saying what happened was good, but its not going to deny things that have happened. these are the sins of people, not of God.

and if u want more material things out of reading it, when i opened my Bible to read these, i found a pack of ernie ball super slinkys. just what i need

Even for people that don't believe religiously, the Bible is considered a historical text. Also, in the U.S., books almost never have warnings for content.
That was a pretty lame attempt at cynicism, and for all you concurring jokers (i.e., 'ban the Bible under age 18'), what you're talking about is tyrannical, mind-control communism. Read Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. For any Moore-cultists that don't know, that is the book that Moore stole the blueprint for his title from against Bradbury's will.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0345342968/qid=1102138001/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/102-6185267-4584903

Even for people that don't believe religiously, the Bible is considered a historical text. Also, in the U.S., books almost never have warnings for content.
That was a pretty lame attempt at cynicism, and for all you concurring jokers (i.e., 'ban the Bible under age 18'), what you're talking about is tyrannical, mind-control communism. Read Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451; for any Moore-cultists that don't know, that is the book that Moore stole the blueprint for his title from against Bradbury's will.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0345342968/qid=1102138001/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/102-6185267-4584903
And you should look up irony.

And you should look up irony.
Way to explain your retort. There is no irony in the fact that the people whom want to start banning the Bible are ignorant, extremist commies. What has happened to our world when this is even an issue? God help us all.

Way to explain your retort. There is no irony in the fact that the people whom want to start banning the Bible are ignorant, extremist commies. What has happened to our world when this is even an issue? God help us all.
They don't want to ban it they are pointing to the fact that it has loads of sex and vilonce init something many Christians condem and atempt to censor in other medias. It is SARCASM THEY ARE NOT SERIOUSE.

Of course the bible should not be banned, however it most certainly should come with a cover warning. I at least would have known what I might come across when I innocently picked up the Old Testament and started reading...

The point of warning labels is to let people know what sort of material they might come across in a publication, so they can make an informed choice as to whether or not they wish to expose themselves to that form of content. Warning lables dont prevent people who wish to read something from reading it, they simply make it possible to know whether or not you might prefer to not read the subject matter in question, and also allow parents to discern that the material may need explanation if their children are to read it, or may even be not appropriate for their child to read at all. Many of the themes and incidences in the bible include concepts and happenings that are deemed offensive by large sections of the community, and so the bible should quite reasonably include a warning as to the content.

Your premises are accurate, Violet, but you're neglecting some things. God does allow temptation, yes. And it does glorify him when we resist. But He says to "flee from temptation" (sorry, I dont remember the reference) We are to avoid even occasions for temptation. It is arrogance to put oneself in a situation where one may be tempted, assuming that we will have the willpower to resist.

If God plans to allow a person to make a particular choice at a particular time, I can't interfere. I can try, but He's God, I'm not. He allows people free will, but he doesn't allow people to disrupt his plans.

The verse about plucking out the eye is very relevent- I don't think anyone expects it to be taken literally, but it does mean that we should avoid temptation. Now if my friend is urging me to do something wrong, I obviously shouldn't push him in front of a truck to try to remove the temptation. But if a magazine with a sleazy cover is lying on the coffee table, it's probably a good idea for me to turn it over.

What I was trying to get at is that there is a difference between avoiding temptation and removing the possibility of temptation. It is a matter of degree. For example, it would be arrogant to surround oneself with porn in an attempt to prove that one will not look at it. However, banning porn would remove the possibility of that particular temptation, which seems to me to be another kind of arrogance.

Part of the problem is that by "censor" some people mean warn that there might be content which some might find objectionable while other people mean ban outright. I see nothing wrong with warning (unless that is used as a method to exclude distribution). For example, I don't have a problem that strip-bars exist - provided that they clearly state that they are one. I don't have to go inside one. I do have a problem with the fact that a certain restaurant chain calls itself a family restaurant when in fact it is barely more than a T&A establishment that serves food.

I'm not Christian, but I'll definately defend them against idiocy like this.

Maybe before you accuse Christians of being hypocrits you should actually learn about what you're talking about. The bible is NOT entirely a book of "do gooders" and "how to be perfect!" The majority of it (like just about the entire old testimate - which is where those examples were taken from, I might add) are books of history, and guess what? People weren't any more perfect back then than they were now. Do you know why there are Jews and Islams? Because Abraham had another son by his slave woman, Hagar, against God's will. Do you know why Moses broke the first Ten Commandments? Because he came down the mountain and found God's people worshipping idols and sinning left and right.

Why don't you pinheads grow up and actually study a religion before bashing it instead of just taking crap out of context and jumping all over it like hyenas. Or better yet, JUST LET THEM BELIEVE WHAT THEY WANT TO BELIEVE.

I'm sorry, while I don't consider myself to be religious and I don't believe in a God or diety, it pisses me off when I see other people attacking those who do. Just because you don't hold the same religion does not mean that theirs shouldn't be respected. Everybody's beliefs should be respected within reason.

Even for people that don't believe religiously, the Bible is considered a historical text. Also, in the U.S., books almost never have warnings for content.
That was a pretty lame attempt at cynicism, and for all you concurring jokers (i.e., 'ban the Bible under age 18'), what you're talking about is tyrannical, mind-control communism. Read Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. For any Moore-cultists that don't know, that is the book that Moore stole the blueprint for his title from against Bradbury's will.

I'm not Christian, but I'll definately defend them against idiocy like this.

Once again for those unable to comprehend IRONY:

The point of the thread, for those who need things spelled out, is that often it is fundamentalist Christians who are at the forefront of those calling for censorship or bans on secular material they deem salacious and sexual (see John Ashcroft covering the nude statue of justice).

The fact that there is an explanation and meaning for some some of the most graphic parts of the Bible, or that there is some redeeming lesson to be learned from these sexual stories, makes no difference and is the very same argument others use to defend more secular content that comes under the censor's scrutiny.

Not all Christians wish to ban books, movies, music, or radio programs, but almost all people who do support censorship are religious Christians, and they generally use arguments about family values to support their case.

As just a few of the Bible passages posted show, the censor's sword cuts both ways.

Maybe this will help:

i·ro·ny: The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.

So you call Christians hypocrits? There are muslims who want to attack Jews and Christians and call it Jihad when the entire point of Jihad was to convert people to believe in Allah, which happens to be the same god that Jews and Christians believe in...

My point is, there are radicals in every religion. A good example would be athiests who try to point out the fault in every other religion. What are you trying to do? Convert people?
You can't shoot down an entire religion because of the radicals, and personally I'm just sick of seeing all the attacks against religious people on these forums.

Also, there is a HUGE difference between the stuff in the Bible of question and things in today's entertainment. I find it silly that you even try to compare the two.

Matthew 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs , neither cast ye your pearls before swine , lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

The Bible is historical and there aren't any pictures, although some very deep descriptions but with the make believe shit in the movies, you cannot compare the two. Find curren literature that has more adultish content, then maybe you've got a case but comparing it to some sci fi movies where a guy is bitten in half or his head blows up is unfair to the Bible.

So you call Christians hypocrits? There are muslims who want to attack Jews and Christians and call it Jihad when the entire point of Jihad was to convert people to believe in Allah, which happens to be the same god that Jews and Christians believe in...

My point is, there are radicals in every religion. A good example would be athiests who try to point out the fault in every other religion. What are you trying to do? Convert people?
You can't shoot down an entire religion because of the radicals, and personally I'm just sick of seeing all the attacks against religious people on these forums.

Also, there is a HUGE difference between the stuff in the Bible of question and things in today's entertainment. I find it silly that you even try to compare the two.

Why so defensive? Look at some of the quotes from the Bible listed here and imagine Howard Stern reading them or imagine them acted out in a film. This is exactly the kind of thing many (not all) fundamentalist Christians would attempt to ban. Are you defending these people or are you embarrassed that they are Christians and that they use their Christianity to attempt to control what everyone else sees, reads, or hears?

This thread is about censorship.

The Bible is historical and there aren't any pictures, although some very deep descriptions but with the make believe shit in the movies, you cannot compare the two. Find curren literature that has more adultish content, then maybe you've got a case but comparing it to some sci fi movies where a guy is bitten in half or his head blows up is unfair to the Bible.
Errr... anything by DAF de Sade?

You're just repeating yourself, Ogiek, and it seems to me that a lot of people (including myself) think that "redeeming lessons" do actually make a difference.

I've seen alot of hateful and derisive words said about Christians in this thread, and I don't see much irony in them, not when you call Christians hypocrites or when someone like Chansu says God is evil.

Errr... anything by DAF de Sade?



Haven't read anything by him, so I guess it depends on the content. Is it violent, sexual, a mixture, something completely else?

Haven't read anything by him, so I guess it depends on the content. Is it violent, sexual, a mixture, something completely else?
Violent... extremely, sexual.... extremely, mixed... yes

Maybe you know him as Marquis de Sade

Violent... extremely, sexual.... extremely, mixed... yes

Maybe you know him as Marquis de Sade



That name does ring a bell..........

Why so defensive? Look at some of the quotes from the Bible listed here and imagine Howard Stern reading them or imagine them acted out in a film. This is exactly the kind of thing many (not all) fundamentalist Christians would attempt to ban. Are you defending these people or are you embarrassed that they are Christians and that they use their Christianity to attempt to control what everyone else sees, reads, or hears?

This thread is about censorship.

I am a Christian .... and I am tired of you all bashing my Lord and his Word,
I believe Matthew 7:6 fits this occasion. Why? Because when we try to
explain something you pinheads ... you make fun of what we are saying and us for believing it.

Why so defensive? Look at some of the quotes from the Bible listed here and imagine Howard Stern reading them or imagine them acted out in a film. This is exactly the kind of thing many (not all) fundamentalist Christians would attempt to ban. Are you defending these people or are you embarrassed that they are Christians and that they use their Christianity to attempt to control what everyone else sees, reads, or hears?

This thread is about censorship.

If you weren't crossing the line before, you're crossing it now. I said what I believe, and you should take it at that. How DARE you accuse me of claiming to believe something else because of emberrasment. How cowardly do you think I am? I have, after all, just taken a stand for a religion I don't even believe in in a forum which I've said myself seems to be infested by Christian-hating teenage parent-rebelling athiests.

This conversation ends here. You're not worthy of my time.

The Bible is historical and there aren't any pictures, although some very deep descriptions but with the make believe shit in the movies, you cannot compare the two. Find curren literature that has more adultish content, then maybe you've got a case but comparing it to some sci fi movies where a guy is bitten in half or his head blows up is unfair to the Bible.

Really? Imagine seeing this on film:

If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity. (Deuteronomy 25:11-12)

The difference is the medium (film vs. print), not the content. The Bible is unsurpassed for violence.

Matthew 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs , neither cast ye your pearls before swine , lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.


Are you all smart enough to figure out that this scripture is talking about
people like you.

A thing should be censored if it is wrong for a person to display on screen, or in print, or what ever. I beleive in freedom of speech, so aside from taking the Lord's name in vain (which is forbidden, Exodus 20) I don't have a problem with print.

Since the Bible tells what is wrong, and it is the purpose of the Government to punish evil, it makes perfect sense to use the Bible to, as Ogiek so eloquently puts it, control what people see, read, and hear.

Of course, this must be done according to the principles of right and wrong in Scripture- otherwise it's just repression.

My, what a bunch of thin skinned whiners. There is no denying that there are fundamentalist Christians out there waving the fiery sword of censorship in the name of the Lord, but let someone speak out against that and it is, "oh, you are hurting my feelings, you are being nasty to God, you don't like Christians."

Grow up.

If you cannot handle the arena of public debate then be content to surround yourself with people who think just like you and who will never challenge your preconceived notions.

That is what people who believe in censorship want, isn't it?

A thing should be censored if it is wrong for a person to display on screen, or in print, or what ever. I beleive in freedom of speech, so aside from taking the Lord's name in vain (which is forbidden, Exodus 20) I don't have a problem with print.

Since the Bible tells what is wrong, and it is the purpose of the Government to punish evil, it makes perfect sense to use the Bible to, as Ogiek so eloquently puts it, control what people see, read, and hear.

Of course, this must be done according to the principles of right and wrong in Scripture- otherwise it's just repression.

Jesus-jumping-Christ, Valmar. Do you think we live in a God damned theocracy where Christian ayatollas get to make decisions for us about what is right and wrong?

Jesus-jumping-Christ, Valmar. Do you think we live in a God damned theocracy where Christian ayatollas get to make decisions for us about what is right and wrong?
I certainly hope not

Really? Imagine seeing this on film:

If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity. (Deuteronomy 25:11-12)

The difference is the medium (film vs. print), not the content. The Bible is unsurpassed for violence.



You seem to base your view of Christianity on a select few and then assume we are all like that. I can't stand people that think the way about any religious group or any race. I'm saying that the modern media is full of false, perverse crap. The Bible has its share of bad parts but at least it has historical fact to it and history often wasn't pretty. Plus, you seem to take a select few verses and then use them against the whole Bible. I don't know if you've read the whole thing or not, but if you haven't at least read the Gospels and if you have, re-read most of the New Testament. Remember, the Old Testament was written thousands of years ago in a society where men ruled and things were done to woman that would make people puke today.

Matthew 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs , neither cast ye your pearls before swine , lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

I'm not sure what kind of a stand Ogiek thinks hes make for a religion he doesn't believe in.

Be careful, Virgin. When we present the Gospel, it may be offending- the Bible itself says that it is offensive. But we need to make sure that they are offended by the message, not the messanger. Bringing up dogs might be applicable, but not necessary and I don't think very constructive. There may be other people besides Ogiek reading who can glean the pearls.

You seem to base your view of Christianity on a select few and then assume we are all like that. I can't stand people that think the way about any religious group or any race. I'm saying that the modern media is full of false, perverse crap. The Bible has its share of bad parts but at least it has historical fact to it and history often wasn't pretty. Plus, you seem to take a select few verses and then use them against the whole Bible. I don't know if you've read the whole thing or not, but if you haven't at least read the Gospels and if you have, re-read most of the New Testament. Remember, the Old Testament was written thousands of years ago in a society where men ruled and things were done to woman that would make people puke today.


The Bible may have it's share of "bad parts", but they're there for a reason, because God put them there. So its not "bad" that they are there.

The Bible may have it's share of "bad parts", but they're there for a reason, because God put them there. So its not "bad" that they are there.
God did not write anything except perhaps the stone tablets

I'm not sure what kind of a stand Ogiek thinks hes make for a religion he doesn't believe in.

Be careful, Virgin. When we present the Gospel, it may be offending- the Bible itself says that it is offensive. But we need to make sure that they are offended by the message, not the messanger. Bringing up dogs might be applicable, but not necessary and I don't think very constructive. There may be other people besides Ogiek reading who can glean the pearls.

So its OK if they offend me, but I can't answer with scripture because I
might offend them? I tired of this type of thread being allowed .... MODS
I ask that you lock this thread.

The Bible may have it's share of "bad parts", but they're there for a reason, because God put them there. So its not "bad" that they are there.



I explained that is what happened and how the laws of the time would contribute to that and what not.

God did not write anything except perhaps the stone tablets


The Bible was " INSPIRED " by God, which means he dictated and a
secretary typed it up for him. ( To put it in worldly terms )

The: No. 1 BEST SELLER - is now a: restricing belief monopoly

Of course its not ok to for them to offend you. But you shouldn't try to offend them back. If you think that verse is applicable in this situation, just stop talking to him.

I'm under no illusions as to what sort of Gov't we live under Ogiek. But God determines right and wrong, not me or other Christians. Right and wrong does not depend on the individual. They are ultimate standards determined my an ultimate God.

The Bible was " INSPIRED " by God, which means he dictated and a
secretary typed it up for him. ( To put it in worldly terms )
*voice booms from the skies*

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs , neither cast ye your pearls before swine , lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.


yeah right :rolleyes:

*voice booms from the skies*

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs , neither cast ye your pearls before swine , lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.


yeah right :rolleyes:



I don't think it was quite like that.............

I don't think it was quite like that.............
More like: "Hey, we can't touch the sun, but if no one can there must be something else that did make it.... Let's call that thing God"

Of course its not ok to for them to offend you. But you shouldn't try to offend them back. If you think that verse is applicable in this situation, just stop talking to him.

I'm under no illusions as to what sort of Gov't we live under Ogiek. But God determines right and wrong, not me or other Christians. Right and wrong does not depend on the individual. They are ultimate standards determined my an ultimate God.

I felt I needed to speak up to defend my beliefs. I have made my point and
stand by it.

Now you're attacking the fact people in believe in God, making us sound stupid and absured.

Now you're attacking the fact people in believe in God, making us sound stupid and absured.
your point? :p

"Hey, we can't touch the sun, but if no one can it must be... um.. Let's call that thing God"

your point? :p




That pisses me off and don't say "your point?". My friend, who is an agnostic, at least respects the fact I believe in God and doesn't minimize it.

your point? :p

pretending to be ignorant even after 4k posts :rolleyes:

That pisses me off and don't say "your point?".
Sorry...

It's just that, TO ME, it is stupid and absurd

Sorry...

It's just that, TO ME, it is stupid and absurd



Should have made that clear before, Pirate! Yarrr! Meh, I wasn't that made, but I can't be defending the Bible and then be indifferent to something like that, now can I?

You seem to base your view of Christianity on a select few and then assume we are all like that. I can't stand people that think the way about any religious group or any race. I'm saying that the modern media is full of false, perverse crap. The Bible has its share of bad parts but at least it has historical fact to it and history often wasn't pretty. Plus, you seem to take a select few verses and then use them against the whole Bible. I don't know if you've read the whole thing or not, but if you haven't at least read the Gospels and if you have, re-read most of the New Testament. Remember, the Old Testament was written thousands of years ago in a society where men ruled and things were done to woman that would make people puke today.

Honest to God, I don't know if it is the medium of an internet bulletin board, my lack of eloquence, or the thick headedness of the people reading these posts.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT CHRISTIANITY!!!

IT IS NOT ABOUT THE BIBLE HAVING "BAD PARTS"!!!

It is about the hypocrisy of some fundamentalist Christians who would decide for all of us what we should see, hear, read, or watch, when their own holy book is filled with sex, violence, and perversion.

THIS THREAD IS ABOUT CENSORSHIP. Let me be reeaaal simple:

Censorship = bad.

Honest to God, I don't know if it is the medium of an internet bulletin board, my lack of eloquence, or the thick headedness of the people reading these posts.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT CHRISTIANITY!!!

IT IS NOT ABOUT THE BIBLE HAVING "BAD PARTS"!!!

It is about the hypocrisy of some fundamentalist Christians who would decide for all of us what we should see, hear, read, or watch, when their own holy book is filled with sex, violence, and perversion.

THIS THREAD IS ABOUT CENSORSHIP. Let me be reeaaal simple:

Censorship = bad.



*blinks!*

Should have made that clear before, Pirate! Yarrr! Meh, I wasn't that made, but I can't be defending the Bible and then be indifferent to something like that, now can I?
it's not like I represent the pirate community or something...
:rolleyes:

Anyway: I don't mind you worshipping a God, but I do think it's stupid. Mind you that I was raised as a Roman-Catholic, but to me everything told about God and Jesus and the Bible was just a story. I don't believe in the collected works of the Grimm brothers either. Why should I believe in the Bible? They're both books of stories

THIS THREAD IS ABOUT CENSORSHIP.

Censorship serves a fantastic purpose, it allows groups to withhold information from those that shouldn't know, ..yet

it's not like I represent the pirate community or something...
:rolleyes:

Anyway: I don't mind you worshipping a God, but I do think it's stupid. Mind you that I was raised as a Roman-Catholic, but to me everything told about God and Jesus and the Bible was just a story. I don't believe in the collected works of the Grimm brothers either. Why should I believe in the Bible? They're both books of stories




Iwas raised in a Christian home, although a very Liberal one, although I think if turned more to the right in the religion lately. You don't represent the pirate community? Geez, I always love to draw eye patchs and stuff on pictures of people in the paper, magazines and handout at school. Yes, I have no life.

There are images and writings in art and the media, usually sexual, that can tempt people to sin. These ought to be censored.

I tired of this type of thread being allowed .... MODS
I ask that you lock this thread.

As I said, there are many Christian fundamentalist who would like to protect us all from bad things and do all our thinking for us. These people know what is best for all of us and would censor our reading material, radio programs, movies, and television, all according to God's plan.

If you don't know now the original point of my thread, you might want to ask someone.

Psalms 119:115 Depart from me, ye evildoers: for I will keep the commandments of my God.

Iwas raised in a Christian home, although a very Liberal one, although I think if turned more to the right in the religion lately. You don't represent the pirate community? Geez, I always love to draw eye patchs and stuff on pictures of people in the paper, magazines and handout at school. Yes, I have no life.
your point? :p

As I said, there are many Christian fundamentalist who would like to protect us all from bad things and do all our thinking for us. These people know what is best for all of us and would censor our reading material, radio programs, movies, and television, all according to God's plan.

If you don't know now the original point of my thread, you might want to ask someone.



You wanted to put a Parental Warning on the Bible, or at least thats what your first post said..........Hence why I thought this to be about the Bible and it's content.

your point? :p




AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH MOTHERLAND!

You wanted to put a Parental Warning on the Bible, or at least thats what your first post said..........Hence why I thought this to be about the Bible and it's content.

I give up on trying to explain the concept of irony.

That would be hilarious.
A parental advisory on the Bible.
Unfortunately, this country is mostly Christian, and those sissies in congress don't want to offend the voters.
Because I'm sure it has nothing to do with the Orwellian nature of the other choice.

The Free Land of Nsendalen would like to present Ogiek with this rather spiffy moving statuette.

:headbang:

We also give our condolenses for the lack of understanding he has received.

Maybe the Bible should have one of those warning stickers you see on so many music CDs?

Ezekiel 23:19-20

Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Genesis 19:31-32

One day the older daughter said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is no man around here to lie with us, as is the custom all over the earth. Let's get our father to drink wine and then lie with him and preserve our family line through our father."


Song of Solomon 7

1 How beautiful your sandaled feet,
O prince's daughter!
Your graceful legs are like jewels,
the work of a craftsman's hands.
2 Your navel is a rounded goblet
that never lacks blended wine.
Your waist is a mound of wheat
encircled by lilies.
3 Your breasts are like two fawns,
twins of a gazelle....

7 Your stature is like that of the palm,
and your breasts like clusters of fruit.
8 I said, "I will climb the palm tree;
I will take hold of its fruit."

Who knows how much sex and violence our nation's young people are being exposed to through this book? Maybe Congress should form a committee to investigate?




This is your original post and while I get the irony that Fundamentalist want to censor the media, I still felt it was an attack on the religion in general, since even with non fundamentalists, you brought it up that they were embarassed by them (fundamentalists).

Well this just proves that the writers of the bible(not any god) lived in a real world. Where people weren't scared of non-existant terrorist threats.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Psalms 119:115 Depart from me, ye evildoers: for I will keep the commandments of my God.

Matthew 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs , neither cast ye your pearls before swine , lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Are you all smart enough to figure out that this scripture is talking about people like you.

Perhaps, VirginIncursion, you might wish to look at the lines that preceed Matthew 7:6. Share them with Kormanthor, as well:

Stop judging, that you may not be judged.
For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you.
Why do you notice the splinter in your brother's eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?
How can you say to your brother, 'Let me remove that splinter from your eye,' while the wooden beam is in your eye?
You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother's eye. (Matthew 7:1-5)

Well this just proves that the writers of the bible(not any god) lived in a real world. Where people weren't scared of non-existant terrorist threats.

As VI said, the Bible was inspired by God. What is so hard to understand about that.

Perhaps, VirginIncursion, you might wish to look at the lines that preceed Matthew 7:6. Share them with Kormanthor, as well:

Stop judging, that you may not be judged.
For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you.
Why do you notice the splinter in your brother's eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?
How can you say to your brother, 'Let me remove that splinter from your eye,' while the wooden beam is in your eye?
You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother's eye. (Matthew 7:1-5)

We are not judging, just defending our faith

We are not judging, just defending our faith

Faith needs no defense. However, it has been my experience that those lacking in faith strike out the hardest and shout the loudest. Perhaps you are familiar with the line from Hamlet,

"Me thinks the lady doeth protest too much."

People of faith are not shaken by posts on an internet bulletin board. Nor do they need to defend that which has not been attacked. I never questioned or passed judgment on faith. My beef is with those who would ram their religious beliefs down my throat by imposing censorship on what I read, listen to, or watch. I merely pointed out that the censorship sword cuts both ways and could as easily apply to passages of the Bible as it does to secular entertainment.

As VI said, the Bible was inspired by God. What is so hard to understand about that.

Its complete and utter idiocy.

I am only trying to show the Lord that I am not ashamed of him regardless
of what you folks might say. You must admit that the beginning of this thread
sounded like you wanted to ban all that I believe in. I have always defended
your right to your beliefs, why can't you do the same for me.

Its complete and utter idiocy.

Well thats your opinion .... but, that doesn't make you right

I am only trying to show the Lord that I am not ashamed of him regardless
of what you folks might say. You must admit that the beginning of this thread
sounded like you wanted to ban all that I believe in. I have always defended
your right to your beliefs, why can't you do the same for me.

I'll admit that you are unfamiliar with the concept of irony. Let me recommend Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal as a primer.

The Free Land of Nsendalen would like to present Ogiek with this rather spiffy moving statuette.

:headbang:

We also give our condolenses for the lack of understanding he has received.

Thanks. Somebody gets it.

So Korm...

Whenever someone challenges (or in this case, appears to) your beliefs, you feel the urge to prove yourself loyal to God? The all-seeing, all-knowing God?

Hate to break it to you, but there's a lot more people directing a lot more vitriol toward you.

"GO, GO! For the good of the city!

Psalms 119:46 I will speak of thy testimonies also before kings, and will not be ashamed.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Bhagavadgita: I am become death, shatterer of worlds.

Bhagavadgita:I am become death, shatterer of worlds.
Me 17:41The bible is a book, not a collection of quotes.

its hard to decide :confused:

That all these religious people claim that anything with sex/violence is sinful and a disgrace to 'God', but yet the Bible is full of it. I.E. the suggestion that the Bible should be reviewed and set at the same standard we do for any other book.


Wow, and they call conservatives narrowminded. Hey openminded guy, read Ecclesiastes 3, it is known as "The Times Poem" in which it basically states there is a time for everything, uncluding war and killing.
Sex out of wedlock is wrong, out of what God intended is wrong. Adultry is wrong etc. So the passages you knitpicked about Lot's daughters doesnt mean that Christians think that incest like that is ok. We know King David, considered one of the greatest men of all time had the sin of adultry. The Bible is recording those events, not approving of them. It is showing both the good and the bad of people. Read on in the Old Testament, the ancestry of Lot and his daughters ends up being wiped out. Why do we say that things with promiscuous sex and senseless violence is wrong? Oh here is a novel idea, because when you see someone having sex, i doubt your thoughts are of fidelity and marriage. And when it comes to violence, hey I watch violent movies as do alot of Christians, I dont know where you get that all Christians- speaking of which-that is a good point. Your stereotyping, something you always condemn. I guess its only wrong when Christians do it then, yet we are still the only hypocrites? tsk tsk, fallacies galore.
Now I do know some Christians who hate gore or do actually believe it's wrong (but I already touched on your stereotypical error) and that is fine for them. The ones who advocate less violence merely dont like the senseless violence in it. Kinda funny, the World calls for less violence around the world, and the (not entirely Christians) call for less violence in other things. Each has its own cause.

*puts on HEV suit*

Deuteronomy 29:4 :: New International Version (NIV)
4 But to this day the LORD has not given you a mind that understands or eyes that see or ears that hear.

The guilty parties know who they are, and that this applies to them :p

Matthew 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs , neither cast ye your pearls before swine , lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.


Are you all smart enough to figure out that this scripture is talking about
people like you.

In context, please:

Matthew 7:1-6
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.


But yes, if the laws and commandments are holy, what use is there in forcing them on non-believers?

A thing should be censored if it is wrong for a person to display on screen, or in print, or what ever. I beleive in freedom of speech, so aside from taking the Lord's name in vain (which is forbidden, Exodus 20) I don't have a problem with print.

Since the Bible tells what is wrong, and it is the purpose of the Government to punish evil, it makes perfect sense to use the Bible to, as Ogiek so eloquently puts it, control what people see, read, and hear.

Of course, this must be done according to the principles of right and wrong in Scripture- otherwise it's just repression.

First of all, it is not the government's job to punish evil. It is the government's job to protect its citizens. Sometimes this includes punishing evil, at other times it includes the government doing evil.

Valmar, didn't Jesus warn about taking a legalistic approach to religion? Doesn't Jesus council mercy? Is it or is it not just as evil to obey all the laws of the bible without loving God and Christ? Did not Jesus say it was useless to follow the laws of God without faith and love in one's heart?

Imposing God's law on _anyone_ is repressive and hypocritical. God's law is meaningless without faith.

Faith needs no defense. However, it has been my experience that those lacking in faith strike out the hardest and shout the loudest. Perhaps you are familiar with the line from Hamlet,

"Me thinks the lady doeth protest too much."

People of faith are not shaken by posts on an internet bulletin board. Nor do they need to defend that which has not been attacked. I never questioned or passed judgment on faith. My beef is with those who would ram their religious beliefs down my throat by imposing censorship on what I read, listen to, or watch. I merely pointed out that the censorship sword cuts both ways and could as easily apply to passages of the Bible as it does to secular entertainment.

You all started this, I didn't .... And by the way who are you calling a Lady?

You can't just wildily quote from the Bible when you don't know what it means, to get the true meaning of it, you have too read before that passage and after it, as in the offering of Isaac from Abraham, before Abraham could kill his son, an angel appeared and told him to stop, it was a test nothing more.

You can't just wildily quote from the Bible when you don't know what it means, to get the true meaning of it, you have too read before that passage and after it, as in the offering of Isaac from Abraham, before Abraham could kill his son, an angel appeared and told him to stop, it was a test nothing more.

My quotes were carefully picked to attempt to communicate
my position... apparently you misunderstood.

My quotes were carefully picked to attempt to communicate
my position... apparently you misunderstood.

EXACTLY my point as well. I selected quotes to show that the Bible is filled with sex, violence, and deviency and that perhaps those fundies so keen on censoring secular material should first remove the wooden beam from their own eye.

Jesus said to his followers "judge with righteous judgement" (John 7:24)

In Matthew 7:1, 5: Jesus was speaking to criminals.

My quotes were carefully picked to attempt to communicate
my position... apparently you misunderstood.

Bhagavadgita: Just as the embodied soul passes from childhood to youth to old age, it also passes from one body to another. The undaunted person therefore is not deluded. Heat and cold, pleasure and pain arise merely because of the contact of the senses with the sense objects. They are fleeting. Therefore O Arjuna, try to tolerate them.

EXACTLY my point as well. I selected quotes to show that the Bible is filled with sex, violence, and deviency and that perhaps those fundies so keen on censoring secular material should first remove the wooden beam from their own eye.


You are taking scripture out of context and trying to make your case for
reasons to have it banned.

Bhagavadgita: Just as the embodied soul passes from childhood to youth to old age, it also passes from one body to another. The undaunted person therefore is not deluded. Heat and cold, pleasure and pain arise merely because of the contact of the senses with the sense objects. They are fleeting. Therefore O Arjuna, try to tolerate them.


Oh Brother .... I will not tolerate attacks on the Bible or my Lord.

Oh Brother .... I will not tolerate attacks on the Bible or my Lord.

Bhagavadgita: So far I have described to you the knowledge of Samkhya yoga. Now listen O Partha, to that (path) which is suitable to your intelligence by which you can be released from the bondage of karma.There is no loss in this effort, no reverse effect. Even a small effort releases you from the fear of death. Those whose intellect is turned inward into their inner selves, have only one aim in this world, O Kurunandana, while the intelligence of those who are not engaged thus run in many directions.

Period

if the high point of a book is a father having his son tortured to death, you know it's not going to be a book you should base any system of morality upon.

Bhagavadgita: So far I have described to you the knowledge of Samkhya yoga. Now listen O Partha, to that (path) which is suitable to your intelligence by which you can be released from the bondage of karma.There is no loss in this effort, no reverse effect. Even a small effort releases you from the fear of death. Those whose intellect is turned inward into their inner selves, have only one aim in this world, O Kurunandana, while the intelligence of those who are not engaged thus run in many directions.


I am not interested in your knowledge of Samkhya yoga .... Thank You. But
I do support your right to believe in it yourself if you wish. Which is all I'm
asking in return concerning what I believe in.

if the high point of a book is a father having his son is tortured to death, you know it's not going to be a book you should base any system of morality upon.

I believe that was a test of that fathers faith in the Lord, as was pointed
out earlier. Also the Lord stopped him at the last second because he
had passed the test.

People fail to realize that some stuff in the Bible should be interprested metaphorically
-Me, an agnostic

I believe that was a test of the fathers faith in the Lord, as was pointed
out earlier. Also the Lord stopped him at the last second because he
had passed the test.
no, i was refering to Jesus. his Father created him for the sole purpose of having him tortured to death, even though that Father was completely able to acheive his ends through other means, and humans are supposed to view that as an act of love. i don't get how such sick and twisted material can possibly be passed off as moral.

I am not interested in your knowledge of Samkhya yoga .... Thank You. But
I do support your right to believe in it yourself if you wish. Which is all I'm
asking in return.

Supreme Lord Krishna: Of what use is water in a great reservoir to a man who has well water with him? Similarly of what use is knowledge of all the Vedas to a person who has gained the knowledge of Brahman? [...] Only the wretched yearn for the fruits of their actions.

As for the irony comments that keep cropping up:
That's a nice little fallback, but you can't even begin to say it was jsut the sheer irony of the thing that made you publish it. Come on, be honest with yourself. You knew it would get a religious argument going on, how could you not? They are discussing what you wanted them to discuss, but when they make an argument you turn around and go "I was just being ironic!". Jeez. That's the kind of comic that deserves a wink at the end of it.
And a word on irony itself:
I find your definition a little... sparse. It doesn't really do the concept justice. There are many different types and definitions of irony. One that dictionary.com offers fits well in this situation:
Irony - Dissimulation; ignorance feigned for the purpose of confounding or provoking an antagonist.

You were using irony to provoke. Don't be surprised when they argue.

Supreme Lord Krishna: Of what use is water in a great reservoir to a man who has well water with him? Similarly of what use is knowledge of all the Vedas to a person who has gained the knowledge of Brahman? [...] Only the wretched yearn for the fruits of their actions.

How many times must I say this before you understand? I am not interested in your knowledge of Samkhya yoga. But I do support your right to believe in it yourself if you wish. Which is all I'm asking in return. Why is that so much
to ask?

no, i was refering to Jesus. his Father created him for the sole purpose of having him tortured to death, even though that Father was completely able to acheive his ends through other means, and humans are supposed to view that as an act of love. i don't get how such sick and twisted material can possibly be passed off as moral.

His ends were to create a means for humanity to have salvation. And it isn't as though Jesus didn't have a choice. And if you believe in the trinity, it was also giving up a part of himself for humanity... and that's an act of self-sacrifice, not torture. Also, christianity is not first and foremost about morals; that attitude is what causes a lot of the harmful and idiotic actions of christians. It is before all else about salvation and love. The morality comes out of our desire to please God because we love him and he has done so much for us.

How many times must I say this before you understand? I am not interested in your knowledge of Samkhya yoga. But I do support your right to believe in it yourself if you wish. Which is all I'm asking in return.

Supreme Lord Krishna: By constantly thinking of sense objects, one develops attachment with them. From attachment is born desire and from desire comes anger. From anger develops delusion, from delusion comes confusion of memory, from confusion of memory loss of intelligence and when intelligence is lost, the breath of life is also lost. But a man whose mind is under control, even if moving among the sense objects, as his senses are also under his control, he is freed from passion and anger and attains Divine Mercy.

Jesus said to his followers "judge with righteous judgement" (John 7:24)

In Matthew 7:1, 5: Jesus was speaking to criminals.

Excuse me? May I ask which version of the Bible you are reading from or referring to? Matthew 4:25 says that large crowds from Galilee, the Ten Cities, Jerusalem, Judea and the region across the Jordan followed Jesus to hear him.
The next verse is Matthew 5:1 - the listing of the Beatituds. Matthew 7 is part of that very same sermon - no change in listeners to criminals was ever mentioned.

You are taking scripture out of context and trying to make your case for
reasons to have it banned.
Noo! This topic is not about banning the Bible! IT is about the hypocricy (I totally speeled that wrong.. I can't spell today) of some fundimental Christians. You just can't get it. No one is attacking God.

I'll admit that you are unfamiliar with the concept of irony. Let me recommend Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal as a primer.
Clicky (http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html), for those unwilling for tohose to use Google.

+1

Agreed. And Jesus hated hypocrites! What does that say about most Christians?
Wait!

When did reading the Bible and following a certian religion make you a hypocrite?

The reading of the 4 passages this person found isn't something that's done in a perverse manner, first of all, and secondly, with the exception of the Song of Solomon passages, weren't perverse at all, and aren't anywhere near as perverse as what I could find when I turn on the TV later.

Even though I support your right to believe in your yoga, I will still pray
that the Lord through the Holy Spirit will touch your heart.

Frankly, I would pay to hear someone on the radio do that. Of course, they shouldn't say where they got it from. Then I'd laugh my ass off at the Chrsitians who claim we need to get the smut off the airways

Now THAT would be funny. I'd laugh my ass off right along with you on that one...

Wouldn't it be neat if a shock-jock started doing daily readings of sex and violence from the bible just to see if the FCC would fine him?
It would last all of a week, and they'd probably praise him for encouraging people to find thier spirituallity.

That all these religious people claim that anything with sex/violence is sinful and a disgrace to 'God', but yet the Bible is full of it. I.E. the suggestion that the Bible should be reviewed and set at the same standard we do for any other book.

No one ever reviews/sets standards for books. Doing so to the Bible would be Persecuting peoples' freedom of religion.

Now THAT would be funny. I'd laugh my ass off right along with you on that one...

I'll pray for both of you as well

When did reading the Bible and following a certian religion make you a hypocrite?

It doesn't. And no one has claimed that.

It would last all of a week, and they'd probably praise him for encouraging people to find thier spirituallity.
Sex & violence = spirituality? :confused:

Frankly, I would pay to hear someone on the radio do that. Of course, they shouldn't say where they got it from. Then I'd laugh my ass off at the Chrsitians who claim we need to get the smut off the airways

You know, there just might be a reason that Christians never read this stuff out loud. If something can be this terribly misconstrued, you don't want to give people a chance to do so.

How many times must I say this before you understand? I am not interested in your knowledge of Samkhya yoga. But I do support your right to believe in it yourself if you wish. Which is all I'm asking in return. Why is that so much
to ask?

Do you believe these quotes to be aimed specifically at you? There are many biblical quotes floating around this thread. Is there harm in having quotes from another religion's book?

Although I don't see how it contributes to the discussion, but neither does you repeating 'stop it', unless of course, you are trying to provide an example of censorship.

I'll pray for both of you as well
Don't you have something better to do than tell people here--many of whom wouldn't want you to pray for them--that you're going to try to get your God's holy spirit to reach them? How about you go out and do some good works in the world, try to repair the damage that your brethren in the many and varied churches do to innocent people around the world in the name of God? That would do a lot more good than telling people on the other end of an internet connection that you'll pray for them.

Even though I support your right to believe in your yoga, I will still pray
that the Lord through the Holy Spirit will touch your heart.

Waste not your fruitless desires on me, for

Supreme Lord: Certainly I shall now speak before you but the most important divine manifestations of My Self , as there is no limit to My manifold presence, O the best among the Kurus.

Gudakesa, I am the inner self, present in all the elements. I am the beginning, the middle and the end of all beings.
[...]
Of the Vedas, I am the Sama Veda. Among the gods, I am Vasavah. Among the senses I am the mind. And among the manifested forms I am chetana (the active consciousness).
[...]
Among the great sages I am sage Bhrigu. Among the utterances of the throat I am the monosyllable AUM. Among the rituals I am the ritual of chanting. Among the pitched things I am the Himalayas.
[...]
Of the created things I am the beginning, the end and also middle. Of the sciences O Arjuna I am the Spiritual Science. And amidst the debtors I am pure logic.

Among the letters I am the first letter ' A'. Among the samasas (Sanskrit name for compound words) I am dvanda samas (joined by two independent nouns). I am the unending time and among the creators I am Brahma.

I am the all devouring Death, Creator of the future. Among women I am fame, prosperity and fine speech, memory, intelligence, firmness and patience.
[...]
Of the Vrishnis I am Vasudeva (Krishna). I am Arjuna among the Pandavas. Among the sages I am Veda Vyasa and among the poets I am poet Usana. I am the punishing power of the those who are in authority. I am the morality of those who are in search of victory. Among the secrets I am the silence and among the knowledgeable I am the knowledge. I am also the source seed of all the beings in this universe. There is no creature moving or unmoving that can exist without Me. There is no end to My divine glories O Arjuna. What I have spoken here is but a brief description of My limitless powers. What ever manifestation is endowed with truth, beauty and brilliance know that to be born of an aspect of My brilliance.

Do you believe these quotes to be aimed specifically at you? There are many biblical quotes floating around this thread. Is there harm in having quotes from another religion's book?

Although I don't see how it contributes to the discussion, but neither does you repeating 'stop it', unless of course, you are trying to provide an example of censorship.

I never used the word stop .... I did say that I support him believing it,
but not of him using it against my faith. The scriptures I used in this thread
are here to defend the Bible against attacks made on it. He is free to post it
if he wishes and all others here are free to read it and decide for themselves
for that is what free will guarantees. Why do I think it is directed at me .... because he first used it as an answer to one of my posts.

Bible, the movie. Rated x for graphic violence, adult themes, strong sexual content, and nudity.

I have only done the New Testament Passages here, for those are the Christian scriptures, and Jesus revised the law.

War and general violence:
Lots of OT passages. Look them up yourself.

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother...
-- Matthew 10:34-35

This isn't telling people to revolt, when you read the passage, it's saying people who follow the teachings of the Christ should be prepared for persecution, though why he didn't mention this thread is beyond me....


Lots and lots of offenses punishable by death:
All law codes at the time, and still today, were punishable by death. Wow. It's a normal law code. Who would have thought?

Other bad things:

Sexism:

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
-- I Corinthians 14:34-35
At the time, in the Roman Empire, it was illigal for a woman to talk to her husband about thier religios differences, and was punishable by death. This is a cultural thing, not a religious rule.

How about some context next time? Or does the concept of total honesty seem to be eluding you?

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
-- Exodus 20:17
I'm not sure why you posted this. This is saying be happy with what you've got, and doing covet. Coveting isn't jelousy. Jelousy is wanting the a similar thing as someone else, covetry is wanting what that person has, and for them to not have it any longer. Covetry can lead to stealing. It's common sense, and a good thought for today, too.

Endorsed slavery:
... all who are under the yoke of slavery ... who have believing masters ... must serve all the better since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved. Teach and urge these duties. If any one teaches otherwise ... he is puffed up with conceit, he knows nothing; he has a morbid craving for controversy..., which produce envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions, and wrangling among men who are depraved in mind...
-- I Timothy 6:1-5
Slavery then was different than slavery in recent times. Some slaves had the equivelant of PhDs in thier time. Slavery was how someone paid off debts, as servents, not as slaves treated as sub-humans. Context, again.


The fig tree story:
The next day..., Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. Then he said to the tree, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." ... In the morning..., they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. Peter ... said to Jesus, "Rabbi, look! The fig tree ... has withered!"
-- Mark 11:12-14, 20-21
(comments:Jesus was hungry. OK, that works. He loosk for figs. OK, that works too. But IT WAS NOT FIG SEASON. Hmm, surely he would know that it wasn't fig season and thus not bother looknig for figs. Then he CURSES THE FIG TREE. Wha? Why punish the tree for not bearing fruit out-of-season? What is Jesus on?)
No one follows a man who claims to do miracles, but can't. Perhaps this was his way of showing people that he could. Another thought is that it's a moral lesson, with the fruit of the spirit and such.


(comment:When you think about it God is WORSE than Satan. All Satan did was tempt Jesus, torment Job(with God's permission), have King David take a census(in the same story earlier in the Bible, GOD make David take the census. Hmm...) that resulted in about 20,000 dead by god's punishment, and...that's about it. God demanded sacrifice(sometimes human), advocated violence, and is generally...EVIL.)
...and much, much more!
Now you border on Blasphemy, and for your sake, would recommend you be careful, just in case, you know?

Satan has done much more than you mentioned, if you believe in Satan. Satan's greatest feat was convincing us he doesn't exist.

Satan tried to be greater than God, and then recieved his punishment. Satan still wants to be like God, and wants as many people as possible to go to Hell to join him, and worship him, for he does yet have some power, though nothing compared to God.

Satan is willing to compromise, to let people do what feels right, and also do what's wrong, but feel alright about it. He'll give you what you want, as long as you still think you're a good person at the end of the day.

Satan is the reason for all rape,and murder. If it weren't for Satan, we wouldn't have deadbeat dads coming home drunk and beating thier little kids. Satan is the reason even Christians aren't always as good of people as they should be.

The Devil doesn't make you sin, but he convinces you that you're still a good enough person despite it.

I wish people would stop making blanketed statements concerning "Liberals" and "Christians" alike.

:fluffle:

Go fluffle yourselves. :p

So what should a good Chrsitian woman do if, protecting her husband from an ass whoppin', she accidently touches another man's penis?

Glad you asked.

If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity. (Deuteronomy 25:11-12)

This isn't saying accidently touches.

It says seizes, which is TOTALLY DIFFERENT.

Also, this is Jewish law, which Christians don't follow anymore.

Niether do most Jews, for that matter.

Why mad that people found them?

I learned about Solomon in a bible as lit class personally (btw they should make a porno out of it … I want to see how they portray her “teeth as white like a flock of sheep”)

Its in the bible … those of us that do not believe it are generally the ones that read through it most (irony there also) lol so naturally we would pick up on it.

And as for only non children read the grown up version, incorrect. At least in the catholic school I went to we started reading it since we could read … about 4th grade if I remember we were doing it all on our own :p (well class required)
Solomon was a sinful man for the majority of his life. This song is his love song to a woman. And it's only disgusting because of our current society's morals. Then it was fine.

Also, Jewish kids couldn't read it, they'd have to be adults before they were allowed to read the Song of Solomon.

The Bible wasn't written as a porno. You're trying to make it into one. There is a difference there.

There are many good moral lessons there, perhaps you should look for one of them every once and again. They are much easier to find...

Jewish law, which Christians don't follow anymore.

Who decides what is cultural law and what is biblical law, and can the two be separated objectively though the lenses of (pre-) modern theology without destroying the original meaning of the text?

I doubt it, but please continue to explain yourself in circles.

I'm amused.

In context, please:

Matthew 7:1-6


But yes, if the laws and commandments are holy, what use is there in forcing them on non-believers?



First of all, it is not the government's job to punish evil. It is the government's job to protect its citizens. Sometimes this includes punishing evil, at other times it includes the government doing evil.

Valmar, didn't Jesus warn about taking a legalistic approach to religion? Doesn't Jesus council mercy? Is it or is it not just as evil to obey all the laws of the bible without loving God and Christ? Did not Jesus say it was useless to follow the laws of God without faith and love in one's heart?

Imposing God's law on _anyone_ is repressive and hypocritical. God's law is meaningless without faith.


I wish I could remember the reference, but in one on Paul's epistles it does say the purpose of government is to punish those who do evil and praise those who do good.

I agree with, second, and applaud what Valmar has said. It really is very important to view things in the contexts they were meant to be viewed in, otherwise the author's message and meaning are lost and anything the've said can be made into anything someone else wants them to have said.
Indeed. This is happening to a lesser extent here than elsewhere.

The best recent famous example I can think of if in Bowling for Columbine. More shows Charlton Heston speaking, then shows a picture, then shows him speaking again, and his sentace is just awful. Before the picture, he's in one suit, after it, he's in another. It was edited to create a new sentance he never said.

If we wanted to do that, we could claim that Jesus said "Wives, kill your husbands," but it wouldn't be true at all.

I, also, can tell you that the examples sited from the Bible are very different from the things most often viewed on television, in video games, and in smutty novels. Sex especially, the Bible condemns it outside of marriage, but considers it something good that God has created within marriage. Most of the things that people want banned from the media are graphic representations of fornication and adultury.
Really though, anyone must be careful when advocating censorship... it can be very difficult to determine how much of anything is a bad thing, and how much is permissable. As for books, it is, as always, up to the individual and/or their parents/guardians what and how much they read.
I felt that the rest of this warrented repeating, as well.

*separated* *through* I should profread before I submit
The edit function is your friend. :D

The edit function is your friend. :D

Thank you. I didn't know that was an option.

Thank you. I didn't know that was an option.Hell, I use it all the time--I'm a better than average writer, but a horrendous typist. :D

ok, I'm not going to bother going into why I think talking back (which merely giving an alternative view to an idea which is contrary to the one given by the parent can often be considered as) should be punishable by death, just a quick question - if a parent is utterly sinful, practically anathema to god (for those who don't know and can't be bothered to look it up- [a·nath·e·ma: One that is greatly reviled, loathed, or shunned] ) and this parent commands their child to commit a grievious sin against god and their only option is to disobey the parent, thus incurring the wrath of god, or commit this sin, thus incurring the wrath of god... which is the prefered method of damnation?
The Bible says to honor your parents, not to obey them. You can disagree, and disobey, in a respectful way. This is what is taught.

Human nature can tempt people to sin, images cannot, just as human nature and persecution can tempt people to go on murderous rampages, while images and music cannot.
Have faith in humanity's ability to resist a 2-dimensional nipple and if you must do so, worry about the 3-dimensional one they're trying to get at.
Human nature, revealed through, and and encouraged by images and music, can, and does, lead to sin. It's not a sin to be tempted, but when there's more temptation, it's easier to give in.

What I'm trying to say is that if we truly take the bible in the context that it was written in, it isn't a rulebook for all eternity, its a survival guide for humanity's years of youth... at well over 5 thousand years old, I think it's fair to say that the human race is no longer an infant in this world, we're old enough to stand on our own now, we should still look to our holy books and read what they tell us "love your neighbours", "respect your family", "don't steal from others".... this can all be summed up easily in a phrase most used in pagan religions "live how you please, as long as it brings no harm to the world or others", and yes I know, suggesting that pagans speak sense damns me for all eternity, but I was once christian, and I found that the way most christians behave is against what the bible says, so now I try to study all religions, and follow their advice/scripture as my conscience dictates, anyway, I've gone off course, what I mean is, yes - the bible and its contemporaries were once neccessary, but no longer, now they are simply a collection of good ideas.
You have shown that the Bible is still applicable today, and though the old testament was mostly cultural, as was part of the new testament, it's still good advice, if not the word of God.

Another word about imposing God's law on people.

God's law says thou shalt not kill.
God's law says thou shalt not steal.

The US Government imposes these laws on us. Most other Governments do as well.

What is the basis for these laws if not God's Law?

How do we draw the line- if we base our laws on God's laws, hadn't we better base ALL our laws on ALL of His?

Ogiek is saying that Christians are hypocrites and that nothing should be censored.

Christians say what they say based on the Bible.

Does Ogiek have any authority to justify saying that network TV can air any sleaze they want?

Or are his standards out of his own head?

Another word about imposing God's law on people.

God's law says thou shalt not kill.
God's law says thou shalt not steal.

The US Government imposes these laws on us. Most other Governments do as well.

What is the basis for these laws if not God's Law?

How do we draw the line- if we base our laws on God's laws, hadn't we better base ALL our laws on ALL of His?

I'll restate the first part of my question; Who decides what is cultural law and what is biblical law in the bible (remember that the whole book IS god's word)?

And just because the government imposes these laws on us doesn't make it right or wrong. It only means that the Bible was part of our foundation, but so was the belief in manifest destiny.

Once again for those unable to comprehend IRONY:

The point of the thread, for those who need things spelled out, is that often it is fundamentalist Christians who are at the forefront of those calling for censorship or bans on secular material they deem salacious and sexual (see John Ashcroft covering the nude statue of justice).

The fact that there is an explanation and meaning for some some of the most graphic parts of the Bible, or that there is some redeeming lesson to be learned from these sexual stories, makes no difference and is the very same argument others use to defend more secular content that comes under the censor's scrutiny.

Not all Christians wish to ban books, movies, music, or radio programs, but almost all people who do support censorship are religious Christians, and they generally use arguments about family values to support their case.

As just a few of the Bible passages posted show, the censor's sword cuts both ways.

Maybe this will help:

i·ro·ny: The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.
People who want certian things censored don't sit thier kids down and make them read the Song of Solomon. They encourage thier kids to read the New Testament.

Here's a good word for you: Context.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Context

1. The part of a text or statement that surrounds a particular word or passage and determines its meaning.
2. The circumstances in which an event occurs; a setting.

Context

\Con"text\, n. [L. contextus; cf. F. contexte .] The part or parts of something written or printed, as of Scripture, which precede or follow a text or quoted sentence, or are so intimately associated with it as to throw light upon its meaning.

n 1: discourse that surrounds a language unit and helps to determine its interpretation
2: the set of facts or circumstances that surround a situation or event; "the historical context"

That which surrounds, and gives meaning to, something else.

Marian-Webster agrees.

I'll restate the first part of my question; Who decides what is cultural law and what is biblical law in the bible (remember that the whole book IS god's word)?

And just because the government imposes these laws on us doesn't make it right or wrong. It only means that the Bible was part of our foundation, but so was the belief in manifest destiny.


My point on the Government was that most people argree with the Gov't (and therefore the Bible) on killing and stealing.

That is a very difficult question on cultural law and biblical law...

I know there is a distinction between the cermonial (cultural, as you call it) and moral (or biblical) law, but I'm afraid I'm not very well aquainted with it. I can promise that if I ever run for office I will either clear up my ignorance or stear clear of that issue.

Why so defensive? Look at some of the quotes from the Bible listed here and imagine Howard Stern reading them or imagine them acted out in a film. This is exactly the kind of thing many (not all) fundamentalist Christians would attempt to ban. Are you defending these people or are you embarrassed that they are Christians and that they use their Christianity to attempt to control what everyone else sees, reads, or hears?

This thread is about censorship.
This thread was never about censorship.

This thread is about you trying to inslult and persecute Christians because the Bible makes you uncomfortable.

Manifest destiny ia only an interpretation of God's law, and ALL Interpretations are based on assumptions. Fundamentalism is based on the assumption that God is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent; yet it fails to explain the problem of evil.

I don't know about this Aolian guy, maybe he's already a Pastor or something...

But if you happen to be an undergrad, consider seminary. I think it would suit you.

Really? Imagine seeing this on film:

If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity. (Deuteronomy 25:11-12)

The difference is the medium (film vs. print), not the content. The Bible is unsurpassed for violence.
The difference is the actual meaning.

I already explained this, but felt it warrented repeating.

You want us to think seizing is accidently touching.

Seizing is seizing.

Also, this is old testament law, and one which Christians do not follow.

I don't know about this Aeolian guy, maybe he's already a Pastor or something...

But if you happen to be an undergrad, consider seminary. I think it would suit you.
Quite the amusing though, but I'm double-majoring in Music.

Aeolian is an obscure musical term that most people don't know about. Today we use the word "minor." Fun stuff, I suppose.

The difference is the actual meaning.

I already explained this, but felt it warrented repeating.

You want us to think seizing is accidently touching.

Seizing is seizing.

Also, this is old testament law, and one which Christians do not follow.

where can I obtain a list of rules to follow and rules to ignore?
was the old testament like a first draft then or what?

You know, Aeolian, you've been tossing around the context argument a lot here, saying that some scripture has to be viewed in the light of the time and place in which it was written, and that's true as long as you're talking about a historical and cultural examination of scripture and the Bible lands.

But the moment you try to use scripture as a guidebook for daily life, then you have to start looking at it in current context, and in the way that people are interpreting it to cover the issues of the day. Most people--and especially hypocritical moralizing religiousleaders--don't read the Bible today and talk about what it meant back in ancient Israel--they're applying it to everyday life right here and now. So today's context is what is important if you're going to continue to claim that the Bible is the guidebook for living.

The problem of evil--

Suppose we were mindless creations with no free will-- unable to disobey God.

Wouldn't it glorify him more if choose of our own free will follow him?

Could humans really be as happy in Heaven if we never knew anything else?

Doesn't it glorify God more to crush Satan under his heel?

I know there is a distinction between the cermonial (cultural, as you call it) and moral (or biblical) law, but I'm afraid I'm not very well aquainted with it. I can promise that if I ever run for office I will either clear up my ignorance or stear clear of that issue.

Stear clear...
Willful ignorance is a friend to politics.

Matthew 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs , neither cast ye your pearls before swine , lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.


Are you all smart enough to figure out that this scripture is talking about
people like you.
Not that I've been perfect here, but what of Luke 6?

27 "But I say to you that hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. 29 To him who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also; and from him who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt. 30 Give to every one who begs from you; and of him who takes away your goods do not ask them again. 31 And as you wish that men would do to you, do so to them. 32 "If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again. 35 But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the selfish. 36 Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful. 37 "Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven

This is a lesson that I try to remind myself of everyday.

Not that I've been perfect here, but what of Luke 6?

27 "But I say to you that hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. 29 To him who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also; and from him who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt. 30 Give to every one who begs from you; and of him who takes away your goods do not ask them again. 31 And as you wish that men would do to you, do so to them. 32 "If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again. 35 But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the selfish. 36 Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful. 37 "Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven

This is a lesson that I try to remind myself of everyday.

I believe Bill & Ted summed all that up when they said "Be Good To Each Other!"

what's your point?

My, what a bunch of thin skinned whiners. There is no denying that there are fundamentalist Christians out there waving the fiery sword of censorship in the name of the Lord, but let someone speak out against that and it is, "oh, you are hurting my feelings, you are being nasty to God, you don't like Christians."

Grow up.

If you cannot handle the arena of public debate then be content to surround yourself with people who think just like you and who will never challenge your preconceived notions.

That is what people who believe in censorship want, isn't it?
From what I've seen so far that you don't seem to be debating, simply repeating your own provocative and hateful words.

I'm not a big advocate of censorship, but I belive that before children can watch porn, or other forms of adult entertainment, they should be old enough to make thier own decisions; IE - be adults. Until then, the parents just want to make sure that they raise thier kids the way they want to, free of adult entertainment, if they so chose.

But hey! Why should we care about whether or not a parent has control over what thier kid looks at? Unless, of course, the kid imitates it, in which case we lock up the parents...

I believe Bill & Ted summed all that up when they said "Be Good To Each Other!"

what's your point?
I thought it was "Be Exelent to each other," though it's very VERY possible that I'm wrong.

My point is he let his fury get to him, which is quite the bad thing.

Jesus-jumping-Christ, Valmar. Do you think we live in a God damned theocracy where Christian ayatollas get to make decisions for us about what is right and wrong?
If you live in America, then the election could have told you that much.

The problem of evil--

Suppose we were mindless creations with no free will-- unable to disobey God.

Wouldn't it glorify him more if choose of our own free will follow him?

Could humans really be as happy in Heaven if we never knew anything else?

Doesn't it glorify God more to crush Satan under his heel?

So, God knew we would fall, because he (it) is omniscient. We were given the choice, because love must be given freely. However, if God knows all, then free will doesn't really exist, because it has all been preconceived.

From what I've seen so far that you don't seem to be debating, simply repeating your own provocative and hateful words.

I'm not a big advocate of censorship, but I belive that before children can watch porn, or other forms of adult entertainment, they should be old enough to make thier own decisions; IE - be adults. Until then, the parents just want to make sure that they raise thier kids the way they want to, free of adult entertainment, if they so chose.

But hey! Why should we care about whether or not a parent has control over what thier kid looks at? Unless, of course, the kid imitates it, in which case we lock up the parents...


The thing that bothers me with censorship is when they ban things. I completely agree it should be up to the parents until the child is an adult.

So why should pressure groups be able to get things banned (not just Christians incidentally)?

And how can parents blame video games and violent films when their kid cracks and goes on a shooting spree? That to me is bad parenting.

I believe Bill & Ted summed all that up when they said "Be Good To Each Other!"

Well said

I thought it was "Be Exelent to each other," though it's very VERY possible that I'm wrong.

My point is he let his fury get to him, which is quite the bad thing.

I think you're right, I stand corrected
and i see your point now

*voice booms from the skies*

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs , neither cast ye your pearls before swine , lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.


yeah right :rolleyes:
LOL

Sorry...

It's just that, TO ME, it is stupid and absurd
Hey man, let's try to remain respectful here. I've got several friends who are Athiests, Pagan, Muslum, Jewish, Mormon, and what have you. We can still discuss our beliefs in a respectful way.

It doesn't. And no one has claimed that.
Apperently I missed the point then.

Please explain it.

Sex & violence = spirituality? :confused:
LOL

No, but I could see the John Ashcrofts and others saying that reading the Bible=spirituality and encouraging it.

Don't you have something better to do than tell people here--many of whom wouldn't want you to pray for them--that you're going to try to get your God's holy spirit to reach them? How about you go out and do some good works in the world, try to repair the damage that your brethren in the many and varied churches do to innocent people around the world in the name of God? That would do a lot more good than telling people on the other end of an internet connection that you'll pray for them.
Who says he doesn't?

You should gladly accept people's prayers. I'm not at all insulted when people of other faiths tell me that they'll pray for me. I glad to know that they care that much for me.

Hey man, let's try to remain respectful here. I've got several friends who are Athiests, Pagan, Muslum, Jewish, Mormon, and what have you. We can still discuss our beliefs in a respectful way.

That I can respect.

Who decides what is cultural law and what is biblical law, and can the two be separated objectively though the lenses of (pre-) modern theology without destroying the original meaning of the text?

I doubt it, but please continue to explain yourself in circles.

I'm amused.
Research will tell you which is which.

If something doesn't seem quite right, I do some research to find out what the meaning is, and it's usually not a spiritual law.

For example, the Jews were told not to eat pigs by God, and it turns out that, with thier technology, digesting a pig wasn't easy, and it was healthier to simply eat something else.

Ogiek is saying that Christians are hypocrites and that nothing should be censored.
I don't feel that all Christians are hypocrites, in the way that you mean. No one is perfect, but I don't feel that someone who is honestly trying to be can be a hypocrite.

Christians say what they say based on the Bible.
Indeed they do.

Does Ogiek have any authority to justify saying that network TV can air any sleaze they want?

Or are his standards out of his own head?
He can say as he pleases, and has no obligation to justify, other than respect for those reading and using this thread.

I'll restate the first part of my question; Who decides what is cultural law and what is biblical law in the bible (remember that the whole book IS god's word)?

And just because the government imposes these laws on us doesn't make it right or wrong. It only means that the Bible was part of our foundation, but so was the belief in manifest destiny.
Manifest destiny is something that most estudious (if that's spelled correctly) don't believe.

If you'd like, I could go into a weird, detailed explanation of why I don't.

Manifest destiny ia only an interpretation of God's law, and ALL Interpretations are based on assumptions. Fundamentalism is based on the assumption that God is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent; yet it fails to explain the problem of evil.
Not at all.

When God created the angels, he made them eternal. When 1/3 of them broke off, they became evil, but are still eternal.

You've just begun to scratch the surface. Also note that in the second verse of the Song of Solomon chapter you quoted, many scholars think that "navel" is a mistranslation of the Hebrew for "vagina."
Then there's the violence issue. The Book of Genesis alone has more murder, rape, and mayhem than any slasher film. And then there's the lovely image in the Book of Judges of a concubine being cut into 12 pieces...
Christians will, no doubt, argue that these passages are teaching moral lessons. But who's to judge where any given person might gain insight?

Its funny, I'm a Catholic, and here in Britain I would say Christianity is seen as a fairly liberal-left entity.

So this Christian Right Vs American Left (which to the rest of the world is still right wing) is strange to me.

where can I obtain a list of rules to follow and rules to ignore?
was the old testament like a first draft then or what?
Interesting question.

My best advice would to be to talk to a local pastor or priest. Another good rule, though very vauge, outlines it all. James 4:17 tells us that "If you don't do what you know is right, you have sinned."

We're all raised to know the basics of right and wrong. If someting isn't clear, ask someone who knows, which is something I find myself doing often.

You know, Aeolian, you've been tossing around the context argument a lot here, saying that some scripture has to be viewed in the light of the time and place in which it was written, and that's true as long as you're talking about a historical and cultural examination of scripture and the Bible lands.

But the moment you try to use scripture as a guidebook for daily life, then you have to start looking at it in current context, and in the way that people are interpreting it to cover the issues of the day. Most people--and especially hypocritical moralizing religiousleaders--don't read the Bible today and talk about what it meant back in ancient Israel--they're applying it to everyday life right here and now. So today's context is what is important if you're going to continue to claim that the Bible is the guidebook for living.
Context is very important, which is why you should try to read entire chapters, or parables (which are moral stories about spirituality) and get what it says from that.

The big idea stuff is still applicable, and is what's important. The small details are usually cultural things.

I wish I could remember the reference, but in one on Paul's epistles it does say the purpose of government is to punish those who do evil and praise those who do good.

Paul said that governments must be submitted to because they were ordained by God, and that one must not speak or act against government.

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.

Elsewhere Paul also said to disobey the government in cases where one was required to eat the flesh of sacrifices to idols (ie that which goes directly agains Christianity). Paul was giving advice on how to live as a Christian and avoid persecution at a time when it was dangerous because the Roman governments saw Christianity as a threat to law. If taken literally as true for today instead of as words preached in the spirit of Christianity, we must accept that the United States is inherently sinful as it sprung from a rebellion against established authority; we must accept tyrannical governments such as the one in North Korea.

The problem of evil--

Suppose we were mindless creations with no free will-- unable to disobey God.

Wouldn't it glorify him more if choose of our own free will follow him?

Could humans really be as happy in Heaven if we never knew anything else?

Doesn't it glorify God more to crush Satan under his heel?
God created us with free will. Adam and Eve disobeyed the one rule they had, and were punished. It does glorify God when we chose to worship him of our own free will.

Research will tell you which is which.

If something doesn't seem quite right, I do some research to find out what the meaning is, and it's usually not a spiritual law.

For example, the Jews were told not to eat pigs by God, and it turns out that, with thier technology, digesting a pig wasn't easy, and it was healthier to simply eat something else.

Research can "prove" any point you're trying to make, and everytning in the bible is subject to this same dispute. Science and religion are both ripe with human error.

Ex: God is a he, because Hebrew words can only be male or female and Christianity was the religion of patriarchal people. Besides, the whole language system used to talk about God is anthropomorphic, and I believe that using human qualities with something outside of time is a sign of human arrogance.

Bible = arrogance? No, but I hope you see what I am going for here.

Stear clear...
Willful ignorance is a friend to politics.
I had always thought that willful ignorance was politics...

Manifest destiny is something that most estudious (if that's spelled correctly) don't believe.

If you'd like, I could go into a weird, detailed explanation of why I don't.

No, I'm just happy you dont...

I had always thought that willful ignorance was politics...

AND WE AGREE ON SOMETHING!

There IS hope for the world.

The thing that bothers me with censorship is when they ban things. I completely agree it should be up to the parents until the child is an adult.

So why should pressure groups be able to get things banned (not just Christians incidentally)?

And how can parents blame video games and violent films when their kid cracks and goes on a shooting spree? That to me is bad parenting.
It ussually is bad parenting, but the good parents who's kids don't crack and kill people don't let thier kids play the voilent video games.

For parents, it's easier to generalize, and they'd rather generalize that all games are bad, rather than that all parents are bad.

People want simple solutions, and censorship is an easy why of trying to solve something simply.

It ussually is bad parenting, but the good parents who's kids don't crack and kill people don't let thier kids play the voilent video games.

For parents, it's easier to generalize, and they'd rather generalize that all games are bad, rather than that all parents are bad.

People want simple solutions, and censorship is an easy why of trying to solve something simply.

Are you saying that most people are simple? :p

You've just begun to scratch the surface. Also note that in the second verse of the Song of Solomon chapter you quoted, many scholars think that "navel" is a mistranslation of the Hebrew for "vagina."
Then there's the violence issue. The Book of Genesis alone has more murder, rape, and mayhem than any slasher film. And then there's the lovely image in the Book of Judges of a concubine being cut into 12 pieces...
Christians will, no doubt, argue that these passages are teaching moral lessons. But who's to judge where any given person might gain insight?
But the rape, murder, ect. isn't what it's about. That's a small part showing things that are bad, but it isn't what it's about.

It's not a guide on how to rape, but it's partially about rape being bad.

Context is very important, which is why you should try to read entire chapters, or parables (which are moral stories about spirituality) and get what it says from that.

The big idea stuff is still applicable, and is what's important. The small details are usually cultural things.
My point is that more often than not, religious leaders change the context of scripture to fit their ends or desires, because the context in which the scripture was originally written doesn't suit what they are trying to accomplish.

Its funny, I'm a Catholic, and here in Britain I would say Christianity is seen as a fairly liberal-left entity.

So this Christian Right Vs American Left (which to the rest of the world is still right wing) is strange to me.
The American left is as left as the rest of the left in the world, it's just not as popular in America. They've not comunicated different things was well as they should have, and so many people who would be left-wing voters aren't, because the left doesn't explain thier positions as well as they should.

Let me rephrase something I said: Christianity is based on a patriarchal religion.

(For the smart asses out there, I know there wasn't Christianity before Christ)

Originally Posted by Revolutionairy Ideals
"So this Christian Right Vs American Left (which to the rest of the world is still right wing) is strange to me."

I'm an American, and this is strange to me also.

Research can "prove" any point you're trying to make, and everytning in the bible is subject to this same dispute. Science and religion are both ripe with human error.

Ex: God is a he, because Hebrew words can only be male or female and Christianity was the religion of patriarchal people. Besides, the whole language system used to talk about God is anthropomorphic, and I believe that using human qualities with something outside of time is a sign of human arrogance.

Bible = arrogance? No, but I hope you see what I am going for here.
Research with a slant can prove anything, such as the Jesus Seminar which was formed with the intent of saying Jesus wasn't God, and, of course, thier results reflected that.

Generally, what's sin and what's not is agreed upon by the different forms of Christianity.

I can't way I quite see the point. If it's that you can find proof for anything, then you're correct, but most pastors and priests go with what's generally accepted. What's generally accepted is what's generally accepted, because there's more proof for it.

It's not always easy, but life isn't supposed to be easy.

Another word about imposing God's law on people.

God's law says thou shalt not kill.
God's law says thou shalt not steal.

The US Government imposes these laws on us. Most other Governments do as well.

What is the basis for these laws if not God's Law?

How do we draw the line- if we base our laws on God's laws, hadn't we better base ALL our laws on ALL of His?

Some laws which overlap are the basic part of the social contract required for the succesful formation of societies.

Jesus forgave those who broke the laws. Governments do not do such.

It is for God to punish those who break His laws. It is for man to punish those who break men's laws. For man to impose a punishment on man for breaking the laws of God is to take what is reserved for God.

Are you saying that most people are simple? :p
No. And yes.

A person isn't simple, but people are.

People like simple things. Rather than look at the kid's childhood, grades, friends, intrests, parents, neighbors, ect. it's easier to say that they could only be violent because of the video games.

People like simple things, but they aren't simple.

Aeolian,
Just out of curiosity, what religion do you believe in (or scientific faction), and where in the U.S do you live?
West Falklands

My point is that more often than not, religious leaders change the context of scripture to fit their ends or desires, because the context in which the scripture was originally written doesn't suit what they are trying to accomplish.
I don't see this happen at all. I'd recommend a church change if it is happening.

Whenever something doesn't seem quite right, and it's what the pastor said, I like to read passage in context. Most pastors, if they use the Bible at all, use only a few verses at a time, not to mislead people, but to get thier point across more quickly.

Aeolian,
Just out of curiosity, what religion do you believe in (or scientific faction), and where in the U.S do you live?
West Falklands
I'm a protestant, Assemblies of God, more specifically. I'm from the great state of Ohio, that has picked the presidential winner as the state winner for far longer than I have been alive... LOL.

And now it's time for lunch.

I might be back.

If you continue to have questions, feel free to telegram Aeolian, or Ghost of Aeolian, which are both me.

I think when we all communicate more, everyone wins, except for those that lose... What?

I don't know.

C-ya later, and God Bless.

Generally, what's sin and what's not is agreed upon by the different forms of Christianity.

No, not at all. Some Christians believe that sin is stagnation and fear of change, some say sin is going against God's written law, some say sin is going against shalom, some say sin is oppression...

It's not always easy, but life isn't supposed to be easy.

Never thought it was supposed to be anything. ;)

Some laws which overlap are the basic part of the social contract required for the succesful formation of societies.

Jesus forgave those who broke the laws. Governments do not do such.

It is for God to punish those who break His laws. It is for man to punish those who break men's laws. For man to impose a punishment on man for breaking the laws of God is to take what is reserved for God.


So man can make any law he wants?

Man's laws must be based on God's laws.

Forgiveness is not law. That is out of God's mere good pleasure.

My point is that more often than not, religious leaders change the context of scripture to fit their ends or desires, because the context in which the scripture was originally written doesn't suit what they are trying to accomplish.

I think that you need to specify certain religious leaders, but most definitely. An idea which seems widely spread among the Christian right (Falwell in particular) is that God doles out earthly punishments and rewards based upon the actions of a the people's of a nation. They use this as a pretext for trying to get "Christian" laws passed. But there is NO ACTION that is Christian without faith. Furthermore such religious leaders completely ignore that Jesus said that no earthly reward (ie God's favor or protection) is to be expected - and that in fact acting for the sake of receiving earthly reward cancels out whatever moral good may have been done.

The very religious leaders who are trying to get the Christian laws passed even admit that God's laws are not what makes a person good or righteous as the fundamentalist Christian doctrine hold that there can be no salvation without accepting Chist. Thus there is no way that simply following God's laws can make a person more godly. Passing moralistic laws in no way promotes or upholds Christianity. Therefore, there must be an ulterior motive.

I think that you need to specify certain religious leaders, but most definitely. An idea which seems widely spread among the Christian right (Falwell in particular) is that God doles out earthly punishments and rewards based upon the actions of a the people's of a nation. They use this as a pretext for trying to get "Christian" laws passed. But there is NO ACTION that is Christian without faith. Furthermore such religious leaders completely ignore that Jesus said that no earthly reward (ie God's favor or protection) is to be expected - and that in fact acting for the sake of receiving earthly reward cancels out whatever moral good may have been done.

The very religious leaders who are trying to get the Christian laws passed even admit that God's laws are not what makes a person good or righteous as the fundamentalist Christian doctrine hold that there can be no salvation without accepting Chist. Thus there is no way that simply following God's laws can make a person more godly. Passing moralistic laws in no way promotes or upholds Christianity. Therefore, there must be an ulterior motive.

I agree. But Christian politicians, who have accpeted Christ, such as George Bush (whether you agree that he's really Christian, or that that he has really done so) should promote and uphold Christianity, especially on issues like gay marriage, abortion, etc.